Talk:A Rape on Campus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Categories

I feel like including the following categories - Feminism and sexuality, Feminist theory, Misandry, Misogyny - is a little WP:POINTY. Does anyone object to their removal? BlueSalix (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Cla68:, do you have sources to support such cats? Tutelary (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This Economist article links the Rolling Stone article to the current discussion over alleged rape culture on US universities. The cats I added are the same cats in WP's Rape culture article. That's why I added them. Cla68 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me, in that case. I withdraw my request for removal. BlueSalix (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Accuser's name

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.

---

Since the accuser's rape claim has turned out to be false, and she has been named in the media, I think she should be named in this article. Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose While the rape claim certainly seems extremely dubious at this point, I'm not sure we've reached the point yet where it's been positively shown to be false. That said, I would agree that - if she has been named in RS - it would be acceptable to include her name in the article if it's relevant (which I believe it is), as opposed to just to "out" her. However, it seems the only outlet that has given her surname as "[redacted]" is GotNews which is not a RS. Even the outlets that have reported on GotNews' story have been careful not to use the name "[redacted]." I am of the suspicion this will change in the coming day or two and my opinion is we should wait until it does, at which time I'd change my !vote to support. BlueSalix (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse above BlueSalix has taken the words out of my mouth. At this time I don't believe it would be right to name her unless the sources do such first. Alternatively, her deliberately coming out of her nickname to embrace and reassert such allegations would also be a sign that disclosing the name would be appropriate. Tutelary (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, while I'm sure many people feel indignant and/or scandalized about the evolution of this story, it's not WP's job to exact punishment. I feel like we should go slow and steady on using names unless and until it becomes absolutely necessary to maintain the integrity of the article. BlueSalix (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - firstly, the accuser's rape claim has not "turned out to be false"; there are questions over details she alleged. Secondly, the name that's being bandied around is from a single source, posted by some blogger. That utterly fails WP:RS. I notice that the Daily Mail, a newspaper not averse to "naming and shaming" has decided not to reveal the name of the accuser, nor that of members of her family. And neither should we here. Given the gravity of the situation, it would require some seriously reliable sources. Furthermore, I have suppressed her name, at least for now, for the above reasons. It's non-public, personal information along with accusations of potentially criminal activity. YMMV, but that's the call I'm making here, in my capacity as an Oversighter - Alison ^❤ 01:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to underline this, it appears the name has been repeated by Inquisitr, in addition to GotNews, however, it bears noting now before the point is raised that Inquisitr is not RS. As per Alison's point, we really need Reuters or the New York Times to use a specific name before we even consider it. BlueSalix (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - Her story has not been found to be inaccurate and we cannot assume that the name given by this random blogger is actually the correct one. What does posting this unconfirmed name do? It doesn't help anything. The page already exists. The only goal in publishing her full name is to publicly ridicule, harass, and stigmatize her. There's no point in that. Enayray (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Apart from that, it's non-public, personal information and is potentially libelous. We can't let that stand. I've personally removed names of people named as rapists for similar reasons (just before someone goes there); if there is no reliable source - a real reliable source - then it cannot be allowed stand, be they alleged victim or alleged rapist - Alison ^❤ 02:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed! She's a private person and it is private information. It does not belong on Wikipedia. Enayray (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Enaray, I agree to the extent that until sources have picked up on it that it does not belong. Should she start being discussed in depths in RS with said name then yes, we should disclose her name. Tutelary (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Tutelary as per above. We should protect her privacy for now. Once the shield of privacy is unambiguously breached by RS, then our obligation to shield her name ends. BlueSalix (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I actually agree, too. Providing there are multiple reliable sources which cite clearly what's being posted, then fine. But that's not right now - Alison ^❤ 03:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought the Daily Mail and Guardian had published her name, not just some blogs. So, never mind. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Until a reliable source, and ideally multiple reliable sources publish her name, we can not publish it as per WP:BLP. Keep in mind that she is not a public figure, so the kinds of laws WP:BLP protect us against apply doubly. And, on a personal level, it’s downright petty to drag this young woman through the mud like that. Samboy (talk) 20:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, the person most culpable here for making the false rape accusation is the reporter who wrote the story. Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Timeline source

Here from New York magazine. Cla68 (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WaPo has just updated its latest story outlining the issues with Jackie's report. There is a very clear sub-text in this updated story to me (and at least three RS call-out the sub-text), however, attempting to strip-out my POV to present it in WP becomes extremely difficult because of the convoluted nature of the timeline the Post is now offering (For example, Cindy, Andy, and Randall repeatedly indicate they believe the date Jackie said she had gone on may not have been a real person - do we refer to him then as the "date" or the "alleged date"? We can't even use a specific name as there are multiple names being credited to the date.) Anyway, I've done my best to try to restructure this section to account for the evolving information but I invite anyone to correct or edit my recent changes. BlueSalix (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not call the "date or "alleged date" Drew? JayBellBlue (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of activist response

The Chicago Tribune has apparently run a column criticizing feminists reaction to this story. I can't access the article because I can't register for the site for some reason, but it probably should go in the "Media reaction" section. Cla68 (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read the story so I'll trust your judgment with the note that we should avoid turning this article into a catchall for a larger social discussion by inserting articles that only tangentially mention this specific story. Again, however, I haven't read this article so can't say that's what it does, just that we should generally be cautious about selecting what to include. BlueSalix (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the article can be found here as well: http://www.ctnow.com/topic/ct-rape-university-feminists-perspec-1209-20141208,0,6593832.story Rudimentary1979 (talk) 00:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Rudimentary1979

The existence of an opinion in media doesn't necessarily warrant its inclusion. If you couldn't access it, how do you know it would have been a useful inclusion? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Article title

The article title is a bit underwhelming, as the real story is not the article itself but rather the reaction. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 02:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Jackie and the False Photo of the "Chemistry 3rd Year"

In many media sources, they report that Jackie provided a photo of the "Chemistry 3rd Year" who took her on a date and was later identified as a High School acquaintance. When they report this, they cite the Washington Post article. However, in the Washington Post article, it appears that the "purported date" gave those photos to her friends through text message. Shouldn't this article reflect that the photos came from the "purported date"? It is easy to assume Jackie is catfishing, which is perhaps why other media sources have misreported this detail, but this is not yet confirmed. And in the event that it is not Jackie, would Wikipedia be opening itself up to litigation? Right now, with Rolling Stone's credibility in shatters and missteps in Washington Post's own reporting of this news, perhaps careful treatment with these details is needed? JayBellBlue (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

From my understanding of the case thus far, it is misleading to state that the "purported date" supplied the photographs, because the only contact between them and Jackie's friends was via text messages to a cell phone number that she herself supplied, and e-mail. It is not known whether the person on the other end of the phone/e-mail was indeed the "purported date," an unidentified third-party, or Jackie herself. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

If we quote the Washington Post article, that's exactly what they say: "Randall provided The Post with pictures that Jackie’s purported date had sent of himself by text message in 2012". It is misleading to claim that "Jackie" sent them. If she, in fact, didn't, it could be libel considering that it is being used to discredit her. Since the Wikipedia article only references the Washington Post article, the phrase "photos Jackie showed her friends of her date" should be changed to reflect the main RS. JayBellBlue (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The plethora of brand new and IP address editors who have been arriving at this, and the Erdely, article to fervently express concern that XYZ phrasing on ABC point will result in us being sued for defamation is interesting, but I find the arguments largely non-compelling. I agree with Nick Cooper's assessment. BlueSalix (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem doesn't just stem from an issue of libel, but it also violates WP:NOR and WP:POV. This article should stick with what is in the RS and not make further assumptions or inferences or analysis from it. JayBellBlue (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that's what the RS states. This seems to be an interpretative analysis you've applied to the source. We don't engage in WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. BlueSalix (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Rather than using the newness of my account to discredit my argument, I would like to ask that you address the point directly. Why should the article not be changed from "photos Jackie..." to "photos purported date texted to her friends of himself", which is clearly what the RS states? And if not, how does this not violate WP:NOR and WP:POV? Thank you. JayBellBlue (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that's what the RS states. This seems to be an interpretative analysis you've applied to the source. We don't engage in WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. BlueSalix (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't apply any interpretive analysis. In fact, I have no idea what to think of this whole fiasco. That being said, I do wish people would stick with only what is in the RS. The Washington Post article states: "Randall provided The Post with pictures that Jackie’s purported date had sent of himself by text message in 2012". Nowhere in the article does it mention that Jackie provided the photos. If I am mistaken (perhaps I am), please quote the article where it states this and I will happily go my merry way. Thank you. JayBellBlue (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree with your characterization of the Washington Post article. From the WaPo:

"Intrigued, Jackie’s friends got his phone number from her and began exchanging text messages with the mysterious upperclassman."

