This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Women's History Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Feminism Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Fraternities and Sororities B‑class Low‑importance A Rape on Campus is part of the Fraternities and Sororities WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Greek Life on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to International social societies, local organizations, honor societies, and their members. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, visit the project page, where you can join the project, and/or contribute to the discussion.Fraternities and SororitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesTemplate:WikiProject Fraternities and SororitiesFraternities and Sororities articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Sociology Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Gender studies Unassessed This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing an infobox. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Wikipedia requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention

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)[reply]

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

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

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

(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)[reply]

== 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

If we quote the Washington Post article, that's exactly what they say: "Randall provided The Post with pictures that Jackie’s purported date had sent of himself by text message in 2012".^[1] It is misleading to claim that "Jackie" sent them. If she, in fact, didn't, it could be libel considering that it is being used to discredit her. Since the Wikipedia article only references the Washington Post article, the phrase "photos Jackie showed her friends of her date" should be changed to reflect the main RS. JayBellBlue (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me suggest this then. For this phrase:

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

let's replace it with this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Washington Post reporters later interviewed the accuser at the center of Erdely's story and two of the friends that Rolling Stone said she had met on the night of the incident. The accuser told the Post that she had felt "manipulated" by Erdely, and claimed she asked Erdely to be taken out of the article, a request Erdely refused.[3] Jackie had requested that her assailants not be contacted, and Rolling Stone agreed.[21] Bruce Shapiro, Columbia University, said that an engaged and empathetic reporter will be concerned about inflicting new trauma on the victim. “I do think that when the emotional valence of a story is this high, you really have to verify it.” Experienced reporters often only work with women who feel strong enough to deal with the due diligence required to bring the article to publication, he said.[22]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

• The Economist
• USA Today

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Article title should remain the same. As much as it seems you are motivated to use this to prove a point in a larger picture, this article is about one event. Otherwise it would be POV violation. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to change the article title at this time. As discussed in a previous thread, there is no reliable evidence to suggest that the rape which had been reported was a "hoax". Nobody knows whether it actually did or didn't happen, other than the facts associated with the article being called into question. Lots of recrimination, lots of finger-pointing from all sides, but no evidence of a hoax - Alison ^❤ 21:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“The great campus rape hoax” by Glenn Harlan Reynolds says that “Whatever the truth behind that story, it's now clear that basically nothing that Rolling Stone reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely told us happened, actually happened. But the hoax is much bigger than one overwrought and perhaps entirely fictional tale of campus goings-on.” That’s one WP:RS saying it’s a hoax in so many words.

Then again, Think Progress, when talking about the alleged rape this article described, merely says “parts of [the Rolling Stone article] have been called into question after conflicting details of the story emerged”. Samboy (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does there exist any reasonable person who imagines this "rape" DID occur? The very idea is preposterous! One might as well claim that the Green Cheese Hypothesis must be included in the Lunar Geology article, because it hasn't been definitively disproved. We're all well aware of the erroneous status of the claims made by "Jackie," and Ms. Erdely. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works best when we don't let our opinions show. We simply reflect the best information from the best sources we can. This is all the more important when the subject is emotional or controversial.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UVA Rape Hoax probably will be the appropriate title for the article eventually, after the lawsuits are settled. In the meatime, it appears that UVAs administration is finally starting to push back against the media. Cla68 (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think keeping the title the same as the article’s title is the best way to keep things. It gives this article a limited scope, which makes keeping it a good article easier. Samboy (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Charlottesville Police Department has determined this was a hoax, should the title be changed?
Propose "A Rape on Campus - magazine hoax" XavierItzm (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in those articles does it say anything about it being a hoax, not even a maybe, from what I can see. And furthermore, this says nothing about whether it occurred or not, just that their findings indicated that the fraternity were not involved. Big difference - Alison ^❤ 00:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the article could probably safely be called, "2014 Unsubstantiated UVA/Rolling Stone rape accusation", but I'm not sure that that's a better title than what we have now. A couple of sources have used the word "hoax" in connection with the incident, but we might need a few more to start using that word before we rename the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources to-date have danced around the word with phrases like "some have suggested", etc. And with good reason. From our own page, a hoax is "a deliberately fabricated falsehood made to masquerade as truth. It is distinguishable from errors in observation or judgment [...]". There is absolutely no reliable source which states that this was deliberately fabricated - Alison ^❤ 07:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This will likely be known as one of the most famous false rape allegations in US history, but even calling it a false rape accusation is debatable because the woman who invented the story did not report it to the police. It could be argued that she herself is a victim because a "rape culture" activist took her story and promoted it even though the activist knew that it had big problems with credibility. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Some of you here need to stop saying that this incident hasn't been labeled a hoax or discussed as so in the media. It has. I think a few more sources are needed which label it so before we rename the article, but it's not wrong for people to discuss the word "hoax" on this article talk page as someone just disingenously tried to do on my talk page. Cla68 (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, inclusion of this link is very WP:POINTY and I have deleted it. I should remind everyone this article is about a specific magazine story, not the larger question of sexual violence. I've deleted a lot of sourced but highly irrelevant and POINTY stuff throughout this article that has nothing to do with the story and seems to be the two sides of this debate warring using the article as a proxy battleground. BlueSalix (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reference to the story in an article on rape culture would be appropriate because it would be used as an anecdote to demonstrate a larger point regarding rape culture. However, to use this article as a doorway to a conversation about "rape culture" is an attempt to WP:COATRACK this single incident to larger points. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. As those sources make clear, one or the reasons that this rape allegation gained so much attention in the media before it was found to be a lie is because of allegations of a "rape culture" existing on college campuses. If you prefer that the paragraph be worded to make the connection clearer, I can do that. I would prefer us to discuss these things instead of reverting each other as that is a rude and counterproductive way to treat each other. Cla68 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only it wasn't "found to be a lie" - questions were raised as to the veracity of some of the details, and that's what reliable sources are saying - Alison ^❤ 18:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

No. The title of the article in question is "A Rape On Campus", by definition we must use the word rape. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]