Talk:Rape/Archive 13

Slang
Should another usage for rape be included here? More specifically the way it is used among many video gamers. "Dude, we just got raped." meaning an overwhelming loss. Daisuke1639 (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * An overwhelming loss or suffering, a very unpleasant and unfair experience, a crippling effect that takes time to recover from. Sounds like the word has the same meaning either way.   D r e a m Focus  16:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rape redirect
why does the 'term' rape link here instead of the requisite disambiguate page that exists. If this is to be the main redirect then it cant be hijacked by criminal law because that is not what the term means (ie- Intercourse) (Lihaas (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also needs a defition here. if its not as an article with a "etymelogy" section then somewhere it needs to be put, it has the cites.Lihaas (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rape Statistics for the UK
This section needs tidying up

"According to a news report on BBC One presented in 12 November 2007, there were 85,000 women raped in the UK in the previous year, equating to about 230 cases every day. According to that report one of every 200 women in the UK was raped in 2006. The report also showed that only 800 persons were convicted in rape crimes that same year.[76][77]"

The 1st reference [76] is to a BBC blogger and even if it were a "BBC news report" I don't think it is a credibly objective source for a reference. The quoted numbers are extrapolations from a government survey [77] to illustrate a POV. The survey results give the figures for '06 and '07 as  0.4% of women reported being raped, which sounds very different.

The phrase "The report also showed that only 800 persons were convicted in rape crimes that same year " is irrelevant and the word 'only' is POV.

Zimbazumba (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a compromise along the lines of

"A UK Government Survey shows that in 2007 of women aged 16-59 0.4% or 1 in 250 reported being raped."

together with the reference to the survey.