"Curious about Jackie’s date, the friends said that they tried to find the student on a U-Va. database and social media but failed. Andy, Cindy and Randall all said they never met the student in person. Before Jackie’s date, the friends became suspicious that perhaps they hadn’t really been in contact with the chemistry student at all, they said."

"U-Va. officials told The Post that no student with the name Jackie provided to her friends as her date and attacker in 2012 had ever enrolled at the university."

This seems to support Blue Salix's statement. According to the arcticle, Jackie provided a number and the name of "the chemistry student" who would later be her reported date. That supposed person was not in fact a student and the picture of that person (a supposed classmate and co-worker at the UVA pool) was actually a picture of a high school acquaintance of Jackie's swiped from social media. The friends ultimately thought that they weren't actually communicating with the person Jackie told them they were. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you agree with me. That is exactly my characterization and the article should reflect this. Whoever was pretending to be the "Chemistry 3rd Year" sent that photo. Right now, we don't know who that person is. JayBellBlue (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

To say it was "Jackie" pretending to be the "Chemistry 3rd Year", however, is making further analysis that was not in the RS and is something that Wikipedia shouldn't do. I am merely suggesting that this be clarified in the Wikipedia article. JayBellBlue (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me suggest this then. For this phrase:

"Later media analysis of photos Jackie showed her friends of her date showed instead.."

let's replace it with this:

"Jackie had provided a phone number that she claimed was the 'purported date'. Photos of Jackie's "purported date" that were texted from this phone number showed instead..."

Or something that sounds better... JayBellBlue (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

For your convenience, here are 2 important WP guidelines from WP Manual of style:

WP:ALLEGED Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate, although alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear....

WP:CLAIM Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms. For example, to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. To write that someone insisted, noted, observed, speculated, or surmised can suggest the degree of the speaker's carefulness, resoluteness, or access to evidence when that is unverifiable....

Especially if you are new to Wikipedia, I recommend you read WP:MOS carefully. I also recommend you read WP:NPOV carefully. Those are the style sheets that govern how this article should be edited. --Nbauman (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Emily Renda

It appears that UVA anti-rape activist Emily Renda told a version of this story in US Senate testimony this past June here. As this article points out, it was Renda who brought this story to Erdely's attention. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a specific change to the article that you have in mind? MastCell ^Talk 04:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that Renada's testimony was similar to "Jackie"'s testimony.

I don't want to get into WP:OR, but some readers might find it significant that many of the apparent inaccuracies in Jackie's story were present in Renda's testimony. The inaccuracies also support Renda's narrative, that every one of her friends denied her experience, which is a common problem. It may be that Renda encouraged Jackie to develop that narrative. Jackie didn't want to be in the story, but Erdely forced her into it. Once it was published, her narrative was subject to fact-checking, and the discrepancies appeared. (For example http://www.seattlepi.com/news/crime/article/Friends-say-they-pushed-UVA-Jackie-to-call-cops-5956814.php) I wouldn't write that in the article, but I think Renada's testimony should be mentioned, and readers should be left to come to their own conclusions. --Nbauman (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Blogger Charles Johnson

(I am not volunteering to do this edit as I feel too strongly about this. I trained as a journalist and this mis-reported trainwreck is upsetting in every way.) He is currently being cited neutrally in this article as if he is a credible source when he has a long and varied history of false reporting at multiple publications. His incredibly bad behavior is on record for years and Wikipedia should not treat him neutrally as he is not a neutral figure or even a legitimate journalist. He has doxxed "Jackie" AND misidentified a photo of another woman as "Jackie" in this case. The litany of his bad behavior goes on and on over multiple hot button issues of the day including Michael Brown and Eric Garner. At the very least, "controversial" or perhaps, as he's identified himself -see the quote from his colleague in the article attached- "scalp-hunting" or perhaps, "yellow journalist" needs to be added to his name. I'd go with "self-identified "scalp-hunting" blogger Charles Johnson." He's actually the worst kind of trolling scum, using someone else's trauma for his own profit and so doesn't deserve citation in a neutral way as he does not represent neutrality at all. He is not doing journalism or even really blogging. He's out deliberately to hurt people and Wikipedia should not help him do that. "The Washington Post" describes him thus. "He represents a new breed of news hound: part troll, part provocateur, part bully for profit, and fully independent." [1] Also here's a direct link to his Twitter feed so you can see what he's doing. He is NOT a credible source, but is out to hurt everyone he can on whatever issue he can find to make himself important. Let's not help give him credibility. [2] Sa_magnuson33 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

== You claim that Charles C. Johnson has long ahd varied history of false reporting. Please provide specific examples, making sure to cite ones that (1) are not merely journalistic mistakes and (2) are different in quality and number from any other mainstream journalist. As to the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases, please demonstrate that Johnson's alleged errors are any more egregious that those continuing today by the mainstream press, which paints the false narrative of racist murders of gentle black giants, despite the findings of thorough legal investigations which not even the Obama administration is attempting to challenge. The fabricator you should be focusing on is Sabrina Erdely. She has a long history of fabrication which is being exposed in greater detail every day. However, the press reaction at first was to label those who challenged her reporting as rape apologists. GaiaHugger (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

One example of Johnson's false reporting was described in the Washington Post story that Sa_magnuson33 cited:

So he started writing for the Daily Caller, contributing to a 2012 story that alleged Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) paid for sex in the Dominican Republic. That story got shredded in the months following its publication, as The Washington Post reported that the story about Menendez’s alleged sex romp may have been planted by Cuban intelligence officials seeking to discredit the anti-Castro lawmaker.

Wikipedia policy on using blogs as WP:RS is governed by WP:BLOGS. Among other things, this provision alone would rule him out: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

As to the rest of your questions, I don't think any of us have time to answer them; nor is that the purpose of WP Talk pages. If you want the answers, I suggest you subscribe to Columbia Journalism Review. --Nbauman (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more examples of Johnson's errors and "misstatements." For somebody who criticizes the media's mistakes, he's made a lot of his own. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/business/media/sowing-mayhem-one-click-at-a-time.html --Nbauman (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging

As per the Wikipedia guideline on responsible tagging, which states that “When a responsible tagging reviewer sees a problem with a Wikipedia article, he clearly labels the problem with the appropriate tag”, it’s bad manners to add a vague tag to an article. For years we had problems with editors coming to an article and putting a {{cleanup}} tag at the top without even spending 30 seconds telling editors why the article needs cleanup. There’s a reason we now require the “cleanup” tag to have a reason field.

Well, lo and behold, an editor who makes absolutely no other contributions to his article adds a different somewhat vague tag ({{tone}}). I have gone through the article and as per WP:TONE removed both cases of informal language being used: "Unravels", as per the edit summary when this tag was added, and the wording "hook up queen". I considered removing the word "fucking" from the article, but that's in a direct quotation from a journalist. Samboy (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Unwilling subject and fact-checking

I want to make sure everybody understands why my additions [3] to this paragraph are so important.

Washington Post reporters later interviewed the accuser at the center of Erdely's story and two of the friends that Rolling Stone said she had met on the night of the incident. The accuser told the Post that she had felt "manipulated" by Erdely, and claimed she asked Erdely to be taken out of the article, a request Erdely refused.[3] Jackie had requested that her assailants not be contacted, and Rolling Stone agreed.[21] Bruce Shapiro, 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.” Experienced reporters often only work with women who feel strong enough to deal with the due diligence required to bring the article to publication, he said.[22]

I'm a journalist, and I immediately identified this as Erdley's central mistake.

(1) I think it's unethical to write a feature story about a rape victim without her permission. I recently went to a conference about medical journalism, and we had a panel on interviewing patients. Everybody agreed that they wouldn't write a story without the subject's permission. A producer from CNN said that, if a subject changed his mind 2 minutes before airtime, they would kill the story. Erdley manipulated Jackie into cooperating with the story, by telling her that she would run the story in any case -- an old trick. It's like torture: You can torture somebody into giving you answers, but they may not be true.

(2) As a condition of Jackie's cooperation, Erdley agreed not to check the facts with the accused. This is a violation of a basic rule of journalism and newspaper style books (and libel lawyers). If you don't check your facts with the accused, you can't possibly know whether they're true.

So Erdley's unethical manipulation of Jackie led to her irresponsible failure to check the facts. When Jackie said she didn't want to be in the story, Erdley should have taken her out. If necessary, Erdley should have killed the story and started over again. Find another rape victim, if there are so many of them.

That's hard to do. Rolling Stone must have paid at least $9,000 for a 9,000-word story, and she probably put 100 hours of work into it by that time. But the alternative is, you're likely to get your facts wrong. And you're raping the victim a second time.

