![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
Here from New York magazine. Cla68 ( talk) 02:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I also disagree with your characterization of the Washington Post article. From the WaPo:
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)
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)
(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)
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)
I want to make sure everybody understands why my additions [3] to this paragraph are so important.
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)
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)
Washington Post story with more evidence that the story was fabricated. Cla68 ( talk) 00:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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:
Cla68 ( talk) 22:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Removed comment left by a troll. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 08:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Stone 173.71.174.20 ( talk) 15:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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]
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
* 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)
Just so watchers are aware: [9] ― Padenton| ✉ 21:22, 4 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
|
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
According to PeterTheFourth, there is some latitude in naming the accused in a situation such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/?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, have the courtesy to discuss your changes before switching the article. Talk about them first here. Cavalierman ( talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
bigtag for the retracted part. Is that done on other retracted articles?
bigaround it and is entirely unsourced.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [2]
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". [3]
...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." [4] Assistant editor Elisabeth Garber-Paul provided fact-checking. [5] [6] The fact-checker concluded that Ryan – "Randall" under pseudonym – had not been interviewed and that in "one of the story's many unfathomable deceits", [7] 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. [4]
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. [8]
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. [9] (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
review
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).columbiareport
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).washingtonpost1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Rolling Stone Issue 1223 Dec 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.173.176 ( talk) 19:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the issue in where this story was original printed. Rolling Stone Issue 1223 Dec 2014 FABrauer ( talk) 19:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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 . . . .
I am afraid you are making up stuff to protect the identity of a known hoaxer. XavierItzm ( talk) 13:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)«Your personal theories regarding Salon's hypothetical editorial practice are irrelevant»
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)
References
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.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ribbet32 ( talk · contribs) 21:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
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 " 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.
|
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
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
Here from New York magazine. Cla68 ( talk) 02:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I also disagree with your characterization of the Washington Post article. From the WaPo:
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)
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)
(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)
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)
I want to make sure everybody understands why my additions [3] to this paragraph are so important.
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)
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)
Washington Post story with more evidence that the story was fabricated. Cla68 ( talk) 00:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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:
Cla68 ( talk) 22:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
Removed comment left by a troll. - Xcuref1endx ( talk) 08:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Stone 173.71.174.20 ( talk) 15:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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]
[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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
* 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)
Just so watchers are aware: [9] ― Padenton| ✉ 21:22, 4 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
|
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
According to PeterTheFourth, there is some latitude in naming the accused in a situation such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/?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, have the courtesy to discuss your changes before switching the article. Talk about them first here. Cavalierman ( talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
bigtag for the retracted part. Is that done on other retracted articles?
bigaround it and is entirely unsourced.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [2]
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". [3]
...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." [4] Assistant editor Elisabeth Garber-Paul provided fact-checking. [5] [6] The fact-checker concluded that Ryan – "Randall" under pseudonym – had not been interviewed and that in "one of the story's many unfathomable deceits", [7] 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. [4]
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. [8]
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. [9] (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
review
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).columbiareport
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).washingtonpost1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
Rolling Stone Issue 1223 Dec 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.173.176 ( talk) 19:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the issue in where this story was original printed. Rolling Stone Issue 1223 Dec 2014 FABrauer ( talk) 19:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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 . . . .
I am afraid you are making up stuff to protect the identity of a known hoaxer. XavierItzm ( talk) 13:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)«Your personal theories regarding Salon's hypothetical editorial practice are irrelevant»
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)
References
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.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ribbet32 ( talk · contribs) 21:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
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 " 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.
|
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
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)