Jump to content

Talk:Sabrina Erdely/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Heavy.com and wp:claims about past teaching

I don't think Heavy.com is a usable source. Heavy.com's article looks like it's referencing a different site, but either way, better sources are needed. In addition to being very 'clickbait' centered, I found no editorial guidelines, and being hosted on Wordpress is a little dicey, as well. The article just summarizes facts from other sources anyway.

So is there a source for the teaching thing? To avoid WP:OR, any questions about her past teaching history need to be clearly sourced, and using the word 'WP:CLAIM' to call that into question should also be avoided. Grayfell (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above. BlueSalix (talk) 06:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Move

At some point we'll probably have to move this to 2014 University of Virginia rape controversy or something like that, unless she's not a BLP1E. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

agreed BlueSalix (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think this should be done immediately. I've just tagged the article with {{undue}}. This is not a biography, it's an article on a controversy, and keeping it the way it is borders on being a BLP violation. Robofish (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Requested move listed below. Robofish (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

3 Templates?

Do we need all 3 templates? Let's choose one. BlueSalix (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to KateWishing for removing excessive templates. BlueSalix (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm editing this page for accuracy, not committing vandalism. The rally on the evening of September 22 did not have any arrests, and did not take place at Phi Psi; that happened earlier in the day at another rally (which is why the picture in the story cited has daylight; the rally led by faculty was at night). Olwell was one of many leaders and speakers. Johnobrien62 (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The sources state otherwise. We got by what RS say, not what individual editors may have personally observed or experienced. This is also not the correct section in which to put this comment. BlueSalix (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for Consensus

The original article states:

[Original] On November 22, a march organized by Victoria Olwell and other University of Virginia faculty protested outside the Phi Kappa Psi house, leading to four arrests for trespassing.

Another editor has repeatedly WP:BOLD changed it to:

[Revised] On November 22, a march organized by University of Virginia faculty protested at the Rugby Road area, calling for an end to sexual violence on Grounds.

This makes it appear disconnected from the story, as though it was a random anti-rape protest that happened to be meandering through campus at the same time. The sources ([[1]] and [[2]]) clearly state the protest occurred at Phi Kappa Psi, which is the whole point of even including it in a section of the article titled "Original Report and Reaction." To obfuscate this makes the selection irrelevant to the article. I would like consensus for one of these two versions to avoid the possibility of 3RR.Edit - note proposed third version by KateWishing below. BlueSalix (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

First, we don't engage in WP:SYNTHESIS. Second, the reference in the article - which you have repeatedly deleted - is only to the Phi Kappa Psi protest (which is sourced to both references), not any other protests. This BLP is not a catchall of anti sexual violence protest on the UVA campus and this sentence becomes irrelevant if the fact the protest occurred at Phi Kappa Psi is obfuscated. BlueSalix (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The revised version doesn't make the relevance of the protest clear. However, the source for arrests doesn't say that protest was faculty-led, so they could be different. I propose this: "On November 22, a march organized by Victoria Olwell and other University of Virginia faculty protested outside the Phi Kappa Psi house.[3] Four protesters were arrested outside the house on the same day.[4]" KateWishing (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
That seems like an improvement over both versions. I've edited my !vote accordingly. BlueSalix (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the least synth/OR we can get, I'd support that wording. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal - Article Split

I propose maintaining a BLP on Sabrina Erdely but truncating her UVA rape story to one paragraph and splitting the rest of the content into a standalone article titled A Rape on Campus (the title of the Rolling Stone article - using the article's title as the WP entry title, as it has become famous in its own right, is not dissimilar from other influential magazine articles like Frank Sinatra Has a Cold, Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, Strange Rumblings in Aztlan, Man Will Conquer Space Soon!, The Treason of the Senate, Disneyland with the Death Penalty, etc.). BlueSalix (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - Erdely merits a BLP on the basis of having a major motion picture in development, winning a GLAAD award and being nominated for two ASME awards, her multiple national bylines, etc. We provide BLPs on "rock star reporters" like Matt Taibbi and controversial journalists like Jayson Blair. Further, since the original and well-intended renaming proposal, the article has been substantially expanded with additional information on Erdely outside the UVA story. BlueSalix (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. There ought to be an article about the Rolling Stone article and it shouldn't pretend to be a biography of Erdely. As I said above, I'm not sure that the title of the now-basically-retracted story is well-known enough in its own right to be the title of our article. If it were, I would support that above the titles being bandied about above, but for the moment I don't think it will work. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Following up to myself: There's some indication now that Erdely's story on "Billy Doe" is also coming under scrutiny. There's no reliable source for this yet, I'm afraid, just blog chatter. If it turns out that there are problems with that story as well, though, an article on Erdely herself is inevitable. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - as the one who started the move discusion above, I think this seems like the best solution. I've come to agree that Erdely should have an independent article, but this story should be split into a separate one, and using the title of the Rolling Stone article is the best choice for a neutral title. That makes sense because as BlueSalix says, it's the article itself that became the focus here. Robofish (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - As long as you can find enough material for Erdley's own article, I'm good with her having one. We definitely shouldn't have an article about the controversy about A Rape On Campus pretending to be a biographical article, because it isn't one. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Split it. Minor mention here per BLP, let the other article have all the salacious details. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