The fact that I'm a journalist doesn't give me any special status or authority on Wikipedia, and everything that I said was my opinion, which doesn't go in the story. (Besides, how do you know I'm a journalist?) But I think my argument can stand on its own merits. --Nbauman (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Contact Eric Wimple on Twitter. This needs to be said.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Erik Wemple is reporting that one person interviewed by Erdley said she appeared to have had an anti-fraternity agenda here. Cla68 (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading the article a few weeks ago and my first reaction was the author had an agenda. Then I read the part about the gang rape and was horrified. The various stanzas from "Rugby Road" were poignant. After finishing I was sick to my stomach that something like this could happen at "Harvard of the South" and thought the author would surely win a Pulitzer for this. I just naturally assumed Rolling Stone did their due diligence on this, but I suspect Nbauman hit the nail on the head, and my initial guy was correct. I might contact Wimple myself and ask him to elaborate.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 06:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the school's administration and the activists who vandalized the fraternity house and hectored and insulted the fraternity members have yet to apologize or make amends for the damage, but I'm not sure if we have a RS that says that so we can put it in the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the Introduction

I just made some changes to the Introduction, which I think repeat the same information in simpler language (and eliminates the threats of legal action, which haven't materialized). It was simpler to make the changes than discuss it first in Talk, so if there is a consensus to change it back, go ahead. --Nbauman (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The threats of legal action are reliably sourced. An opinion that "the threat haven't materialized" is unsourced and is only opinion. It should remain in. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What I have seen reading in the reliable sources is speculation, including speculation from lawyers, that there is grounds for filing a lawsuit, and speculation that someone will file one. But, on the other hand, no lawsuits have been filed yet, so it’s not appropriate to put this speculation in the lead. If a lawsuit does get filed, it belongs in the lead, but not until then. I also think the wording of the lead should make it clear that the gang rape of this woman by seven men is almost certainly a fabrication (to what extent, no one but “Jackie” and her rapist, if there really was a rape, knows). Samboy (talk) 12:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

List of sources that point to a hoax

Washington Post story with more evidence that the story was fabricated. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• I read it. Where is the "evidence that the story was fabricated"? - Alison ^❤ 02:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't read it that way either. According to the article, the consensus among her friends and acquaintances seems to be that something happened on the night in question, though clearly the inconsistencies are glaring. I thought the most stunning thing about this story is that apparently no one at Rolling Stone actually interviewed the friends who were there that night.--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No blood or injuries even though she said she was laying on broken glass and punched by one of the "frat boys", a false name for her date, the impersonated photo she texted her friends, etc. Whatever happened to her that night, the account printed in Rolling Stone did not happen, and therefore is a fabrication. False rape allegations and hoaxes, as we can see, are very damaging to people and instutitions, which I think is likely to be the legacy of this incident. Cla68 (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI, the claim that it appears to be "fabricated" is analytical and not in the article itself and I don't think we should be applying our personal analysis to stories. That said, Slate does reach the same conclusion. Without quoting the WaPo story directly, I added the following sourced to Slate: On December 10, 2014, the Washington Post published an updated account of its inquiry into the Rolling Stone article. Summarizing that report, Slate noted that it "strongly implies, without outright saying so, that the gang rape at the center of Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s article might be fabricated." BlueSalix (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Just to editorialize a little here, I'm finding it unsettling that some people, instead of expressing relief that the incident apparently didn't happen, appear to be hopeful that it turns out that it did happen. You know, if you're hoping against hope that gang rape of a young girl actually happened, then you might be just a little bit too dedicated to an extremist social justice philosophy. Cla68 (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's try sticking to the facts, please, Cla68, rather than making insinuations that editors here are "Social Justice Warriors". We're not in the business of analyzing the story and coming up with our own conclusions, regardless of one's personal POV - Alison ^❤ 21:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• OK, from the Post and Slate articles this is what we have on "J", the accuser:
  • She was obsessed with some guy named Randall
  • She faked competition with Randall, including impersonated texts, emails, and photos, which fail to work
  • She fabricates a dramatic event to draw attention to herself
  • Her friends see through it and don't play along. She becomes really depressed, withdraws, and stops going to classes
  • Later elaborates on the story and changes some details, but declines to go to the police or anyone else in authority
  • Elaborates further on the story to a sympathetic "journalist", but asks her not to fact-check it or publish it
  • When the lie is exposed, she withdraws
• I think I know what actually happened here, but we just need to wait until an RS states it. The litigation over this episode is likely to go on for years, and involve some large sums of cash, so the full story should come out eventually. Speaking for myself, I'm sorry that this is causing so much trouble for so many people, but I'm relieved to hear that a young woman was not actually gang raped. Cla68 (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• CBS News article provides evidence that the details of the accuser's story changed over time. Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• ABC News article with similar content. Cla68 (talk) 02:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we'll probably be updating this article for at least the next year if not longer! Also, please see my message below. BlueSalix (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Another source Cla68 (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
• Washington Times article with new information that "J" used three spoofed cell numbers to try to fool her friends about her imaginary boyfriend. Cla68 (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
• CNN with some additional evidence that the story was fabricated. Cla68 (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• Daily Caller points out that one of the accuser's faked missives appears to be plagerized from a Dawson's Creek episode. The Daily Caller, however, is not necessarily a reliable source. Cla68 (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Unpunished vandalism and RS independent review

Apparently, the activists who vandalized the fraternity house after the article was published have yet be charged by police. Also, Rolling Stone has commissioned an independent review of the hoax article. Cla68 (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Rape culture hoax

We now have at least two sources using this incident to describe the recent claims of rape culture on college campuses as a fabricated crisis:

• The Economist
• USA Today

Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This article isn't to be used as a source to debate/argue whether a culture of rape exists or doesn't. The article is about this specific incident and would be inappropriate to try to use it as a coatrack to a larger and more complex issue. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's fine to do that as long as the sources specifically tie the two together, as these two sources are doing. Cla68 (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Another source. Cla68 (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

“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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The sources are openly speculating that this story is, or may be a hoax:

• Is the UVA Rape Story a Gigantic Hoax?
• Others, including Jonah Goldberg, a Los Angeles Times columnist, compared the case to rape accusations in 2006 against three lacrosse players at Duke University who were subsequently cleared and speculated that the Virginia story might be a hoax.
• This morning Reason's Robby Soave went further, asking whether the entire story is a “gigantic 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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 [4]
• Daily Mail [5]

Retraction:

• Washington Times [6]
• IB Times [7]
• Yahoo News [8]

― Padenton |☎  02:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

I agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This seems like an obvious joke. ― Padenton |☎  22:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but in any case trigger warnings are not allowed Dingsuntil (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

BIG FUCKUP: Ref collision

Article has

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why I deleted the auto-archiver

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

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

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

Jackie's friend's names not needed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE goes on to state:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just so watchers are aware: [9] ― Padenton|✉   21:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Also being reported in Jezebel: [10] and CNN: [11]. 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Emily Renda

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why name the fact checker?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

implied contact

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

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

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

Problems!

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

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

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

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

move part of retraction lede bit to new section

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

UVa | UVA

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

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

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

more lede talks

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

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

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

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

At one point I had crafted the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jackie is first name - not a psuedonym

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False accusation of rape in See Also

@Dingsuntil:

This diff here: [13]. I'm not sure I agree. At this point, there is no evidence that anything claimed remotely happened, or even that the accused even exists. ― Padenton|✉   14:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jackie

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

I disagree with both of the above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There would NEVER be a second thought about releasing names in case of any kind of comparable situation with a man. Neither would the same people be making excuses here for him and trying to protect him. Poor girl for causing such defamation of innocent people. If she had had her way, the truth would never have come out, and the lives of everyone involved in this story would be completely ruined. But we must protect the poor girl. Because she is a woman. This is so utterly ridiculous. Andelum (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This sort of statement is unlikely to persuade anyone. Feel free to argue for naming her, but do so constructively. Dingsuntil (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Beware of WP:Sockpuppeting going on at this article