Zimbazumba (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Male rape in Definitions section
I feel that this entry most definitely belongs in the Definitions section. TheLuca disagrees, so I brought it to this talk page to work out. I feel it belongs there because it is touching on how rape is usually defined by laws/courts...in that rape of males is usually completely disregarded or not taken as seriously. Why should people not be informed of this right off the bat, if they do not know about it already? As the Other section (also expanded by me) says in Statistics with its first line, "Most rape research and reporting to date has been limited to male-female forms of rape." Why should this information not be in the Definitions section? It seems utterly important to me that it be. TheLuca moving the linked piece to the Other section is only making that section redundant, in addition to removing this "definitions" piece for readers to see early on. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also willing to reword that paragraph so that it flows better with the other explanations of what fits the definition of rape. It definitely needs a better lead-in, for example. Flyer22 (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is quite obvious that the paragraph does not belong in the "definitions" section. A definition is supposed to describe and/or explain rape, i.e., legal definition of rape, social definition of rape etc. The paragraph in question explores the possible consequences of rape, alleged inequality in culpability and (perhaps) sentencing and some (unsourced) claims about the history of stigmatization of male rape. Therefore, this paragraph belongs in a section about the consequences of rape or biased sentencing. The paragraph does nothing to explain what rape is or what distinguishes it from other forms of assault or from consensual sex. Therefore, the paragraph must be moved. Moreover, the last sentence of the paragraph has to be sourced or deleted.
 * The definitions section is a place to read about the definitions of rape, unsurprisingly. It is not a place you should use to inform people "right off the bat" about your belief that "rape of males is usually completely disregarded or not taken as seriously." It is a section for definitions.
 * WP:NPOV states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. As editors, we must represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". Since 99% of U.S. rapists are men (U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999) and (almost) all sources deal with male-female rape, this article must reflect this rather than individual editors' opinions. In short, this is not a place to express your opinion. You are very welcome to include research about female-male or male-male rape, but it must be in proportion to the prominence of this specific viewpoint and it is important to use the appropriate sections for the research. TheLuca (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing how it is quite obvious that the paragraph does not belong in the Definitions section. You say, "A definition is supposed to describe and/or explain rape, i.e., legal definition of rape, social definition of rape etc.'" I say, "Well, that paragraph does that." Legally, when is a man or woman ever charged for rape against another man...in the same way that a man would be charged for raping a woman? The paragraph does in fact explain what rape is -- as in how it is typically defined -- and what distinguishes it from male-female forms of rape regarding the law. The paragraph needs tweaking and maybe some more sources, yes, but to claim that mention of how male-male/female-male rape is treated differently by the law and society does not belong in the Definitions section is quite "off" as far as I am concerned. You speak of WP:NPOV. That is exactly what I am doing. Just because this article is mostly about male-female rape, which is no surprise, it does not mean that all other forms of rape should be downplayed. Or, in this case, not mentioned at all. I am female, and have not experienced this with any male relative or friend, so there is no bias on my part in wanting this information to remain. What I was going for is WP:Neutral and the public needing to be informed of this information early on -- right there in the Definitions section where it talks about what qualifies as "real rape" or not. I do not need to be told about individual editors' opinions not being appropriate for Wikipedia articles. I have been editing Wikipedia long enough now to know the rules. It is not my opinion that the law and society often disregards or downplays male rape. Flyer22 (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Legally, when is a man or woman ever charged for rape against another man...in the same way that a man would be charged for raping a woman?" This question concerns the alleged bias in sentencing rather than the definition of rape.
 * The paragraph explores the alleged differences in the consequences of female-male rape compared to male-female rape rather than the differences in the act.
 * The article already has a section about how male-male/female-male rape is treated differently. This particular paragraph belongs in that section. I will add studies which show that raped men are much less likely to be blamed for their victimization than women as soon as I can.
 * The vast majority of sources investigate male-female rape. As editors, we must represent all significant viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Therefore, we don't "downplay" female-male rape but simply represent the sources. This is WP:NPOV.
 * "What I was going for is WP:Neutral and the public needing to be informed of this information early on -- right there in the Definitions section where it talks about what qualifies as "real rape" or not." As Wiki editors, we must represent viewpoints advanced by reliable sources and we must do so in proportion to the prominence of those viewpoints. I don't think that it is conducive to the neutrality and quality of the article to move a minority view to the first section simply because you want to "inform people of this information early on."
 * "-- right there in the Definitions section where it talks about what qualifies as "real rape" or not." The paragraph does not state what qualifies as "real rape" or not. The paragraph explores alleged differences in the consequences of male-female and female-male rape. This is why the paragraph doesn't belong on the Definitions section.
 * I am not questioning your motives so there is no reason to state that you're not biased. TheLuca (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TheLuca, I still see the paragraph as relating to the definition of rape. The law or courts, or whatever, treating male rape differently than female rape shows that there is a difference in how rape is defined regarding this matter. This especially tackles the social definition, and, again, more can be added to that paragraph to better clarify this if needed. Or that paragraph can be completely reworded, with the addition of more sources. We need a compromise here, because, as is, it is clear that we are not going to agree on this, and, so far, no other editors are weighing in on it so that we may gain WP:Consensus. What I mean about "downplaying" female-male or male-male rape is by not mentioning the fact that it is not taken as seriously as male-female rape. As the Other section states: "As a group, male rape victims by either gender often get little services and support, and legal systems are often ill equipped to deal with this type of crime. Some legal codes on rape do not legislate against women raping men, as rape is generally defined to include the act of penetration on behalf of the rapist." And a piece in the United States section says, "Some types of rape are excluded from official reports altogether, (the FBI's definition for example excludes all rapes except forcible rapes of females)..." Now some or all of this would probably be better suited in the Definitions section for the paragraph about male rape, but it is clearly in relation to how rape is and is not defined. All of the information about male rape should not be in the Statistics section. People look there for statistics, not for what may be defined/considered rape and what may not be. How male rape is considered in comparison to female rape is not a minority view; various reliable sources show that. It is there not just for my need to inform...but also because of all of what I have stated on the matter; it has every right to be represented there as much as the other information does. More so, in my view, given how often male rape is disregarded. You say that the paragraph explores alleged differences in the consequences of male-female and female-male rape, and that the paragraph does not state what qualifies as "real rape" or not. I say that paragraph touches on what is usually considered "real rape." This is where the double standard comes in. That section is mostly talking about the legal definitions/aspects of rape. The male rape paragraph starts out saying, "Male victims of rape by men and by women often face social, political, and legal double standards." This is why the paragraph does belong on the Definitions section, because it is tackling a legal aspect of rape. I am completely fine with you improving that paragraph in a way you see fit; I am simply against removing the mention of how male rape is often treated differently by the law. I cannot see why this important fact should not be noted there in a section talking about legal definitions/aspects of rape. Like I stated, I am willing to compromise with you, and if you have an alternate wording and different sources we could use, I am open to that. Otherwise, we will just have to wait for others to weigh in on this.