Negative bias exists in this page which was created by a questionable user account. Doesn't mention positive contributions by Sabrina. (e.g. FBI article, and many more, etc.) 108.176.59.242 (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please be more specific about what you would like to see edited, including RS. However, since I'm the "questionable user account" I'm probably not NPOV to close this request so will defer to someone else. BlueSalix (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Issues with Chronology

The "Magazine Writing" section of the article is poorly organized in terms of chronology. It opens with an "Early work" section that covers Erdely's work from 1996-2013, then backtracks to an article she wrote in 2011 on the Catholic Church, one that is thematically similar to the UVA article (allegations of rape against a major institution), but seems to have lacked the impact or news coverage. Perhaps it would make more sense to truncate that section and add information about the article that won her the GLAAD award?

198.13.135.189 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't have sufficient RS on her other article to break it out into a whole section, 198.13.135.189. Also, we don't necessarily run every article as a chronological timeline, but using a structure that will be most easily understandable, as per WP:WBA. BlueSalix (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: as the article has already been split per discussion in a section below, and the proposer appears to have withdrawn the request, it is no longer clear that a move here is advisable. The discussion of the story is now at A Rape on Campus; if a move from that title to 2014 University of Virginia rape controversy is needed or desired, please initiate a new request there. As far as this BLP and questions of BLP1E, the requested move process is not intended to act as a stand-in for WP:AFD, and I suggest nominating the article for deletion to resolve the fate of this article, which is now primarily about events that do not involve A Rape on Campus. Dekimasuよ! 21:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sabrina Erdely → 2014 University of Virginia rape controversy – This move was suggested by User:FreeRangeFrog above, and I agree with it (although I'm open to alternate suggestions for the new name). This article is not a biography, it's an article on a controversy, and should be titled as such. WP:BLP1E advises us that biographies on people notable for one event should be converted to articles about the events themselves. That seems to be the case here: Sabrina Erdely didn't have an article until yesterday. But even if she is independently notable, it would be inappropriate for her biography to focus almost entirely on one news story. Robofish (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