WP:Hatted discussion because of continued WP:Disruption by a WP:Sockpuppet

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive. If you see any editing like that, you are dealing with a Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet. I'm certain that this editor will not quit WP:Sockpuppeting. You can contact Mike V and other WP:CheckUsers if you suspect WP:Sockpuppetry. Or you can, of course, start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation. For anyone it will help, on my user page, I list ways of identifying WP:Sockpuppets. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Flyer22, you might want to explain to us why we should care if someone is "sockpuppeting" or not. Since WP has never been able to get a handle on the issue of people using alternate accounts, then why should we spend any time worrying about WP's admins chasing windmills? Cla68 (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Because the WP:Sockpuppetry and the WP:Meatpuppetry that you suggested with this edit is highly problematic and it can be successfully combated. I could point to cases, including articles, where it has been successfully combated, but that would be getting off-topic. The point is that Cali11298 has proven WP:Disruptive at this article and elsewhere, used WP:Sockpuppets to aid in that, and it is unlikely that he is to stop. Editors of this article should be aware of that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC) I can think of at least three wiki-cabals off the top of my head that are very likely using off-wiki collusion to control several topics in Wikipedia. The only ones who get blocked for doing it are the hapless newbies who make the mistake of not observing how things work here for awhile before leaping into the fray. So, while Wikipedia's admins are chasing those lone rangers around and wasting a lot of time doing so, the insiders continue to operate under the radar because they know how to do it without getting caught. Cla68 (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC) I'm sure that you can name "three wiki-cabals off the top of [your] head that are very likely using off-wiki collusion to control several topics in Wikipedia." The A Rape on Campus article certainly has enough dirt to qualify. But I can point to cases (significantly more than three) that show that the WP:Sockpuppets and their WP:Meatpuppets are not as smart as they think they are. If I were to brag, I'd state that I've done well keeping such editors at bay when it comes to the Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation matter, on Wikipedia and via email. It's similar to how the most covert of pedophiles thought they had the pedophile topics under control until, well, they didn't. Of course, the creation of the WP:Child protection policy helped, and continues to help, a lot in that regard. But since we clearly will not be revealing our secrets on these matters, I suggest that we end this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Looking at your recent history, Flyer22, you really seem obsessed with this Cali11298 guy. Bro, I don't know if Cali once kicked your puppy or what, but this obsession has got to stop, or, as Bbb23 warned you on your talk page, you might end up doing something you'll regret and you'll get blocked. You need to learn you can't always have your way here.I hate Wiki-Vandals as much as the next guy; however, that doesn't give me the righ to stalk them or even potentially overzealously accuse innocent parties of wrongdoing. Flyer, I have a feeling this obsession is pathological. I don't mean that in an offensive way. You need psychological counseling before your behavior gets worse; and, it is predictable that it will get worse without some intervention. Owlman2015 (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC) User confirmed as sockpuppet. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Owlman2015 (talk · contribs), you are completely transparent, just like this other recent matter. Showing up here with a new account and trying to antagonize me won't work. In fact, it's silly, as is your summary above. The only one who will end up blocked out of the two of us here is you. And that is my final reply to you in this section. If you end up blocked, which you likely will (and certainly have been before under different accounts), just know that I was likely responsible for it. Feel free to report this post of mine at WP:ANI. You know, since that "works so well" for people when it comes to me. Flyer22 (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

discredited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or even better:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is unnecessary. We've just said it was retracted. We go on to summarize the discrediting of the accusation. It makes the sentence more awkward and more POV-sounding. "The article claimed" already implies the claim is not necessarily true. It's better to avoid saying controversial things in wikipedia's voice, (yeah, it shouldn't be controversial; whadda ya gonna do?) particularly when the same effect can be accomplished by summarizing the evidence of reliable sources, because summarizing RS's is what we do, not determining the truth. There's also an argument that saying "falsely claimed" rather than "claimed" requires that we qualify much more precisely what specifically was claimed by rolling stone (I can't remember if "Jackie was raped by PKPs guys" was stated in rolling stone's voice, for example, or just attributed to jackie), which I don't care to flesh out now, but seems obvious enough to me. I am reverting. Dingsuntil (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The word "discredited" should remain in the opening sentence, just not in the first clause. Better placement would be in the second clause, as in: "which has been discredited by critics and retracted by the publisher." This is necessary to explain the reason for the retraction. Eclipsoid (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need to explain the reason for retraction in the first sentence? There's an entire article to do that. When last I left it, we started explaining the reasons in sentence 3. Dingsuntil (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed ot to "falsely alleged". If consensus disagrees then we have to add "discredited" to the first sentence. Its rreally up to the consesnus at this point. Do we add discredited to tje first sentence or use "falsely allegedd/claimed" in the second? Cavalierman (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Just so everyone is aware, I still feel the best and most neutral POV is to say: "A Rape on Campus is an article by Sabrina Erdely, that was published in Rolling Stone and subsequently retracted after being proven false by outside investigations". IMO This is a solid lede that doesnt sound controversial and accurately sums up the non-event. Cavalierman (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

First, familiarize yourself with the use of ":" for indentation in replies here. It seems like you just stick them in at random. Just indent one level more than whoever you're replying to. Second, your lede is too long, it should be concise. Third, I believe you're editing this article in part because you are an anti-rolling stone partisan, and you want your side's case out there. As it happens, I am too, and as I've pointed out before, I don't think you're accomplishing this. In this case, you don't have to push your POV, and it is in fact counter-productive. All you have to do is make sure readers are familiar with the facts. They so clearly support the anti-rolling stone side that editorializing is unnecessary. In fact, more than unnecessary, dangerous. Some readers will start reading a lede with too much editorializing and think "Oh lord, the gamergate trolls have been at this article, it can't be trusted. I wonder what Jezebel says?" A neutral article with facts that point one way not the other will persuade better than an editorial, which only persuades people who already agree. Now, wikipedia does not exist to persuade people of the truth, it exists to neutrally summarize reliable sources, but wait! That's the best move for the propagandist here too! So please, if you're an actual anti-rolling stone partisan, rather than somebody who's pretending to be one in order to cover his attempts to make the article less persuasive, help me make it conform to wikipedia standards. Your page used to say you were a UFC fan. If you've ever done any BJJ, you know you have to be gentle to get power. It's the same on wikipedia, except you don't get ringworm. Dingsuntil (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You are a very persuasive and good writer. My ONLY beef with the lead is that it does not make clear that not only was the article retracted but ALSO the story behind it is a lie. I just dont see how the lede communicates tHat. Anyway Ive got my own issues right now. Flyer22 wont get off my case so now we are going to the court. So I wont change what you have but think about what I said. Im not trying to libel some troubled girl but she did indeed lie. She was never even at the house. So id like the lead to reflect that. In my opinion its important. Cavalierman (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If a story is retracted, it is deemed to be no longer asserted as true. So it's not necessary to stress that the story was a lie from the outset (although this may be included later) because rolling stone has unequivocally asserted that, whether jackie was lying or confused or incredibly stupid, the withdraw their claims. Anyway, pointing out jackie lied is nowhere near as important as "The frat boys were innocent," which for my money is strongly implied by the retraction. I agree that she lied, but it's better to summarize all the reliable sources who said she lied and for what reasons they concluded that, and that's complicated and therefore belongs in later sections. Dingsuntil (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding "debunked" to lede

Initially the lede only stated "retracted" but I have added "debunked" as well. If you look at current reliable sources, the majority are very clear that this was not a mere "retraction". The events in the article never happened. Jackie was never harmed, threatened or assaulted in any way. Here is just one example:http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/uva-dean-sues-rolling-stone-debunked-gang-rape-30991135

The story has grown into much more tham a retraction, and is now more focusing on the potential criminal charges facing Jackie Cavalierman (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. Remember, Jackie's last name hasn't been published in any reliable sources so we shouldn't currently be using her last name on this talk page or in the article. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok I switched it to Jackie and also here is another source making clear that the article was not retracted,but that the events withim the article were entirely fabrciated. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/independent-report-rolling-stones-debunked-uva-rape-story-be-released-n336071 Cavalierman (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Naming the accused

According to PeterTheFourth, there is some latitude in naming the accused in a situation such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mattress_Performance_(Carry_That_Weight)&diff=prev&oldid=666169861

As mainstream media sources are now identifying the accused in this story, is it permissible to do so on WP? I realize there is a presumption of innocence, but considering this is a rape case, I think it makes sense to err on the side of caution Cavalierman (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It's irrelevant now that the story has been retracted as being a lie. I'm not sure the accused is a real person. The accuser just blamed a random fraternity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.49.68.183 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes she is real and multiple sources have reported her full name. Whether they are reliable remains to be seen. Additionally, it's not my intention to ruin this girl's life, but she has been accused (although not yet indicted) of a serious felony crime. The VA court system is not going to be friendly to her either; most judges who attended UVa also pledged fraternities. It is almost a prerequisite for positions of prestige in many fields. Bottom line, I am against naming her until a truly reliable source does so as well. Cavalierman (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on talk page before changing article

PLEASE, have the courtesy to discuss your changes before switching the article. Talk about them first here. Cavalierman (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your WP:BOLD edits.

• I see no need to use the big tag for the retracted part. Is that done on other retracted articles?
• We can't say "falsely" or "fabricated" in Wikipedia's voice.
• Is the broken glass detail notable or mentioned by other reliable sources?
• Use of terms like "shamed and defeated" is inappropriate. It's editorialization.
• The section "Key discrepancies in Accusers Story" does not need big around it and is entirely unsourced.
• The section on Phi Psi is completely unnecessary and POV.

EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I just saw this, sorry for reverting. You may revert back. MY apologies. Cavalierman (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I undid my changes and will try to reword them without using specific names. Cavalierman (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, these two really confuse me:

*We can't say "falsely" or "fabricated" in Wikipedia's voice.

Why not? The author falsely alleged that a rape occured.

*Is the broken glass detail notable or mentioned by other reliable sources?

There is NO RECORD of any glass tables being broken on the night the rape occurred. Additionally there is no receipts/records of any glass repair, nor did any hospital report any injuries of a glass cutting that evening.

Cavalierman (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

We can't say falsely because it's not been settled in court. We can only say that other sources say it was false (if that makes sense). As for the glass, do other sources talk about it? If so, we can. But we cannot conduct our own analyses in the article.

The main thing is that we must report on what reliable sources say about the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There was something in the WaPo about 3 hours rape on broken glass/no cuts (if I recall properly) but we'd have to find and have that ref to use it. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Of the proposed changes, I endorse adding the word "falsely" since the fraternity in question has been exonerated. I'm fairly certain that the sources stated that "Jackie" alleged that she was raped on broken glass even though she had no visible injuries. The rest of the proposed changes appeared to cross the line into editorializing in WP's voice. Cla68 (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

user:EvergreenFir As I have civilly asked before, would it be possible to at least discuss changes before making them? It is your prerogative to not do so, but I would certainly rather work together than waste time switching each others edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavalierman (talk • contribs)

Did you discuss adding that content to the lead before you made them? The content you added was not in the article (and thus does not belong in the WP:LEAD) and was unsourced despite containing a quotation. Capitalismojo was kind enough to add it to the body of the article though.

You don't seem to understand how WP:BOLD works, or perhaps editing in general. You cannot demand editors discuss your additions before removing them (especially when those additions have serious problems, and even morevso when you yourself don't start a discussion first). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't "demanding" anything, I was just asking for some common courtesy. Adding information to an article is different than completely deleting content edits made in good faith five minutes after they were done. I have no desire to get into an edit war. But this is the second time I have added information to the article and literally before I was done you came in and reverted. Rather than deleting, if you see something that was done incorrectly, why not teach a fellow editor how they might better improve the article? We are on the same team here - simply trying to improve an article on wikipedia. Cavalierman (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

One of the most insidious features of trying to improve a Wikipedia article is the fact that some editors think it's ok to revert another's contribution instead of discussing it first. If it doesn't violate BLP, then dicsuss it first or amend the edit instead of cold reverting it people, please. Cla68 (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That's because it is ok to revert another's contribution instead of discussing it first. Just so you know. Eclipsoid (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of attitude that helps make editing Wikipedia suck so much and one of the reasons that WP is shedding editors like insects off of a dog in a flea bath. Cla68 (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Debunked and retracted" or "retracted"?

• Debunked and retracted: It was investigated by a number of organizations who found the claims incredible. It would be misleading to claim the article was simply "retracted." I'm not seeing the BLP issue. D.Creish (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• @D.Creish: According to this article, Rolling Stone retracted a line from the original statement they had put out that implied Jackie had intentionally misled them: "Our trust in [Jackie] was misplaced." The Rolling Stone has been criticized by multiple sources for that line. A few days later (after all relevant journalists had already read the statement and written their first reactions, Rolling Stone quietly retracted that line. It's still not in the statement on their website as of today.

A NYT article quoted the police chief as saying they were "not able to conclude to any substantive degree that an incident occurred..." And he also said they were "suspending, but not closing, the investigation, and he left open the possibility that some kind of assault might have occurred, saying additional information could still come to light."

Note: He did not say that Jackie fabricated the story or that it wasn't true. In fact, they left the case open and only suspended the investigation. Jackie's full name and other personal information were posted online without her permission at some point during all of this, so WP:BLP definitely applies.

WP:BLP says:

When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems - even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back...Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

It's not in good faith with WP:BLP to continue using terms like "hoax," "debunked" and "fabricated" since they're either based on a criticized and retracted statement by the Rolling Stone and/or reporter bias. The police chief is the expert in terms of the veracity of Jackie's story and, according to numerous reliable tertiary sources (including the ones linked above), all he said was that 2 years after-the-fact they weren't able to find enough evidence for a conviction. They didn't close the case and they're open to the possibility that more evidence could arise. When in doubt, pare back. Permstrump (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Several of the claims have been shown to be counter-factual, the majority of reliable sources dismiss the account and the article does not identify "Jackie" by name. I'd like to wait for more input meanwhile your post on Talk:Feminism is inappropriate notification (see WP:CANVASS.) I suggest removing it. D.Creish (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is covered under WP:Feminism and I didn't share my opinion, just asked people to weigh in. So I think that's a perfectly appropriate notification. There are infinite sources that talk about how victims of trauma frequently frequently give inconsistent reports. And sources show that witnesses and victims alike are poor historians and often remember things differently from how they actually happened. Reporters aren't reliable sources on the credibility of her claim. They're just an opinion. The police chief is the expert. Permstrump (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@D.Creish: FYI I thought I had commented in WP:Feminism, so I did move the notification as it didn't make sense on the feminism article. There are also plenty of sources that criticize the sources calling it a hoax. Plus like I said in my longer comment above and cited my source, the journalists who said "debunked" and "hoax" did so before Rolling Stone amended their statement, so that language was a reaction to a line in an article that has since been silently retracted without the typical acknowledgement at the beginning of the article. Anyone still using that kind of loaded terminology based it on the original statement, other news reports based on the original statement or is giving their opinion. Per WP:BLP we should give the living person the benefit of the doubt while we're waiting for consensus. Permstrump (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The statement is about the article as a whole though, not about specific claims made in the article. It's important to convey the fact that Rolling Stones didn't merely retract the article of its own accord due to some follow up investigations it did, but that outside reporters exposed the article's weaknesses and forced them to retract the article in view of the overwhelming evidence (they first defended their article and investigation). So 'debunked' or something similar like 'discredited' must be included before mention is made of the retraction. Cenarium (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cenarium: I agree that it's important to make it clear that Rolling Stone's journalistic integrity in this situation was discredited. BLP says if something might be controversial or there's contradictory evidence, to "refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information." Therefore I think the wording needs be more deliberate so it's clear what exactly was discredited. As it stands, some areas of the article are vague, others seem to specifically imply that Jackie was lying. I'll think about it and reply again with some alternatives. Permstrump (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the notification. As Cenarium points out, the claims of "debunked" are based on outside investigation reported in a number of sources, rather than interpretations of Rolling Stone's official statement. D.Creish (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Short of rewording the whole sentence, discredited sounds more neutral than debunked. Now that I've read most of the rest of the article, there are much bigger problems with it, so I got distracted.

FYI for now I'm deleting a few things that weren't found in the sources cited. I'll wait a little bit for anyone else who cares to respond before changing to the word debunk to discredited. This article is ridiculously long, redundant and biased. Permstrump (talk) 04:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

"Discredited" seems fine. The article as it stands is NPOV-compliant and well-sourced. If you see it as "biased" I suggest you propose your edits there before changing the article. I reverted your last edit as the missing source was readily available. D.Creish (talk) 06:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

There are RS refs for "debunked" [14]. It seems seems fine. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Discredited sounds more neutral and less ambiguous. Permstrump (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies upon Reliable Source. This is both RS and decidedly unambigous. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is about the story "A Rape on Campus". That story was about a gang rape (since debunked) and the aftermath. The infobox now contains information that is now both inaccurate and unref'd. It states that the subject of the article is: "Irresponsible journalism reporting on an alleged gang rape at a fraternity at the University of Virginia". That is most definitely not the "subject" of the Rolling Stone article. That is counter-factual or confusing at best. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The gang rape was NOT debunked. The article was discredited b/c the journalist and editor didn't do their due diligence. The criminal investigation was suspended. It was not closed or labeled "unfounded." See more explanation in the conversation above. Permstrump (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for that theory we have multiple reliable sources saying "debunked". Opinions to the contrary, we follow Reliable Source here at Wikipedia. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this above, but I'll explain it again. The article you linked was written BEFORE Rolling Stone silently retracted a line from their original apology statement that implied Jackie intentionally misled them. RS received a lot of criticism for this and a few days later, they removed that part of their apology without comment (see above for more explanation). Your source is dated the same day as RS's initial apology before they updated their statement. There are plenty of very reliable sources that talk about why it's inappropriate to imply that Jackie lied since that is deliberately not what the police department said. WP:BLP says:

When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems - even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back...Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