 * As for questioning my motives, I felt that you were with your previous reply, such as when you stated "this is not a place to express your opinion." I felt as though you thought I was some guy who had something to prove or something of that nature. But I thank you for clearing up the matter. Now we just have to come to an edit that will satisfy us both regarding this topic. Looking at your contributions, you seem like a good editor. I am definitely willing to work with you. Flyer22 (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel like I should explain once more that the paragraph explores the consequences of rape and the alleged differences in sentencing rather than explaining or defining what kind of acts are legally and socially seen as rape. Therefore, the paragraph certainly doesn't belong in the Definitions part.
 * Moreover, only 1% (or to be precise: less than 1%) of U.S. rapists are women according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Of this 1% a considerable portion might be female-female rape. Female-male rape is extremely rare according to out sources and, thus, rarely covered. We must represent viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. Therefore, the information should in no way be extended.
 * "Male victims of rape by men and by women often face social, political, and legal double standards." First, I will have to check the sources to see if this is really what the sources say and if the sources are reliable. Second, social, political, and legal double standards are consequences of rape. They do not say anything about the act of rape and how it differs from male-female rape. TheLuca (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This paragraph looks like it would best fit in the Rape section IMO. But there is certainly a lot to be said how rape between men is legally defined/recorded.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 17:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The Types section is still a part of the Definitions section, so that is one possible compromise. The thing, though, is that the first part of the Definitions section is mainly talking about the legal aspect...and so is this paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The paragraph in question doesn't really mention the legal definition of rape against males. It simply says "the law typically screws men who get raped."  What I would expect to be hearing with regards to the legal 'definition' of rape would be at what point a man is considered to have been raped; physically what needs to occur to declare rape.  Talking about double standards is kind of a high level analysis, rather than a base level definition.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 22:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What I meant by the paragraph mentioning the legal aspect is basically what you stated. But your thoughts on what you would expect to see in that paragraph is quite "on target." Perfectly valid, and would make a much better paragraph; I would also like something there about that. As a start-off point, do you feel we should lead in with one of the above statements I quoted above? This one: "As a group, male rape victims by either gender often get little services and support, and legal systems are often ill equipped to deal with this type of crime. Some legal codes on rape do not legislate against women raping men, as rape is generally defined to include the act of penetration on behalf of the rapist." Flyer22 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about... "Male rape victims by either gender often get little services and support, and legal systems are often ill equipped to deal with this type of crime as some legal codes do not legislate against women raping men. Rape is generally defined to include the act of penetration on behalf of the rapist."
 * or... "Rape is generally defined to include the act of penetration on behalf of the rapist and some legal codes do not legislate against women raping men. As a result, legal systems are often ill equipped to deal with this type of crime and male rape victims by either gender often get little services and support."
 * I like the second one personally...  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 06:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the second one as well, and am okay with you going ahead and adding it. Are you okay with keeping mention of the courts and social stigma as well? With the lead-in, it fits better there now. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It needs to be tied to the definition if we keep it in there. Otherwise, we'll have to move it.  I can look into this when I get home from work.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, AzureFury. But I do feel that leaving mention of the legal double standards is more than okay enough to remain. And mention of how men raping men, not just women raping men, is treated differently than male-female rape should also be there. I will wait and see what you come up with. Good to work with you. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The bit about "social stigma" fits well in there, actually. It says "we don't know a lot about male on male rape."  Anyway, I couldn't find a place for this:
 * Although studies show otherwise, female abusers are usually seen as less culpable than male abusers/rapists by the courts due to these misconceptions.
 * I don't think it belongs in the definition section. But that's open for debate.  Feel free to put it back if you feel strongly about it.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the stigma part certainly does not belong in the definitions section. Same goes for the entire paragraph for the reasons which I mentioned above. I will check the sources and see what they say and get back to you. TheLuca (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's definitely worth mentioning difficulties in making definitions in the section about definitions. The only problem with the sentence is that it was unsourced.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TheLuca, I still say that the social stigma part belongs, but needs reliable sources if added back. And, of course, I am still for the entire paragraph remaining and feel that it belongs. I am okay, however, with the current version...though I would say it definitely needs more added to it. I will remove the "Rape is generally defined to include the act of penetration on behalf of the rapist" part or at least reword it, since it is redundant when looking at the opening sentence of that section. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Prison rape
This paragraph