On further thought, the proposed new title may be a bit unfair to the UVA. Perhaps something like 2014 Phi Kappa Psi rape allegations controversy would be better. Or should Rolling Stone be in the title as well/instead? Comments are welcome. Robofish (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Although I am certainly open to suggestions as well - my proposed title may not be ideal, as Robofish correctly points out. Picking a neutral name for these can be tricky. But the move is certainly needed, for the reasons detailed above. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This is an article about a controversy, not about a person. I would suggest Rolling Stone's "A Rape On Campus" controversy or something similar, as that was the name of the article in question. Most of the articles which criticize the event mention the "A Rape On Campus" article by name, and the controversy is centered on Rolling Stone's reporting of the incident. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think it should have Rolling Stone in the title. UVA is second. Not the frat name. Just based on the headlines I've seen. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support "UVrApe" is the shorthand the protestors have been giving this imbroglio. The name could be defined in the lede. ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 21:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. (1) Any entry about this incident will have a dominant section on Erdely and her Rolling Stone story anyway. (2) It's easier to find it by her name than to try to imagine what a Google search for the incident would be. "Phi Kappa Psi Rape allegations" is unfair to Phi Kappa Psi, since other WP:RS say that it might have been a different fraternity house (and it violates WP:ALLEGED. (3) From her site, one could make a good argument that she's published enough, and won enough awards, to be notable. I think she blew this story, but she's written a lot of other good stories, as demonstrated by her awards. What are the WP:NOTABILITY standards for a journalist? Are awards sufficient? --Nbauman (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Erdely has little notability beyond the UVA accusations, which in themselves are more than notable enough to merit a dedicated page. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Did you look at her web page? She wrote many stories that won awards. Is that enough? What are the notability criteria for journalists? --Nbauman (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Which awards? Her website doesn't even say what they are, which suggests that they're something vanishingly minor. The bottom line is that nobody bothered starting a page for her before the UVA story, and even now that is what the bulk of this page is about. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose winner of the 2013 GLAAD Media Award, two-time ASME-nominated journalist, multiple nationally published author by iconic magazine Rolling Stone, currently has film projects in development with major directors and A-list celebs attached. She is notable in her own right. The UVA story simply seals the deal. Edit - that said, I would tentatively support a proposal to truncate this section of her bio to 1 paragraph with a "see main article" header directing to a new entry "2014 Rolling Stone rape controversy." (UVA and Phi Kappa Psi are incidental at this point to the story so shouldn't be the title of a separate article.) I would like to see this presented as a new/fresh proposal after this move discussion has run its course, though, before committing to that position. BlueSalix (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose The RS story is what defines her. Almost everyone visiting her page wants information on the story. I assume the article on Oswald focuses on the assassination of Kennedy. What is the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2:4B80:B58:588B:2486:C995:F858 (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a BLP (and outside of this controversy, would be a stub). There should be a small section on about the controversy here, with a main article link to the broader topic, probably with it's own article given this will continue to develop for a while. Erdley wrote the article, but really it was Rolling Stone that bears ultimate responsibility for its accuracy and completeness, and is ultimately at the center of the journalistic portion of the controversy.Mattnad (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Article as it stands has clear WP:BLP1E issues. Artw (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Wasn't notable before this controversy, unlikely to have a journalism career after. All that's left is the controversy. "Rolling Stone Campus Rape Controversy" is a better name for the other article. Msalt (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support moving the present article away from the title Sabrina Erdely, without prejudice to the creation of a subsequent biographical article on Erdely. The present article is, as noted, a coatrack for discussion of Erdely's recent article that Rolling Stone no longer stands behind, and should be moved to a title that reflects this. Erdely herself may or may not be notable independent of that single event, and this move discussion shouldn't attempt to decide that. As to the exact title, I strongly suggest one that mentions Rolling Stone and doesn't single out the fraternity. The article title A Rape on Campus is not well-known enough in itself, or else I would prefer that over any invented title. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

@2601:2:4B80:B58:588B:2486:C995:F858: and @NBauman:: See WP:BLP1E. General notability guidelines are that if someone is notable for only one event, then typically we'll write the article about the event and do a redirect of their name to said event. The person in question here had no article previously, which is why the article is so focused on this; they aren't a notable person, they're just some random freelance journalist. As far as the awards go: be careful. If you read that list carefully, you'll notice that she didn't actually win a lot of them, she was a "finalist" or got "second place" or what have you. She did win a number of awards, but I'm not sure how prestigious they are; the Clarion Awards, for instance, don't have a Wikipedia page, though the organization which distributes them does. I'm not sure how big of a deal the GLAAD Media Award or the Deadline Club Awards are. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of the major awards are lost among the also-rans. But she won a Deadline Club award, which is the New York chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, a major journalists' organization media http://www.deadlineclub.org/about-dc . She won a Clarion Award, which is given by the Association for Women in Communications, another major journalists' organization. The GLAAD Media Award is also a notable award and is certainly well-funded. The anthologies Best American Magazine Writing and Best American Crime Reporting are significant distinctions.
My personal opinion doesn't count for Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY, but I read several of those stories and they looked pretty good. They were significant stories on important issues that took a lot of reporting and investigating -- in contrast to the Rolling Stone UVA rape story.
So she has at least 3 bona-fide, major awards, and a long history of major investigative stories.
So what is WP:NOTABILITY for a journalist, in your opinion? --Nbauman (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Very few journalists are notable in their own right. Erdeley had no article before, which didn't bother anyone then. What makes a journalist notable? Appearing on television, or writing a book and doing a round of major broadcast promotion for it. Awards mean nothing. There are thousands of people who have won television Emmys for example who are nowhere near notable.
Bottom line -- this is an encyclopedia. Someone's notable when people want to look them up in an encyclopedia. Outside of this controversy, no one has ever wanted to look up Erdeley. So redirect to the controversy. Msalt (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I would generally agree with your assessment. What pushes me over the edge, however, is that she has a major motion picture and other media projects in development. Given that and her national status, she appears to be a "rock-star reporter" not substantially different (albeit of a less substantial stature) than Matt Taibbi. We also have established precedent for articles about journalists when a certain threshold is met with respect to the volume of reporting on the journalist itself, rather than the journalist's articles, as in the case of Jayson Blair. BlueSalix (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Notability requires that you have substantial coverage in second party sources. The question is not whether or not she has won awards - the question is whether or not there is substantial enough coverage of her, as a person/subject, to warrant an article. I've not seen any, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Winning awards sometimes leads to coverage of a person as a person; someone should go hunting. I'm afraid I'm busy with other things today, otherwise I'd do it myself. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stephen Glass reference