BLP applies to this article because Jackie's full name and other personal information were posted online without her permission at some point during all of this. It's not in good faith with WP:BLP to continue using terms like "hoax," "debunked" and "fabricated" since they're either based on a criticized and retracted statement by the Rolling Stone and/or a journalist's controversial opinion that has been refuted by other reliable sources. As far as the personal information of a living person in this article, journalists are only reliable sources as far as reporting what the police chief said. The police chief did not ever say Jackie lied and he specifically said he's open to the possibility of discovering evidence with new information. Beyond reporting what he said, the opinions of individual journalist's or their decision to use loaded words are controversial and violate WP:BLP. Permstrump (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• The current wording in the infobox is fine though. That's what I was about to suggest. Permstrump (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Latest explanation for false story

Here's the latest story by T. Rees Shapiro, based on court testimony in the libel suit, which offers a plausible explanation of why Jackie made up the rape story. In some accounts, there was a point at which Jackie wanted to back out of the story, but Erdly insisted on going forward with it. However, other accounts differed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/01/08/catfishing-over-love-interest-might-have-spurred-u-va-gang-rape-debacle/
‘Catfishing’ over love interest might have spurred U-Va. gang-rape debacle
By T. Rees Shapiro

January 8, 2016

Ryan Duffin was a freshman at the University of Virginia when he met a student named Jackie. Duffin sensed that Jackie was interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with him. Duffin valued her friendship but politely rebuffed Jackie’s advances for more.
Duffin said, he was goaded into a text message conversation with a U-Va. junior named “Haven Monahan,” whom Jackie said she knew from a chemistry class. (Jackie later told Duffin that Monahan raped her, but Monahan was a fabrication.)
“All available evidence demonstrates that ‘Haven Monahan’ was a fake suitor created by Jackie in a strange bid to earn the affections of a student named Ryan Duffin that Jackie was romantically interested in,” Eramo’s lawyers wrote in court papers filed this week.
(Duffin interviewed by Washington Post.) --Nbauman (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to add the information to the article. By the way, in a later article the Washington Post explained why they haven't published Jackie's full name, it's because when they first contacted her for an interview they promised her they wouldn't use her full name, a decision I suspect they now regret. 98.169.136.119 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: I guess we are now "outing" potential rape victims. Congratulations - you all should be very proud of yourselves for identifying a rape survivor with her first AND last name on a wikipedia page. I guess this is new policy??? 2605:E000:2150:7400:C85C:B76A:517E:EE9E (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not there anymore (for now). Rhododendrites reverted the changes a little bit ago because it was unsourced. I can't find a single reliable source reporting her name. This WaPo article from 1/16/16 about the defamation lawsuit says, "Jackie is not a party to the lawsuit, and the court has redacted her last name from documents," so the website claiming they got the information from court documents are clearly lying. Permstrump (talk) 01:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Who's outing a "potential rape victim"? The police have officially announced that they found no evidence that a rape was committed. The reason we're not putting her name in the article is because no reliable sources have published it. Cla68 (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

that is baloney. her real name Jacqueline "Jackie" and is a simple google search to find. and she is a party to the lawsuit. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/%e2%80%98rolling-stone-magazine%e2%80%99s-jackie-to-appear-in-court/ar-BBpK9YP?li=BBnb7Kz

Daily Caller is not a reliable source. FYI I removed Jackie's full name from the previous comment from an unsigned IP editor because WP:BLP applies to talk pages too. Permstrump (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I added the new information since January 2016 to the article. Once Jackie is deposed, it could very well be that then her name will be on public record and we can add it to this article. Cla68 (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits in progress

FYI I removed some lines from the lead and first section because they were tangential and would be more relevant in other sections. I'm in the process of looking for better places to move them (unless it would be too redundant, in which case I'll make an update to this comment). These are the lines:

• Reporters from Rolling Stone also contacted sources from the initial story as part of an attempt to piece together what went wrong.

• The Columbia Journalism Review included the story in the annual feature story, "The Worst Journalism of 2014", where it was described as winning "this year's media-fail sweepstakes".

• ...described the school administration's response to the incident as insufficient...

• (She did not conduct interviews with several of Jackie's friends, to whom she assigned the pseudonyms "Andy", "Cindy" and "Randall", until after the article was published in Rolling Stone. These interviews were not conducted by Rolling Stone staff).

• The Columbia Journalism Review report stated that "At Rolling Stone, every story is assigned to a fact-checker." Assistant editor Elisabeth Garber-Paul provided fact-checking. The fact-checker concluded that Ryan – "Randall" under pseudonym – had not been interviewed and that in "one of the story's many unfathomable deceits", as the Washington Post put it, the article suggested that he had been interviewed. The Columbia report cited the fact-checker: "I pushed. ... They came to the conclusion that they were comfortable" with not making it clear to readers that the staff had never contacted Ryan.

These next few lines, I removed completely because they were extraneous, WP:SYNTH (in context), and redundant+tangential (respectively).

• Dean Steve Coll agreed to review the processes with Sheila Coronel, dean of academic affairs.

• Since 2013, when Annie E. Clark and Andrea Pino filed claims against the University of North Carolina with the US Department of Education under Title IX, there has been increased national coverage of the issue of sexual assaults at college and university campuses and the frequent failure of college administrations to support the victims and investigate these adequately.

• As reported by Erdely, the story was based on her interviews with the alleged victim, whom she identified only by her first name, Jackie. (She did not conduct interviews with several of Jackie's friends, to whom she assigned the pseudonyms "Andy", "Cindy" and "Randall", until after the article was published in Rolling Stone. These interviews were not conducted by Rolling Stone staff).

PermStrump(talk) 23:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

References

The month that this was published is incorrect.

Rolling Stone Issue 1223 Dec 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.173.176 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Magazine issue this story came out is incorrect

This is the issue in where this story was original printed. Rolling Stone Issue 1223 Dec 2014FABrauer (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Publishing timeline and method minutia.

The WP article says this the article was published in Nov, 2014, but according to this Washington Post article the story was published online. Did/when the story hit the print edition? If so, which volume?That man from Nantucket (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The redacted version on RS's website says "Last November, we published a story, 'A Rape on Campus' [RS 1223]", so I looked up Rolling Stone issue 1223 and it's dated Dec 4, 2014, and it did have "A Rape on Campus" in it. On Dec 5, RS published their non-apology. I think it's just a coincidence that it was day after the print version had come out, because things had already been brewing before Dec 4. I can't imagine that many people actually read the print version. —PermStrump(talk) 04:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Libel issues

Good story on the 3 libel suits, their merits, and the possible defenses Rolling Stone could have, in Columbia Journalism Review.
http://www.cjr.org/analysis/rolling_stone_uva_rape_report_lawsuit.php
Is Rolling Stone about to get throttled in court over UVA rape report?
By Bill Wyman
July 28, 2016
--Nbauman (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A Rape on Campus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141205210913/http://gawker.com/rolling-stone-never-interviewed-uva-frat-bros-accused-o-1666103599 to http://gawker.com/rolling-stone-never-interviewed-uva-frat-bros-accused-o-1666103599
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2016/09/lawsuits-against-rolling-stone-move-forward-despite-objection

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Photo.

In the Local reaction section there is a photo. Underneath the photo it states "Students at the University of Virginia expressed "bewilderment and anger" following Rolling Stone's apology for its story". However, the photo is of students just sitting in the pavilion. They are not expressing Bewilderment or anger. The photo was uploaded in commons with this description "Pavilion VIII (and the rear of Pavilion X at the right edge of the picture) at the Lawn of the University of Virginia.". I think the photo isn't being used correctly in this article, it's like someone just used a regular photo of people sitting, and wrote that they are bewildered and angry. It's wrong and looks silly. 2601:483:100:CB54:1D0C:5550:D655:9DBB (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. It's nice to have images to break up long walls of text, but they should be more clearly related to the topic than that. If it is restored, the caption should be rewritten, otherwise it's a non sequitur. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Jackie (revised)

