Jump to content

Talk:A Rape on Campus: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Assessment: banner shell, Gender studies (Low), Sociology, Higher education, Women writers (Low) (Rater)
Undid revision 1006315861 by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk)
Tags: Undo Reverted
Line 23: Line 23:
|archive = Talk:A Rape on Campus/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:A Rape on Campus/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}

== withdrawn in lede ==
that the article was withdrawn is extremely material, very informative and 100% neutral - it belongs in the lede [[Special:Contributions/98.118.62.140|98.118.62.140]] ([[User talk: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:That the article was retracted was and is in the lede. inserting the term "withdrawn" sent me searching without much success for some distinction between the terms ''retract'' and ''withdraw''. [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 11:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
::''Retract'' is the appropriate word here. See: [http://www.jsums.edu/researcher/files/2016/11/Article-withdrawal.pdf?x38727 JSums.edu] and [https://www.atlantis-press.com/policies/article-retraction-and-withdrawal 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. [[User:A Shortfall Of Gravitas|A Shortfall Of Gravitas]] ([[User talk:A Shortfall Of Gravitas|talk]]) 02:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

== Assertion that the rape story was fabricated ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=A_Rape_on_Campus&curid=44639943&diff=862090400&oldid=861669689 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 [[WP:RS|reliable source]] [[WP:OR|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 {{tl|who}} and a {{tl|cn}} in the lead paragraph which says, "According to multiple media,". (as revised) [[User:Wtmitchell|Wtmitchell]] [[User talk:Wtmitchell|(talk)]] <small>(earlier ''Boracay Bill'')</small> 11:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
:{{done}}. [[User:XavierItzm|XavierItzm]] ([[User talk:XavierItzm|talk]]) 13:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


== Jackie's rape story was false ==
== Jackie's rape story was false ==

Revision as of 10:19, 15 May 2021

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]