Lots of reversions lately regarding the story that Erdely told about her interactions with Stephen Glass at Penn regarding a "made-up" travel story. Here's the full text from the original source:

When he became the paper’s executive editor, the editorial board hailed him as a “man of principle,” and in her Philadelphia magazine piece, Rubin describes how Glass threw a righteous fit when she and a colleague concocted a funny and obviously made-up travel story for 34th Street—going so far as to call an emergency session of the DP’s Alumni Association board to apprise them of the transgression. Samuel Hughes (2006-11-10). Penn In Ink (Kindle Locations 4415-4420). Xlibris. Kindle Edition.

Omitting "funny and obviously" makes this sound as if it were an attempt at fabrication rather than bad satire, so the fuller quote should be included. Also, Glass was executive editor at the time of the incident (or at least it appears so from the original source, though it's not 100% clear), not editor. Nulldogmas (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)nulldogmas

I intend to cut this irrelevant sentence from this bio because it smacks of a cheap attempt to link Erdely to Glass in a tortured way. One paragraph in a vanity-published book is insufficient sourcing for the claim that Glass "disciplined" Erdely. The paragraph quoted above does not substantiate the claim. We don't have enough information and should stop pretending that we do. Note that other editors have previously removed this text yet, one persists in re-adding it. Skywriter (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Fact-checking: where's the fairness?

This appears in the bio: It was later reported that, at the time Erdely was covering the Billy Doe story, her husband was a criminal prosecutor for the District Attorney of Philadelphia which was overseeing the case.[11]

Whoa. That looks really, really bad-- a conflict of interest but then when you go to the source of the citation, you discover that same Washington Post article adds this: (A Rolling Stone spokeswoman, Melissa Bruno, said Peter Erdely's work in the DA's office didn't pose a conflict of interest because he wasn't part of the unit trying the men.)

