Jump to content

Talk:A Rape on Campus

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DMacks (talk | contribs) at 22:15, 10 August 2017 (→"Group sexual assault" vs "gang rape" and linking: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Photo.

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

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

Jackie (revised)

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

No, not everybody on Wikipedia is described by their full name. The only way that would even be considered is if multiple truly reliable sources unambiguously mentioned her name, which as far as I know, hasn't happened, and is unlikely to happen, as outing her would severely undermine the reliability of a source and be a breach of journalistic ethics. Even if that were to happen, there is no precedent for always including the names of people who obviously would rather remain private. Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP (specifically but not limited to WP:BLPNAME) are clear that people should be given the presumption of privacy, especially involving court cases. This is another example this. Grayfell (talk) 08:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. It appears that the accuser's last name has not yet been confirmed by a reliable source. (The Daily Caller, GotNews, The College Fix, and similar websites are not reliable sources.) As determined by the previous discussion on this issue, the actions attributed to "Jackie" are potentially criminal, and so we must be especially careful to have credible sourcing before putting a full name to her; naming the wrong person as "Jackie" would be libelous. Rebbing 14:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Salon is a pretty mainstream publication which names her specifically, "The Rolling Stone story, which was eventually retracted in April 2015, centered on student Jackie (Redacted) and her falsified story of being gang raped by Phi Kappa Psi fraternity members." [1]. BLP requires us to take take extra care and provide citations. It doesn't require those citations to be multiple sources provided there's no dispute. BLP doesn't require us to censor names when we know them factually. Furthermore, the court documents, which are readily available, name her as well. The past discussion you cite was in 2014, and well before the police investigation, retraction by Rolling Stone, the Columbia Journalism report, and the findings of the recent libel lawsuit. The wikipedia article itself now mentions all of these facts. Likewise, the argument that somehow journalists won't fully name her has been shown inaccurate.Mattnad (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't seen the Salon piece. You are correct that there have been developments since 2014, but I'm not persuaded. For one, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, we cannot use court records in this context. Another: the other events don't have any bearing on this issue: the concern isn't the accuser's guilt but the veracity of the name. Despite the size of this story, we only have a single citable source—a short online news update, not a solid piece. In my view, this is not enough. Alison, any thoughts on this issue? Rebbing 14:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where in BLP does it specify the length of the article as a requirement for a reliable source? I've seen many arguments against inclusion, and none seem to apply here. What's really going on?Mattnad (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, but length and quality speak to the reliability of individual pieces. Cf. WP:BLPSOURCES. I think it's fairly obvious that the article you've linked is a blurb, not serious journalism, and, for the proposed claim, that simply will not do. This subject has received widespread, regular media attention, and, if the accuser's name is as you say and reliably so, better sources will surely appear in plenty.
Hmm... What's really going on? Between your editing history and your brazen and now-suppressed disregard for BLP above, it appears that what's really going on is that you're trying to advance a "men's rights" agenda and wish to portray those who stand in your way as acting on ulterior motives. I suggest you leave insinuations out of this discussion and wait for other editors to weigh in on the merits. Rebbing 23:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tend a bit more versus fully support Rebbing's arguments and would go for waiting until at least one other high-profile media uses the full name. It doesn't make a big difference if Wikipedia displays it now or later as the name is already long out there easy to google, but only in bad sources. What would you both think about a halfway solution to include the new Salon source, but not yet the last name in our text? --SI 00:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC) updatd --SI 09:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to including the source at this point, especially as a wink-and-nod around BLP. BLPSEEALSO, while not squarely addressing the question, instructs that we should, "[i]n general, [] not link to websites that contradict the spirit of [the biographies of living persons] policy." Rebbing 02:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in your BLP link on sources that's relevant to what Salon wrote, but if there is, quote it. There's no men's rights agenda that I see here and your attempt at personal attack is noted. Does Salon, a left wing progressive publication (according to wikipedia) also have a men's rights agenda? What's your agenda?Mattnad (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"[C]ontentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." WP:BLPSOURCES. The Salon piece is unreliable, hence, using it to provide "Jackie"'s last name would count as a poorly-sourced contentious claim about a living person. For the proposition that a piece from an otherwise-reliable publication may be unreliable, see RSCONTEXT.
My "personal attack" is merely a rebuttal to your cheap and unprompted insinuation of conspiracy. A quick glance through your recent edits shows a clear focus on gender controversy-related articles, where you frequently add facts favorable to a "men's rights" viewpoint or remove content adverse to that. Salon may be a left-leaning publication, but cherry-picking facts from it can serve otherwise. My agenda is upholding Wikipedia's neutrality; I have no political agenda. Rebbing 02:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, we absolutely should include neither the name nor any sources displaying it. Except for the isolated Salon source all other sources who publicize it are of less or much more misogynic tendency.[2] --SI 09:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)So your primary argument is that the Salon article is poorly sourced. And that it's cherry picking. Sounds like a question for the reliable sources noticeboard. I found a source that overcomes your original objection (must be mainstream). Now you've shifted the goal posts. Let's see what the RS Noticeboard says. I'll provide a link. Mattnad (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link to RSN [3]
BLPSOURCES requires that we dont use primary sources for assertations about living people. Where primary sources have been discussed/used by secondary sources, they may be used as supplementary to the reliable secondary source. Unless someone has a genuine argument that Salon is not reliable in some way, or the information they are relying on is also unreliable, it is not a BLP issue. I dont personally think her full name needs to be in the article given the vast amount of sources refer to her just as 'Jackie', but it is not against WP:V or WP:BLP to include it if it is sourced appropriately. (We dont use primary sources such as court transcripts for a number of reasons, not necessarily linked to the reliability/factuality of the information they provide, a primary source such as a court case transcript can be reliable for information such as who is actually participating in the court case - unless there is some doubt they are not the right person) Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as we have a WP:RS (Salon) naming the hoaxer as Jackie (Redacted),[1] I don't understand why the article continues to censor this out. XavierItzm (talk) 01:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WaPo and NYT aren't going to name her because that was their deal to get her to talk to them before people were admitting that it was a hoax, not just "victim blaming". Other sources, such at the Salon one above, have named her. I think this should be enough to allow us to give the full name in the article. We aren't protecting a victim here, and it's easy to find her name by googling it. Natureium (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence for there being an agreement not to name "Jackie"? Rebbing 06:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found this with some quick googling. "The Washington Post, which broke many of the details that led to the unraveling of Jackie’s story, hasn’t named Jackie for a particular reason: The newspaper made an agreement with Jackie not to do so. In exchange for discussing her story with Post reporters, The Post agreed in late 2014 not to report her full name. “We told her we wouldn’t name her, in large part because we thought she was a ­sex-assault victim at that time and we don’t name victims of sexual assault without their permission,” said Mike Semel, The Post’s Metro editor."[4] Natureium (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my view that the Salon bit is not reliable, especially in this context. I said in the now-complete RS/N thread that:

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

As WP:RSCONTEXT puts it:

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

Rebbing 06:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Only in death responded to you in the now-complete RS/N thread:

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

I am afraid you are making up stuff to protect the identity of a known hoaxer. XavierItzm (talk) 13:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the RS thread is complete, you might as well add her name. I don't see any good argument for Salon not being a RS. Natureium (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe that Salon is a reliable enough source for her name, policy WP:BLPNAME would suggest we not use the full name since it is not widely used. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RS/N thread did not clearly determine that her name should be added. I'm counting two editors in favor (Mattnad, Collect) and three opposed, at least for now (Sławomir Biały, Rebbing, Masem), At this time, there is no consensus anywhere for adding her name. Rebbing 16:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do not understand the last remark. Salon[1] and The Daily Caller[2] agree on Jackie's name. Her full name is also mentioned in an article on the WUVA News website;[3] surely, you can expect them to get it right. The College Fix argues that there is no reason not to disclose Jackie's full name.[4]
I do not personally care whether her last name is mentioned here or not – it's easy enough to find for anyone who is interested. But the arguments given here for keeping it out of Wikipedia are weak.  --Lambiam 19:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Grace Guarnieri. "Rolling Stone, Sabrina Rubin Erdely deemed liable in dean's defamation suit for University of Virginia rape story". Salon. Retrieved 15 December 2016. 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.
  2. ^ "UVA Rape Hoaxer Demands Reimbursement from Dean Smeared in Rolling Stone Article". The Daily Caller. June 16, 2016. Retrieved June 28, 2017. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  3. ^ Elizabeth Brownkaiser (July 28, 2016). "Infamous Rolling Stone Reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely Fired". WUVA News. Retrieved June 28, 2017.
  4. ^ "Judge: Jackie Coakley not covered by patient-counselor privilege in 'Rolling Stone' defamation suit". The College Fix. January 28, 2016. Retrieved June 28, 2017.