""Several studies argue that male-male prisoner rape might be the most common and least-reported form of rape, with some studies suggesting such rapes are substantially more common in both per-capita and raw-number totals than male-female rapes in the general population.[8][9][10]""

is problematic for several reasons. First, the third study discusses victimization of both men and women in prison but the paragraph mentions only male-male prisoner rape. As it turns out, "several studies" found that male-male and female-female prisoner rape are quite common but none of the sources claims that "male-male prisoner rape [is] substantially more common in both per-capita and raw-number totals than male-female rapes in the general population." I would like to ask the editor who wrote the paragraph why he/she decided to include it in the lead and whether the paragraph represents what the sources say or merely the editor's interpretation of what they say. TheLuca (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI, that editor may or may not still be watching the article.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 23:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed it to this. But the Rape of males by males section of the Rape by gender article needs to be taken care of on this front as well. Flyer22 (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed source
I removed this source because it doesn't ralate to or support anything said in the paragraph. You can read the study here. The study explores the prevalence and the emotional effects of rape on men. Therefore, it can be used in the statistics or effects section, but not in the definitions section. TheLuca (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You removed the part about "and some legal codes do not legislate against women raping men." This clearly belongs in the definitions section.  As for the rest, if you thought it was better in another section, why not just move it?  That would've been better than deleting.   D r e a m Focus  23:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the source because it has been misrepresented and had nothing to do with the sentence it allegedly supported and because the next sentence states that in Brazil, for instance, female-male rape isn't seen as "rape." We don't need two sentences stating the exact same thing. TheLuca (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus, this was discussed extensively above, in the . I understand your concern, and it's good to see yet another person feel the way I do about this, that some mention of female-male and male-male rape not being considered with the same seriousness as male-female rape (which includes mention of the social stigma of men being raped) should be included in the Definitions section. That section will eventually be expanded in this way, as stated above. TheLuca is just striving for accuracy. Flyer22 (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Effects section wording
Listed under the section effects is the bullet point "anxiety or increased arousal (difficulty sleeping, concentrating, etc.)".

"Arousal" in this context is a poor word choice. It should be changed to a similar meaning word that does not contain sexual connotations in everyday usage, as arousal does. Suggestions: wakefulness, alertness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.9.117.152 (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, will reword. Good looking out. Flyer22 (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Opinion presented as fact?
"The modern criminal justice system is widely regarded as unfair to sexual assault victims." Yeah right. I see sentences like that in all the real reference volumes all the time... oh wait--never mind. Come on, moderator. Don't let slop like that slide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.246.180 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not an opinion. It is a verifiable fact.  If 51% of available sources consider the modern criminal justice system unfair to sexual assault victims, the statement is true.  Are you disputing that at least half of sources consider the justice system unfair to rape victims?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 22:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you dispute that half of verifiable sources consider rape to be a just act? Why shouldn't this "fact" also be expressed in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.254.193 (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does it say that half consider rape a just act. Flyer22 (talk) 15:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You have not refuted the fact that half of verifiable sources consider rape to be a just act. If this fact is not true you should be able to prove it is false easily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.254.193 (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Some relevant evidence: http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=rape+is+just&word2=rape+is+not+just  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.254.193 (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

False Accusation
The fact that this section is even included in the rape crime article shows how often the onus is put on the victim. I advocate removing the whole section. If you look at the wikipedia articles on burglary, robbery, arson and other crimes, there are no sections discussing false accusations. Where is there any evidence that rape is more falsely claimed than any other type of crime? If anything, the fact that the majority of victims do not even report the crime of rape would suggest that false reports are very low. It is a difficult process for women to go to male police officers (in the many jurisdictions where there are no female police) to describe a sexual violation by another male. Please see the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, "Rape in the United States: The Chronic Failure to Report and Investigate Rape Cases" which was conducted on September 14, 2010. The link to the hearing: http://judiciary.senate.gov/resources/webcasts/index.cfm?t=m&d=09-2010&p=all Oakbranch8 (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The rape has the highest rate of unfounded accusations of any Index crime according to the FBI.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 04:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement that the false rape accusation is "widely reported" as 2% has no original source citations. I think it should be removed and only verifiable original sources be used, since it appears that the "widely reported" statistic is actually a widely repeated false statistic. In an academic review of this very statistic by Edward Greer in the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, [Vol. 33:947, April 2000], the author finds no verifiable source for this statistic. The author tracked the pedigree of this statistic down to Susan Brownmiller, who kindly gave the author her notes which revealed it was a quote from a judges speech, with no true source study available. Apparently, the entire "wide reporting", Greer found, is repetition of an unverified statistic of unclear source thoughout the feminist legal community. If the very next sentence in this paragraph is going to criticize the Kanin study's 41% number, which was at least done with some attempt at true research, then I think that, given the Greer review, the 2% statistic should be removed or, at least, cite the Greer research that shows the 2% number to be unfounded.