Someone editing this article is making an attempt to show the subject in the worst possible light and, in doing so, is leaving out key facts. We have a duty to portray each subject honestly. Or not at all. Skywriter (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Before I began editing this tonight, there were multiple references to articles by Ralph Cipriano that either were written in the last couple of weeks or that made no reference to Erdely, the subject of this biography. Cipriano's articles argue the defense position in the criminal case in a story the article subject wrote about. That goes beyond the scope of, is irrelevant to, and is not the subject of this article. Those links have been removed. Cipriano is hardly an unbiased source. http://www.phillymag.com/news/2013/10/22/reporter-ralph-cipriano-subpoenaed-catholic-sex-abuse-case/ I have flagged this biography as lacking in neutrality. Skywriter (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The full sentence I read in the current version (and this may have changed this you left your comment) is "When Erdely was covering the Billy Doe story, her husband was a criminal prosecutor for the District Attorney of Philadelphia which was overseeing the case. Rolling Stone editors said that it was not a conflict of interest because he was not personally involved in the prosecution." which seems almost biased in favor of Erdely since the Post infers a conflict of interest when it says What’s more, the author of the story, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, never mentioned a personal fact... and also referred to the story as a warning of sorts. This is cited to Paul Fahri at the Washington Post, not Ralph Cipriano at Newsweek. Unless Fahri is part of the Cipriano plan to "get" Erdely, I would be in favor of de-sanitizing the current version. DocumentError (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Rolling Stone is not exactly a disinterested party. If the possible conflict of interest is covered by reliable sources, we can include it. If it helps create more balance, we can include a Rolling Stone's opinion too. 2600:1010:B019:C393:9019:5466:5E23:2AA7 (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Where Erdely's spouse works is irrelevant to this bio and to the widespread interest in the controversy surrounding the most recent story she wrote for the Rolling Stone. The Washington Post paragraph on where spouse works is useful only in that it establishes the spouse's name and a bit more biographical detail. That entire paragraph (raising issue of potential conflict) is wildly off-base. Spouse had nothing to do with the court case and that is not in dispute except among proponents of conspiracy theories. The focus should be on the way Erdely reported the University of Virginia story because that has been widely criticized for basing a story about rape on the word of a single person without supporting documentation, such as a police report, or supporting interviews, such as with the three students who met her immediately after what she said was a gang rape. Erdely has been widely criticized for failing to seek comment from officials at the accused frat house or from the date who allegedly brought her to the frat house. The Associated Press ran a story saying that Erdely is re-reporting the story. The over-writing in the existing revision of this bio is misplaced to the extent that it over-emphasizes the church article, which has NOT been widely criticized despite the impression this bio creates. The church article "criticism" quotes mostly from articles very recently written by one person, essentially holding the magazine writer responsible for the prosecution of three church members. That is off-base because magazine writers don't prosecute. The prosecution was based on a 10-year investigation by the District Attorney and a Grand Jury report [www.phila.gov/districtattorney/PDFs/clergyAbuse2-finalReport.pdf]. The writer of the "criticism" disagrees with the Grand Jury and also disagrees with the jury verdict[5] in the criminal trial that voted to convict the church members. The "criticism" of the church article is muddled with one-sided bias and fails to point out there's an opposite (prosecutor's) viewpoint and that the case is now before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. But none of that should be in this bio at all because this is a bio about a living person, a journalist, not a recount of a court case. In a series of careful edits, I began to correct and update this bio, with fresh links and factual information. However, my work was wholesale reverted and the links deleted by an editor claiming "previous consensus", including this rather large revert, [6] thus returning this bio to its former status of merely being confusing and off-base. [7] While it is always possible that innocent men were sent to prison in the church case, that argument is not on point in this biographical article. If there are specific complaints about Erdely's journalism, now that's certainly fair game, and should be the central focus of this bio along with her other journalism. Whether someone was anally raped is in this bio for nothing but shock value. Skywriter (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Biographies often include reports of controversies covered in reliable sources. Ms. Erdely is primarily known due to the UVA story and related material to her past work has been brought up by major publications including Newsweek. Your long defense of Ms. Erdely is interesting, but includes a lot of your opinions. We go by what's out there in various media. If Newsweek or WaPo suggests a conflict of interest, it's reasonable to cite that. 2600:1010:B019:C393:64EB:1917:9CE4:FF97 (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Defense of Erdely? What is the evidence?Skywriter (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the Anon editors points are that you're expending a lot of energy arguing counterpoints to keep this out her bio even though there is verifiable information from reliable sources. I don't see a problem here bringing this in, provided don't misrepresent the source. Too bad for Erdely she didn't follow that advice herself.Mattnad (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You and the anonymous editor ascribe motives to me that are misleading. Secondary sources have reviewed the UVA debacle in much sharper terms than is presented here. I have no inclination to keep anything relevant out of this bio nor to defend bad journalism or bad writing here, or anywhere else. Assigning undue weight continues as a problem here. Skywriter (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
No one here is out to "get" you. Also, an encyclopedia article is not the place to either "defend" or "attack" something. I think you need to maybe take a beat and reevaluate your objectives here. BlueSalix (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A Bio is not a private war

I came to this article expecting to see background on Erdely. Instead I see muddled, non-biographical information, arguing legal cases, such as this: All three church employees maintained their innocence; the conviction of one has since been overturned and a new trial ordered for the one remaining (the third church employee died in prison while appealing his verdict).[13][14]

