Jump to content

Talk:A Rape on Campus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 63.142.146.194 (talk) at 16:49, 7 April 2015 (→judgement: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

UVA Rape Hoax

It seems to me that this article should be retitled, perhaps as the UVA Rape Hoax. To imply, as the title A Rape on Campus does, that this article is soley about the initial article by Ms. Erdely, is no longer really tenable. The hoax is now part of a broader social phenomenon, one that goes well beyond the mere fact of the initial piece appearing in Rolling Stone magazine, and which intersects with broader issues such as journalistic ethics and perceptions around so-called "rape culture" in the USA. The person known as "Jackie" was clearly involved in a deliberate falsification with wide-ranging implications and impact, and Ms. Erdely's article is simply a part of that larger phenomenon. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 19:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article title should remain the same. As much as it seems you are motivated to use this to prove a point in a larger picture, this article is about one event. Otherwise it would be POV violation. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to change the article title at this time. As discussed in a previous thread, there is no reliable evidence to suggest that the rape which had been reported was a "hoax". Nobody knows whether it actually did or didn't happen, other than the facts associated with the article being called into question. Lots of recrimination, lots of finger-pointing from all sides, but no evidence of a hoax - Alison ❤ 21:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“The great campus rape hoax” by Glenn Harlan Reynolds says that “Whatever the truth behind that story, it's now clear that basically nothing that Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely told us happened, actually happened. But the hoax is much bigger than one overwrought and perhaps entirely fictional tale of campus goings-on.” That’s one WP:RS saying it’s a hoax in so many words.
Then again, Think Progress, when talking about the alleged rape this article described, merely says “parts of [the Rolling Stone article] have been called into question after conflicting details of the story emerged”. Samboy (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose renaming in general, but "Hoax" is definitely an incorrect description even if it's widely used. "UVA Rape Moral Panic" is accurate, but not a good title. Maybe "'A Rape on Campus' Controversy" or something along those lines, in order to emphasize that it's not particularly about the article. But I don't see this as urgent. Dingsuntil (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does there exist any reasonable person who imagines this "rape" DID occur? The very idea is preposterous! One might as well claim that the Green Cheese Hypothesis must be included in the Lunar Geology article, because it hasn't been definitively disproved. We're all well aware of the erroneous status of the claims made by "Jackie," and Ms. Erdely. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia works best when we don't let our opinions show. We simply reflect the best information from the best sources we can. This is all the more important when the subject is emotional or controversial.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
UVA Rape Hoax probably will be the appropriate title for the article eventually, after the lawsuits are settled. In the meatime, it appears that UVAs administration is finally starting to push back against the media. Cla68 (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think keeping the title the same as the article’s title is the best way to keep things. It gives this article a limited scope, which makes keeping it a good article easier. Samboy (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Charlottesville Police Department has determined this was a hoax, should the title be changed?
Propose "A Rape on Campus - magazine hoax" XavierItzm (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in those articles does it say anything about it being a hoax, not even a maybe, from what I can see. And furthermore, this says nothing about whether it occurred or not, just that their findings indicated that the fraternity were not involved. Big difference - Alison ❤ 00:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the article could probably safely be called, "2014 Unsubstantiated UVA/Rolling Stone rape accusation", but I'm not sure that that's a better title than what we have now. A couple of sources have used the word "hoax" in connection with the incident, but we might need a few more to start using that word before we rename the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources to-date have danced around the word with phrases like "some have suggested", etc. And with good reason. From our own page, a hoax is "a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment [...]". There is absolutely no reliable source which states that this was deliberately fabricated - Alison ❤ 07:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This will likely be known as one of the most famous false rape allegations in US history, but even calling it a false rape accusation is debatable because the woman who invented the story did not report it to the police. It could be argued that she herself is a victim because a "rape culture" activist took her story and promoted it even though the activist knew that it had big problems with credibility. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are openly speculating that this story is, or may be a hoax:
Some of you here need to stop saying that this incident hasn't been labeled a hoax or discussed as so in the media. It has. I think a few more sources are needed which label it so before we rename the article, but it's not wrong for people to discuss the word "hoax" on this article talk page as someone just disingenously tried to do on my talk page. Cla68 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article should mention there are some in the media speculating the possible reason this story came about. But to rename the article itself as a hoax? Those sources are all asking it as a question (?) which means it's not for sure yet. In this example they don't name the article a hoax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy that's because no reliable source says it was a hoax for sure. And with this list of hoaxes, most of them even aren't named hoax. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hoaxes Popish Plot (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are Labelling it as a hoax, not Identifying it as a hoax. That is, they're using "Hoax" as a colorful term for "Bullshit." Dingsuntil (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial

Is there any particular reason why "Glenn Harlan Reynolds: 'The great campus rape hoax'" is included as an external link? This is an editorial and an opinion piece. Editorial pieces for or against the existence of a 'rape culture' should not be included here. This is about a single incident. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, inclusion of this link is very WP:POINTY and I have deleted it. I should remind everyone this article is about a specific magazine story, not the larger question of sexual violence. I've deleted a lot of sourced but highly irrelevant and POINTY stuff throughout this article that has nothing to do with the story and seems to be the two sides of this debate warring using the article as a proxy battleground. BlueSalix (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three different media sources, including the Economist, have now referenced this incident in the context of what appears to be a case of activists fabricating a rape culture crisis on college campuses. I added two sentences to the article to address this. Since the existence of rape culture is a key tenet in some feminist advocacy, then this article probably should be included under the Feminist WP project. Cla68 (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to the story in an article on rape culture would be appropriate because it would be used as an anecdote to demonstrate a larger point regarding rape culture. However, to use this article as a doorway to a conversation about "rape culture" is an attempt to WP:COATRACK this single incident to larger points. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. As those sources make clear, one or the reasons that this rape allegation gained so much attention in the media before it was found to be a lie is because of allegations of a "rape culture" existing on college campuses. If you prefer that the paragraph be worded to make the connection clearer, I can do that. I would prefer us to discuss these things instead of reverting each other as that is a rude and counterproductive way to treat each other. Cla68 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only it wasn't "found to be a lie" - questions were raised as to the veracity of some of the details, and that's what reliable sources are saying - Alison ❤ 18:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it was found to be a lie. The entire story. Again and again and again. Indeed, most of the the articles that exposed the UVA Rape Hoax are cited in this article.24.193.24.235 (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed comment left by a troll. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop using the word rape?

It's very triggering. An encyclopedia should use "unlawful intercourse". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batman on Tumblr (talk • contribs) 23:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The title of the article in question is "A Rape On Campus", by definition we must use the word rape. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triggering!? I hope this is some sort of lame Joke, is it? Listen, this is not the abominable realm of Tumblr, this is an encyclopedia. If you dont want to be triggerd stay at home, under your bed, but dont try to regulate other peoples speech because it makes you feel uncomfortable to hear certain words.--A941 (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an obvious joke. ― Padenton |☎  22:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but in any case trigger warnings are not allowed Dingsuntil (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naming controversy?

I note the above discussion about Charles Johnson & his revealing of a name that might be the accuser's, but the discussion is mostly about Johnson himself. I saw at least a dozen articles about his naming (none of which revealed the name) and the politics of such an action in context of the case. Does that level of discussion warrant it's own section?JamesG5 (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

some blogger said he has her name but never actually proved it? and has history of lies? seems minor. what is the reliable source. Popish Plot (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Time to change the title?

Previous reasons for not changing the title don't seem to apply anymore.