GA Review

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

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

  • Well-written:

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

  • Verifiable with no original research
      2a Thoroughly referenced 2b WP:RS employed 2c. Cindy is not mentioned in ref for statement "no effort was made by Rolling Stone to interview her". Refs 20 and 29 are redundant. Ref 65 is dead. Ref 77 needs archive [5] 2d. Copyright and close paraphrasing concerns:
      "that led to the publication of"
      Still appears in lede. Can be "culminating in the article being published" Ribbet32 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      "on the night of the alleged rape,"
      "she asked Erdely to be taken out of the article"
      "she was forced to perform oral sex on five men"
      "filed a defamation suit against"
      "hit in the face by a bottle"
      Still appears in Police investigation section. Can be "struck to the face with a bottle"
      "date with a member of the fraternity"
      Still appears in Story. Could be "romantic outing with a Phi Kappa Psi member"
      I think "romantic outing" is wordy and sounds pompous. If the sentence is too close to the source, switch around the phrases, add some different transitions. Remember that simply inserting a synonym into a sentence still gives a close paraphrase. DMacks (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      "about sexual assaults at an elite university"
      @DMacks: was wrong with this edit [6] "Elect" can mean "one chosen or set apart" (can also be "prestigious") and assaults are violent.
      Two problems: first, changing to a word that is less standard does not help readers. "Elite" is what the source says, so we need that exact meaning (note we have elite as an article). "Prestigious" might work. But second, simply taking an original-source sentence and using a thesaurus on a word or two does not actually solve the close-paraphrase (see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing). However, WP:LIMITED does say we can use close-paraphrase in certain circumstances. So we can use a synonym but cannot change the meaning of a "simple statement of fact" or to avoid altering "technical terms". DMacks (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      "suspended all fraternity and sorority activities until"
      Still appears in Consequences. Can be "postponed" or "cancelled all events related to its fraternities and sororities"
  • Broad in its coverage:
      • 3a. thorough coverage 3b. Not a lot off topic
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

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

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

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

    @MagicatthemovieS: Thank you for your prompt efforts to address the issues.
    1a. in lede: "would say" would be more concise as "said". "Crush" still appears in the Key discrepancies and Notes sections. Categories should be in alphabetical order. "AM" still appears in "Story" while the (IMO more preferable) "a.m." still appears in Key discrepancies.
    2c. What happened to ref 26?
    6. Note a screenshot of the article is available at [7] Ribbet32 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @MagicatthemovieS: "organisations" used in Initial response section- not the spelling per MOS:STRONGNAT. Under "Key discrepancies- Washington", this seems garbled to me: "no pledges resident in the house" Under "Sexual assault skepticism", "US college campuses" should be "U.S. college campuses" per WP:NOTUSA. Also, it seems "Investigations" would be a better fit between Accuser scrutinized and Consequences.
    Any chance we can deal with the 2c issues? Refs 4 and 29 still cite the same article, which appears to be the broken ref 26. There's no ref at the end of the 3rd para of Consequenes, though one exists [8] Ribbet32 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @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)[reply]

    @Ribbet32: I think I took care of everything. Let me know if any more changes needed to be made. Thanks for your help!
    Thank you. This is a really difficult subject, so it's good to see a thorough and mature take on it. Congratulations to all contributors. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ribbet32: Hi Ribbet32. I want to nominate this article to become a featured article, and the instruction page for that says that I should seek out a mentor to help me promote it to featured article status. Would you be so kind as to be my mentor in this endeavor?

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

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Rape_on_Campus&oldid=794928362"