Well, sure, the jails are full of people who claim innocence. What does that have to do with the subject of this Wikipedia biography? What does the history of a criminal case have to do with the bio? I have no idea whether the prosecution was justified in these cases. Making a summary judgment about that is absolutely outside the purview of a biographical article in an encyclopedia. This article should not take sides, or make arguments, or give space to the pros and cons of guilt or innocence unrelated to the subject of the article. That's for the courts to decide. As with all biographies, this is supposed to be about the person whose name is at the top of the page. That's why I am taking the above cited sentence out. Skywriter (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "all three church employees maintained their innocence" is unnecessary. The other part of the line in question is a simple statement of fact and can remain as it is relevant to the ultimate outcome of the story. No one is taking sides. BlueSalix (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No, BlueSalix. Closely mirroring the arguments of Ralph Cipriano, you conflate the prosecution of the criminal case with what was reported in a magazine article with which both you and Cipriano take issue. You are, in effect, blaming the writer (Erdely)for the criminal prosecution. In doing so, you draw inferences that Wikipedia editors are prohibited from drawing. Your reversal today of most of the edits to this article, made overnight, re-introduce the quagmire of non-biographical information about a living person. I disagree thoroughly with what you have re-introduced and believe it violates multiple Wikipedia policies, particularly with regard to biographies of living persons. I see your insistence that unrelated material appear here as contaminating the integrity of this biography. I won't get into an editing war with you but note these objections for the record. You seem way too close to this story and should consider letting cooler heads prevail. You seem to forget this is biography and not a place to litigate details of a criminal prosecution in which the subject of this article had no part. Your quoting the Washington Post as suggesting that Erdely had a conflict of interest in that her spouse worked for the prosecutor's office is tainted and unfair by any standard in that you neglected to include the Post's inclusion of the response from Rolling Stone saying there was no conflict in that the spouse did not work on the criminal case. Cipriano wrote three articles in quick succession in the last several weeks. You quote each of them giving wp:undue weight to his viewpoint, despite Cipriano having established repeatedly, and in his own words that he is biased in the extreme. [8] Skywriter (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The citation was (is?) to Newsweek, a RS. It seems highly unconventional to dig into a reporter's biography and then declare he is untrustworthy. As long as Newsweek is RS and the report in question is non-editorial that should be the close of chapter except in an very extreme case. You are applying a level of scrutiny to a byline that seems highly unusual, even for a BLP. That said, I generally agree with you that extreme detail about the finer points of the prosecution should be omitted and anything in this section should only be included if it was reporting or analysis of the Rolling Stone story itself. (Forgive me in advance if some of the preceding didn't make sense, looking at the history of this article it seems like the changes are coming fast and furious and I may have misread something.) DocumentError (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Citations 8, 9, and 10 are single-sourced to Cipriano who has written only one article for Newsweek.[9] He is primarily employed as a blogger for a site owned by a law firm that frequently is at odds with prosecutors in court. The opinion piece Cipriano managed to place in Newsweek is a reprisal of his blog posts, which is fine. It is a viewpoint. However, for his opinion to have legs, they would be amplified by other journalists WP:RS. They are not. This raises the question of undue weight. The Philadelphia Inquirer and other national media reported the church trials and did not share Cipriano's opinions of the outcome. Instead the Inquirer and national media continue to report news developments in the church-sex cases. Cipriano does appear on Wikipedia Brian_Tierney#Cipriano_affair and I included that link in my edits but that and other links I added were reverted the other night. Cipriano is an advocate with a particular agenda. He's not only an opinion writer. He is also an enthusiastic witness. [10] That's fine too but Wikipedia should not mislead readers into thinking his positions represent anything other than those he advocates for, or that there was widespread criticism of the Rolling Stone's church sex story. There was not. So that's why this not neutral section of this short article is short on facts and long on opinion. If the criticism of the Rolling Stone story is on target, where are citations from respected sources?
This business about deleting links is a real problem in the short history of this article. I added the Wikipedia link to William_Anthony_Donohue who is very well-known and author of the comments from the Catholic League that appears in this article. The editor who deleted all of the other new links took that one down too. I wonder why. When a link is deleted, the reason should be stated in the interest of transparency. Skywriter (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
If you're not familiar with wikilinks please take a moment to familiarize yourself with how they're used. A lot of people are expending a lot of energy right now undoing some of your questionable edits. I doubt William Donohue places hyphens between his names as you've presented here. Please slow down and edit more carefully. This isn't a race. BlueSalix (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Police Investigation into UVA