Police Find No Evidence of Rape at University of Virginia Fraternity Cops Shoot Holes in Rolling Stone's UVa Rape Story Police: No 'substantive basis' to support UVA rape story in Rolling Stone173.71.174.20 (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should wait to see what the Columbia school of journnalism. The name of this article is the name of the article that appeared in rolling stone magazine. I see though how the phrase "a rape on campus" implies that a rape happened for sure. But what is the source of this entire topic? That article that has a name, would this have it's own wiki article if not for the controversy? No. Not every rolling stone article gets it's own wiki article of course. I do see the first line of this article is ""A Rape on Campus" is a discredited article that appeared in the December 2014 issue". I question do we know for a fact it is discredited! The source for that first sentence is http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/19/rolling-stone-uva-emails_n_6358034.html and the word "discredited" does not appear there. What should the title of this wiki article be instead? UVA Rape Hoax? Would need a reliable source saying that at least then. The cops don't say that and these days I don't think cops are to be trusted as a reliable source anyway. Popish Plot (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly "A Rape on Campus" is the title Rolling Stone went with, and the wikipedia article is about that article. I can't think of a better name for it. Discredited isn't really the word. It was discredited, now it's retracted, as of the moment Rolling Stone put up the apology and confirmed their own lack of trust in the story's factual accuracy. I've changed the lead accordingly. ― Padenton |☎  22:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the apology http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/a-note-to-our-readers-20141205 it says they are still investigating. I think that should be mentioned, this story isn't over. What is the source that it's discredited. What is the source that rolling stone retracted it? Keep in mind I think you'll likely be proven correct, just that it is original research at this point. Popish Plot (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Boston Herald story "Rolling Stone UVA Rape Report Discredited by Police" that's about as on point as you get. There are a number of other mainstrean RS that say the same. Do we need more? Capitalismojo (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The boston herald said: "Charlottesville Police announced Monday they had found no evidence of a gang rape at University of Virginia in November, 2014; a severe blow to the already flawed Rolling Stone report “A Rape on Campus.”


“I can’t prove that something didn’t happen, and there may come a point in time in which this survivor, or this complaining party or someone else, may come forward with some information that might help us move this investigation further,” Police Chief Timothy Longo said to reporters." Popish Plot (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The Rolling Stone has not "fully retracted" the story. Per several articles. Here is the Reason magazine one. So I think we should replace "retracted" which fails verification with "discredited" which is verified. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Hmmm....I looked when I made the change and was sure I found several trustworthy sources, but now I can't find many. I've put it back to "discredited" for now. These were the best sources I found and they disagree:
No Retraction:
  • Huffington Post [1]
  • Daily Mail [2]
Retraction:
  • Washington Times [3]
  • IB Times [4]
  • Yahoo News [5]
― Padenton |☎  02:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should say it's discredited according to so and so (washington times, etc). This is a changing story so it's tough. Popish Plot (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't like the use of "discredited" in the first sentence. I agree that it's a fair description of the article, and no doubt you can find reliable sources so describing it, but it's awkward english, and comes off as very POV. I think it's best to write essentially "It is an article. Reliable sources said it was bullshit. Rolling Stone is deeply ashamed of itself." I have no objection to you adding a sentence to the effect that it is considered discredited to all the other well-deserved abuse later in the paragraph though. Dingsuntil (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

* 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

As the editor who posted and opened this RfC, I would like to withdraw it at this time since discussion seems to be more fruitful and editing is moving forward toward some kind of consensus. Shearonink (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I like the last one, too. It is well written and fits the facts. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@Padenton: Hopefully we can agree on more or less my last edit. Dingsuntil (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just so watchers are aware: [6] ― Padenton|✉   21:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also being reported in Jezebel: [7] and CNN: [8]. 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)[reply]
[9] ― Padenton|✉   23:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
What a retraction. So "Jackie" is to blame? Ok. Shearonink (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
WP:FORUM Dingsuntil (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

False accusation of rape in See Also

@Dingsuntil:

This diff here: [10]. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Rape_on_Campus&oldid=655370651"