What is the purpose of still referring to the "victim" in this story with "Jackie"? She is not a victim in this story. Name her by her full name like everybody else on Wikipedia. Andelum (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No, not everybody on Wikipedia is described by their full name. The only way that would even be considered is if multiple truly reliable sources unambiguously mentioned her name, which as far as I know, hasn't happened, and is unlikely to happen, as outing her would severely undermine the reliability of a source and be a breach of journalistic ethics. Even if that were to happen, there is no precedent for always including the names of people who obviously would rather remain private. Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP (specifically but not limited to WP:BLPNAME) are clear that people should be given the presumption of privacy, especially involving court cases. This is another example this. Grayfell (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No. It appears that the accuser's last name has not yet been confirmed by a reliable source. (The Daily Caller, GotNews, The College Fix, and similar websites are not reliable sources.) As determined by the previous discussion on this issue, the actions attributed to "Jackie" are potentially criminal, and so we must be especially careful to have credible sourcing before putting a full name to her; naming the wrong person as "Jackie" would be libelous. Rebbing 14:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Salon is a pretty mainstream publication which names her specifically, "The Rolling Stone story, which was eventually retracted in April 2015, centered on student Jackie (Redacted) and her falsified story of being gang raped by Phi Kappa Psi fraternity members." [15]. BLP requires us to take take extra care and provide citations. It doesn't require those citations to be multiple sources provided there's no dispute. BLP doesn't require us to censor names when we know them factually. Furthermore, the court documents, which are readily available, name her as well. The past discussion you cite was in 2014, and well before the police investigation, retraction by Rolling Stone, the Columbia Journalism report, and the findings of the recent libel lawsuit. The wikipedia article itself now mentions all of these facts. Likewise, the argument that somehow journalists won't fully name her has been shown inaccurate.Mattnad (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the Salon piece. You are correct that there have been developments since 2014, but I'm not persuaded. For one, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we cannot use court records in this context. Another: the other events don't have any bearing on this issue: the concern isn't the accuser's guilt but the veracity of the name. Despite the size of this story, we only have a single citable source—a short online news update, not a solid piece. In my view, this is not enough. Alison, any thoughts on this issue? Rebbing 14:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Where in BLP does it specify the length of the article as a requirement for a reliable source? I've seen many arguments against inclusion, and none seem to apply here. What's really going on?Mattnad (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't, but length and quality speak to the reliability of individual pieces. Cf. WP:BLPSOURCES. I think it's fairly obvious that the article you've linked is a blurb, not serious journalism, and, for the proposed claim, that simply will not do. This subject has received widespread, regular media attention, and, if the accuser's name is as you say and reliably so, better sources will surely appear in plenty.

Hmm... What's really going on? Between your editing history and your brazen and now-suppressed disregard for BLP above, it appears that what's really going on is that you're trying to advance a "men's rights" agenda and wish to portray those who stand in your way as acting on ulterior motives. I suggest you leave insinuations out of this discussion and wait for other editors to weigh in on the merits. Rebbing 23:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I tend a bit more versus fully support Rebbing's arguments and would go for waiting until at least one other high-profile media uses the full name. It doesn't make a big difference if Wikipedia displays it now or later as the name is already long out there easy to google, but only in bad sources. What would you both think about a halfway solution to include the new Salon source, but not yet the last name in our text? --SI 00:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC) updatd --SI 09:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I am opposed to including the source at this point, especially as a wink-and-nod around BLP. BLPSEEALSO, while not squarely addressing the question, instructs that we should, "[i]n general, [] not link to websites that contradict the spirit of [the biographies of living persons] policy." Rebbing 02:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing in your BLP link on sources that's relevant to what Salon wrote, but if there is, quote it. There's no men's rights agenda that I see here and your attempt at personal attack is noted. Does Salon, a left wing progressive publication (according to wikipedia) also have a men's rights agenda? What's your agenda?Mattnad (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

"[C]ontentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." WP:BLPSOURCES. The Salon piece is unreliable, hence, using it to provide "Jackie"'s last name would count as a poorly-sourced contentious claim about a living person. For the proposition that a piece from an otherwise-reliable publication may be unreliable, see RSCONTEXT.

My "personal attack" is merely a rebuttal to your cheap and unprompted insinuation of conspiracy. A quick glance through your recent edits shows a clear focus on gender controversy-related articles, where you frequently add facts favorable to a "men's rights" viewpoint or remove content adverse to that. Salon may be a left-leaning publication, but cherry-picking facts from it can serve otherwise. My agenda is upholding Wikipedia's neutrality; I have no political agenda. Rebbing 02:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You're right, we absolutely should include neither the name nor any sources displaying it. Except for the isolated Salon source all other sources who publicize it are of less or much more misogynic tendency.[16] --SI 09:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

(e/c)So your primary argument is that the Salon article is poorly sourced. And that it's cherry picking. Sounds like a question for the reliable sources noticeboard. I found a source that overcomes your original objection (must be mainstream). Now you've shifted the goal posts. Let's see what the RS Noticeboard says. I'll provide a link. Mattnad (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's the link to RSN [17]

BLPSOURCES requires that we dont use primary sources for assertations about living people. Where primary sources have been discussed/used by secondary sources, they may be used as supplementary to the reliable secondary source. Unless someone has a genuine argument that Salon is not reliable in some way, or the information they are relying on is also unreliable, it is not a BLP issue. I dont personally think her full name needs to be in the article given the vast amount of sources refer to her just as 'Jackie', but it is not against WP:V or WP:BLP to include it if it is sourced appropriately. (We dont use primary sources such as court transcripts for a number of reasons, not necessarily linked to the reliability/factuality of the information they provide, a primary source such as a court case transcript can be reliable for information such as who is actually participating in the court case - unless there is some doubt they are not the right person) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Insofar as we have a WP:RS (Salon) naming the hoaxer as Jackie (Redacted), I don't understand why the article continues to censor this out. XavierItzm (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

WaPo and NYT aren't going to name her because that was their deal to get her to talk to them before people were admitting that it was a hoax, not just "victim blaming". Other sources, such at the Salon one above, have named her. I think this should be enough to allow us to give the full name in the article. We aren't protecting a victim here, and it's easy to find her name by googling it. Natureium (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for there being an agreement not to name "Jackie"? Rebbing 06:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I found this with some quick googling. "The Washington Post, which broke many of the details that led to the unraveling of Jackie’s story, hasn’t named Jackie for a particular reason: The newspaper made an agreement with Jackie not to do so. In exchange for discussing her story with Post reporters, The Post agreed in late 2014 not to report her full name. “We told her we wouldn’t name her, in large part because we thought she was a ­sex-assault victim at that time and we don’t name victims of sexual assault without their permission,” said Mike Semel, The Post’s Metro editor."[18] Natureium (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my view that the Salon bit is not reliable, especially in this context. I said in the now-complete RS/N thread that:

I have grave doubts about the research and editorial control that went into [the Salon article]]. It seems plausible to me that the author may simply have included "Jackie's" full name after Googling for background; it may not reflect her own investigation or deliberation. Moreover, since the Salon piece appears to be the first serious media source disclosing the name, I would expect some mention made of that in the article (e.g., "'Jackie,' whose full name we now know is Jackie [Name], . . . ."). Given the significant and continued attention this case has received, we should be seeing other publications using "Jackie's" full name if it can be reliably sourced, but we aren't.

As WP:RSCONTEXT puts it:

Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable . . . .

Rebbing 06:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As User:Only in death responded to you in the now-complete RS/N thread:

«Your personal theories regarding Salon's hypothetical editorial practice are irrelevant»

I am afraid you are making up stuff to protect the identity of a known hoaxer. XavierItzm (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

If the RS thread is complete, you might as well add her name. I don't see any good argument for Salon not being a RS. Natureium (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

While I believe that Salon is a reliable enough source for her name, policy WP:BLPNAME would suggest we not use the full name since it is not widely used. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The RS/N thread did not clearly determine that her name should be added. I'm counting two editors in favor (Mattnad, Collect) and three opposed, at least for now (Sławomir Biały, Rebbing, Masem), At this time, there is no consensus anywhere for adding her name. Rebbing 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is not a reliable source. The Daily Caller is. Hence their accuracy on the story and Rolling Stone's inaccuracy. Tucker Carlson has worked for PBS,CNN, and Fox. He is as reliable as it gets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B11E:9E5D:ECDB:24B6:CE14:CABA (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not understand the last remark. Salon and The Daily Caller agree on Jackie's name. Her full name is also mentioned in an article on the WUVA News website; surely, you can expect them to get it right. The College Fix argues that there is no reason not to disclose Jackie's full name.

I do not personally care whether her last name is mentioned here or not – it's easy enough to find for anyone who is interested. But the arguments given here for keeping it out of Wikipedia are weak.  --Lambiam 19:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:A Rape on Campus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 21:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Well-written:

1a Generally good. In the lede: "now-retracted" is redundant- "retracted" is all needed in this context. "crush" feels slangish (and, well, high school-ish) as opposed to "romantic interest in". Story section includes improper contraction "wasn't". 2nd sentence of 3rd para of Initial response section is too long. Drew Existence section includes typo "attacker&nbsp" Inconsistencies in article's use of "AM" and "a.m." 1b Needs organizational adjustment. Line is blurred between "Consequences" and "Legal and social consequences of story", which are presented as separate sections, and then between the latter and "Lawsuits" further down.