No evidence of UVA Rape as per Rolling Stone. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2015/03/23/70346936/

Article says: "The investigation into the allegations made by Erdely are ongoing. The article does not appear on her personal website." The investigation is suspended and there is no evidence of any rape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:3A80:9BAB:9DF5:2723:B0AA:4EB7 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Example of unverified statement of opinion

This caption (under the church image) makes an un-sourced claim that is not supported anywhere in this article. Some have questioned the veracity of Erdely's story on Philadelphia's Catholic church, which alleged Charles Engelhardt, a priest at St Francis de Sales (pictured) sexually ab used a minor. Who is "Some"? Skywriter (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not just questioned--challenged is the right word. Here is a quote from The Media Report about the response to Erdely's article about the Catholic church: http://www.themediareport.com/2014/12/06/sabrina-erdely-rolling-stone-catholic-church/ :
"[F]or sheer maliciousness, it is hard to top the piece in Rolling Stone. The factual errors, the stereotypes, the grand omissions, and the melodramatic language make for an incredible read. Make no mistake about it, the author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, has secured her place in the annals of yellow journalism." The words are from Dr. Bill Donohue of The Catholic League over three years ago – in September 2011 – about a piece Erdely wrote about alleged sex abuse and cover-up in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Back then, Donohue uncovered numerous errors and misleading passages in Erdely's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.231.17 (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The word "some" equals more than one. For your benefit, I have added inline refs to the caption and changed the wording back to "some." I can add three more inline refs to others who have questioned it, if we want to do that. For the readability of the article I would hope that is not something you demand. BlueSalix (talk) 04:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I rewrote this to avoid the issue entirely. But the original editor was right. "Some" is weasely. You need to be more specific about who "some" are. Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hit piece

Yeah, she screwed up big time, but the article is not BLP-compliant and reads like a hit piece. This is not neutral coverage of the subject. Viriditas (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The section on film projects lists two articles that are not mentioned elsewhere The Girl Who Conned the Ivy League, about Esther Reed and Gangster Princess Of Beverly Hills about Lisette Lee - both portraying women not as victims but as deceivers and criminals. Since these are both in production, they are presumably notable articles. And yet the whole of this page is about sexual assault/rape topics, as if that's all she writes about. Paul B (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Journalistic hoaxes

category:journalistic hoaxes should not be applied to this person. This is a WP:BLP issue. WP:BLPCAT is pretty clear on this. While she is involved in something that could be described as a wikt:hoax, it's not at all clear that she was the one doing the lying, and she was not the subject of the hoax, so the category is overbroad and should not be used here. Categories do not include enough nuance to be used in such a way, again, per BLPCAT. To put it bluntly, this could also be described as negligence, incompetence, or she could be considered the victim of a hoax herself. Journalist hoax clearly implies that she was the one doing the hoaxing. Is that debatable? Sure, but categories aren't the place to have that debate. Grayfell (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Grayfell. Further more User:Elduderino's continuous attempts to add this category seem pretty blatantly in opposition of WP:BRD. We're happy to discuss it Elduderino, but the onus is on you to discuss. NickCT (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. At this time, the category of journalistisc hoaxes is inappropriate. Shearonink (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Elduderino did not add the category [11]. Their reverts are attempts to restore it. However, I agree that it's inappropriate. Yes, there was a hoax, but the journalist was not responsible for it. Paul B (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not appropriate at this page. It should not be included here. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Couple of comments: Yeah doesn't seem like a hoax to me, didn't seem deliberate. The account User:Elduderino may be a hoax account of it's own of User:El_duderino. Arkon (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"later found not to have occurred"

This is not really accurate, as I recall the various authorities merely said there was no evidence that the incident occurred as reported. Kind of a big difference. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's pretty accurate, actually. I think the lead should make it clear that the rape didn't occur as detailed in the report. A Rape on Campus contains more details, but the events in the story have been completely discredited. Grayfell (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you won't find a single RS affirmatively saying that no rape occurred. If you do, please post it. Otherwise we simply can't say that no rape occurred, because that is not what sources have said. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 11:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Police have explicitly said that no incident occurred at the fraternity or any other fraternity. That is the quote from the police chief. “We’re not able to conclude to any substantive degree that an incident occurred at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house, or any other fraternity house, for that matter." This was widely reported (in refs in this article). Capitalismojo (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Nobody, police or source, ever said affirmatively that no rape occurred. Source text or it never happened. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
But they affirmed that the reported rape didn't occur. Matthew1J (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No, they affirmed that they did not find evidence to support the allegation. Again, I am confident that no source affirmatively said that no rape occurred. Also note that even the friends who were first to debunk her story said that they believed something traumatic happened to her and did not believe she was acting. There are also other possibilities, such the possibility that she actually was attacked by an some other person, or at some other location and changed the details for the sake of tying her story to the school, as well as any number of other possibilities which would be outright foreclosed by a "no rape occurred" phrasing. Unfortunately I will not allow such prose in the article without direct and unquestionable substantiation by source text. Wikipedia policy directly commands this, it's not negotiable or subject to being watered down via consensus. WP must not say anything not said by any source, except for uncontroversial matters of fact (and lack of controversy is typically distinguished by lack of argument), and to address any reputational damage the guys involved will have to take recourse with the legal system. If you disagree please seek dispute resolution; I'd recommend the WP:V noticeboard. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

POV check

The article needs to be checked for neutrality. It seems to be written as a WP:COATRACK, even after the edits I made to remove some of the most obvious bias. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


It may seem that way, because Erdely is slowly being revealed as a Stephen Glass-level fraud.68.231.185.52 (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sabrina Erdely. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Religion

In an article of this brevity it seemed to me that the reference to her religion seemed a bit over-weighted. I realize it is a borderline situation, as the MOS only deals with religion in leads. However I think that we tend to overdo religion references in articles where it's not really relevant and I think this is one example of that. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge to A Rape on Campus?

What is the sentiment? I favor since Ms. Erdely seems only marginally notable were it not for that. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Not true. She is notable.ML (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Oppose; clearly notable, and not just for the scandal. The article A Rape on Campus is plenty long enough as it is; if this content was also there we would be proposing a split. General Ization Talk 05:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Erdely no longer working for Rolling Stone magazine

The wiki contains information that is out of date. According to court filings in July 20216, Rolling Stone terminated Erdely's contract.

https://www.scribd.com/document/319057657/Nicole-Eramo-court-filings#from_embed

Lilly wolf (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Lilly Wolf

Section is far too long

The section of this Wikipedia article titled "Rolling Stone article: 'A Rape on Campus'" is far too long and far too detailed. This is supposed to be a summary of the separate Wikipedia article, not a blow-by-blow repetition of it. Three to four (long) paragraphs would be sufficient, here; readers interested in more detail could then go to the separate article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Identification

She was a journalist, yes, but there is no source in the article indicating that she went back to the same career. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you change it to "is a former journalist" or "is a retired journalist", rather than "was a journalist"? The latter wording is reserved for people who are dead. Examples: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] e.t.c. 213.31.27.95 (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

She still identifies herself as a journalist on her own site:

"Award-winning freelance magazine journalist

Sabrina Rubin Erdely is an award-winning feature writer and investigative journalist, and a Contributing Editor at Rolling Stone." http://www.sabrinaerdely.com/ 23.113.53.110 (talk) 22:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The most recent article I could find posted on that website was from 2013. 6 years ago. I think "former journalist" is not inappropriate in this case. I was unable to find any articles written by the subject since the UVA/Rolling Stone/fraternity article. Shearonink (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

How about disgraced former journalist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:2300:9F4:DD85:629:2FB5:FCC4 (talk) 17:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Not neutral. General Ization Talk 17:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
What's your point? WP hammers people it hates in its descriptions all the time. 2604:2000:1580:425C:11DB:89CB:3124:89F2 (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Change

Sabrina's hair seems to change colour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:AD41:A286:D569:D59F (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Jayson Blair should be linked, he fabricated and plagurzed at the New York Times, and resigned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:E9C3:1818:366A:EF09 (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Update to Popular Culture - New Play based on this case

Hi. I wanted to recommend adding a note in the Popular Culture section that a play being produced in a week or so is based on this woman's experience with writing the article "A Rape on Campus" - It's called Retracted and you can read about it here: https://bfany.org/theatre-row/shows/retraction-presented-by-the-createtheater-new-works-festival/

Hope this is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.98.212 (talk) 03:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sabrina_Erdely/Archive_1&oldid=1137169150"