Verifiable with no original research

2a Thoroughly referenced 2b WP:RS employed 2c. Cindy is not mentioned in ref for statement "no effort was made by Rolling Stone to interview her". Refs 20 and 29 are redundant. Ref 65 is dead. Ref 77 needs archive [19] 2d. Copyright and close paraphrasing concerns:

Resolved Ribbet32 (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

"that led to the publication of" Still appears in lede. Can be "culminating in the article being published" Ribbet32 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC) "on the night of the alleged rape," "she asked Erdely to be taken out of the article" "she was forced to perform oral sex on five men" "filed a defamation suit against" "hit in the face by a bottle" Still appears in Police investigation section. Can be "struck to the face with a bottle" "date with a member of the fraternity" Still appears in Story. Could be "romantic outing with a Phi Kappa Psi member" I think "romantic outing" is wordy and sounds pompous. If the sentence is too close to the source, switch around the phrases, add some different transitions. Remember that simply inserting a synonym into a sentence still gives a close paraphrase. DMacks (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC) "about sexual assaults at an elite university" @DMacks: was wrong with this edit [20] "Elect" can mean "one chosen or set apart" (can also be "prestigious") and assaults are violent. Two problems: first, changing to a word that is less standard does not help readers. "Elite" is what the source says, so we need that exact meaning (note we have elite as an article). "Prestigious" might work. But second, simply taking an original-source sentence and using a thesaurus on a word or two does not actually solve the close-paraphrase (see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing). However, WP:LIMITED does say we can use close-paraphrase in certain circumstances. So we can use a synonym but cannot change the meaning of a "simple statement of fact" or to avoid altering "technical terms". DMacks (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC) "suspended all fraternity and sorority activities until" Still appears in Consequences. Can be "postponed" or "cancelled all events related to its fraternities and sororities"

Broad in its coverage:

3a. thorough coverage 3b. Not a lot off topic

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

4. Lede states motivation was just a crush, but article and sources indicate belief delusions and PTSD was a factor. Under "Questions emerge," "she appeared to offer evasive responses " is editorializing. ABC section states Jackie was fine after, but Washington Post states 'Jackie seemed “really upset, really shaken up”' New York states 'Rachel Soltis, Jackie’s former roommate, says she noticed emotional and physical changes in her during the fall of 2012. “She was withdrawn, depressed and couldn’t wake up in the mornings,” says Soltis, adding that she’s convinced Jackie was sexually assaulted.' Xenu's para in the pop culture para is best deleted. Has nothing to do with pop culture or Rolling Stone. 5. No horrific edit wars

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6. Image is free. No FU image of article, like The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power? We also have free images of Teresa Sullivan

@MagicatthemovieS: Thank you for your prompt efforts to address the issues.

1a. in lede: "would say" would be more concise as "said". "Crush" still appears in the Key discrepancies and Notes sections. Categories should be in alphabetical order. "AM" still appears in "Story" while the (IMO more preferable) "a.m." still appears in Key discrepancies.

2c. What happened to ref 26?

6. Note a screenshot of the article is available at [21] Ribbet32 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: "organisations" used in Initial response section- not the spelling per MOS:STRONGNAT. Under "Key discrepancies- Washington", this seems garbled to me: "no pledges resident in the house" Under "Sexual assault skepticism", "US college campuses" should be "U.S. college campuses" per WP:NOTUSA. Also, it seems "Investigations" would be a better fit between Accuser scrutinized and Consequences.

Any chance we can deal with the 2c issues? Refs 4 and 29 still cite the same article, which appears to be the broken ref 26. There's no ref at the end of the 3rd para of Consequenes, though one exists [22] Ribbet32 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@MagicatthemovieS: Thank you for a lot of work in the past 24 hours. Remaining points before we wrap this up; 1. The missing citation on Consequences; 2. The neutrality point on the ABC section (I don't feel comfortable with that without a little balance); 3. What do you think about having the picture of the article? I think it communicates something. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: I think I took care of everything. Let me know if any more changes needed to be made. Thanks for your help!

Thank you. This is a really difficult subject, so it's good to see a thorough and mature take on it. Congratulations to all contributors. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ribbet32: Hi Ribbet32. I want to nominate this article to become a featured article, and the instruction page for that says that I should seek out a mentor to help me promote it to featured article status. Would you be so kind as to be my mentor in this endeavor?

"Group sexual assault" vs "gang rape" and linking

The first sentence calls the purported event a "group sexual assault", for which I added a link for the words "sexual assault" . Later (and multiple times thereafter), it is called a "gang rape", for which I added a link to "gang rape". I think the phrases are synonymous in the context of this article, so it might be better to use the phrase that matches our wikipedia article on the underlying topic first. Otherwise, we should probably link "group sexual assault" to gang rape, since that is the most relevant article we have (subtopic of sexual assault), and it seems un-necessary to hide the actual article title by piping since we do use the actual term also. At some other point in the article (§ Story?), when the event itself is simply called a "sexual assault", we could link that term. DMacks (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Daily Caller

This is not a reliable source, as per the "Important note about Jackie's last name." However, I see it cited 5 times - refs 36, 37, 76, 120, and 127. Thoughts? GAB^gab 03:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to the "Important note", please? XavierItzm (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it shows up when one edits the article.XavierItzm (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, is there a Wikipedia policy-based document that blacklists the Daily Caller? Because I have no idea where the "Important note" comes from... it says to look into a discussion wherein the Daily Caller is not even mentioned! If I make a note to appear at the top of any articles and I say the NYT is not a WP:RS , then do we get to delete all refs coming from the NYT on the hypothetical article? (not that I would ever; this is only a hypothetical). XavierItzm (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Assertion that the rape story was fabricated

This edit caught my eye. The edit removed an assertion saying, "Further investigation concluded that Jackie had fabricated the incident." from the lead section and had an edit summary saying: (No such conclusion was ever reached. Jackie never confessed to fabricating the incident.)

I dug around a little, and didn't find a reliable source directly and unambiguously asserting, once the dust had settled, either that the rape had occurred or that the rape story was a fabrication. The retracted Rolling Stone article asserted that the seven alleged rapists received "instruction and encouragement" during the gang rape from a person named Drew (later AKA "Haven Monahan"); The section Existence of "Drew" in this WP article concludes that this person was fabricated.

I haven't further edited the article content relating to this, but I have added a {{who}} and a {{cn}} in the lead paragraph which says, "According to multiple media,". (as revised) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. XavierItzm (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

withdrawn in lede

that the article was withdrawn is extremely material, very informative and 100% neutral - it belongs in the lede 98.118.62.140 (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That the article was retracted was and is in the lede. inserting the term "withdrawn" sent me searching without much success for some distinction between the terms retract and withdraw. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Retract is the appropriate word here. See: JSums.edu and Atlantis Press.

• "Retractions are normally reserved for publications that are so seriously flawed (for whatever reason) that their findings or conclusions cannot be relied upon.
• Withdrawal of articles is strongly discouraged and only used in exceptional circumstances for early versions articles which have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published yet (“articles in press”) but which may already appear online."

It would be hard to make withdrawal apply at all in the case of a magazine article, since Rolling Stone doesn't typically offer pre-published / draft versions of articles to the public as an academic journal might. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Assertion that the rape story was fabricated

This edit caught my eye. The edit removed an assertion saying, "Further investigation concluded that Jackie had fabricated the incident." from the lead section and had an edit summary saying: (No such conclusion was ever reached. Jackie never confessed to fabricating the incident.)

I dug around a little, and didn't find a reliable source directly and unambiguously asserting, once the dust had settled, either that the rape had occurred or that the rape story was a fabrication. The retracted Rolling Stone article asserted that the seven alleged rapists received "instruction and encouragement" during the gang rape from a person named Drew (later AKA "Haven Monahan"); The section Existence of "Drew" in this WP article concludes that this person was fabricated.

I haven't further edited the article content relating to this, but I have added a {{who}} and a {{cn}} in the lead paragraph which says, "According to multiple media,". (as revised) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done. XavierItzm (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

withdrawn in lede

that the article was withdrawn is extremely material, very informative and 100% neutral - it belongs in the lede 98.118.62.140 (talk) 10:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That the article was retracted was and is in the lede. inserting the term "withdrawn" sent me searching without much success for some distinction between the terms retract and withdraw. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Retract is the appropriate word here. See: JSums.edu and Atlantis Press.

• "Retractions are normally reserved for publications that are so seriously flawed (for whatever reason) that their findings or conclusions cannot be relied upon.
• Withdrawal of articles is strongly discouraged and only used in exceptional circumstances for early versions articles which have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published yet (“articles in press”) but which may already appear online."

It would be hard to make withdrawal apply at all in the case of a magazine article, since Rolling Stone doesn't typically offer pre-published / draft versions of articles to the public as an academic journal might. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Jackie's rape story was false

This 2015 article says "Jackie's rape story was false" https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/jackies-rape-story-was-false-so-why-hasnt-the-media-named-her-by-now/2016/01/11/c1733926-b89e-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html 98.118.62.140 (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carmstrong11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)