Since this page is protected, I would ask those with editing privileges to make these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.182.212 (talk) 07:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can just delete something that is widely reported. But we can include the review you described.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 15:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That paragraph was pretty bad. Rather than have a huge debate here, I've cut it down to something very uncommitted.  People who want more information will have to go to the main article, though that's also looking pretty bad/biased.  We probably need to do some copy editting between Rape_statistics and False accusation of rape.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 15:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * We report what out sources report. The paragraph you criticize is almost a direct quote from the source. Please check it. The 2% figure appears in the vast majority of books about rape. And this is why it should appear here. The Kanin study you refer to is studied as the textbook example of biased "research" nowadays and the vast majority of sources refer to it this way. TheLuca (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Uhh, the point was to direct people to the main article on false accusations, rather than try to tackle the issue of statistics and bias here. I have replaced one broad range of statistics (2% to 41%) with a broader one.  I'm not alleging that 2% to 41% isn't cited anywhere.  I simply picked the largest, and also well cited figure I could find.  But let's be honest here.  You want to keep the paragraph as it was because it gives two numbers:  2% and 41%, and then provides a refutation against the 41%.  We're not going to be keeping the paragraph that one-sided, though I am open to negotiation regarding which reports we use, and how to balance what we do end up including.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 00:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is that every single sentence in the paragraph as it is right now misrepresents the facts. The first sentence "The statistics on false accusations of rape vary widely" is misleading because to say that it "varies widely" is to imply that there are just as many studies that report 2% as 41% when in fact there has been only one study which found 41% and numerous researchers have criticized this study for its unscientific and biased methods. According to most sources the rate of false or unfounded (FBI terminology) accusations of rape is 2%. According to the FBI and other government agencies it's 8%. The second sentence "On top of the inherent difficulty in estimating something as difficult to prove as rape, there are obvious political motivations to over-estimate or under-estimate the frequency of false accusation" is unsourced and nonsensical. Do you have proof that rape is more difficult to prove than theft? Why is this mentioned here? The government states that the rate of unfounded rape reports is 8% and can you tell me what these "political motivations" of the government are? Do you have sources which state that the majority of sources with the 2% figure and the one study with the 41% figure have an "obvious political motivation"? The last sentence about the "extensive report" by N.S. Rumney is another point that is misleading because Rumney mentions the prevalence of the estimates and concludes that the 90% figure and Kanin's study are anomalies in the literature on rape. The paragraph as I have written it is basically a quote from John Bancroft's summary of Haws' 1997 article "The elusive numbers of rape" and it mentions the frequency of the various estimates and the government estimates. I don't see why you would remove this excerpt from Bancroft's book and replace it with a unsourced, misleading and nonsensical material. TheLuca (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is way too much emphasis on outlier results from studies that are small, old, poorly run or documented. Can we possibly reach a compromise where numbers from large, recent, well-run, well-documented studies are given more emphasis, and others are mentioned in passing, without specific numbers?  All editors need to respect WP:UNDUE; two (or more) wrongs (evident throughout the high and low end) don't make a right.  Removing reliable sources that have evaluated all these studies http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape&diff=next&oldid=379472511 doesn't seems like a move in the right direction either, whether they are directly used ATM or not, due to conflicting edits.  Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED.  Can I see a show of hands to support this?  -- W☯W  t/c 18:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think there are any studies without any problems. Literally everything we've found has some undermining oversight or criticism.  If nothing else, we can imply in the section that "there are no reliable statistics for false rape allegations."  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The FBI stats are as reliable as it gets. I would support the deletion of all information except the FBI data and the large UK study. TheLuca (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In the Reporting portion:

"Rape is a crime in most places and usually reported to the police."

The whole section is mostly subjective and vague. I've plenty more problems with the page itself, but here's what I have time for now, mostly because it is flat out untrue. The numbers at the moment are about 39% of rapes/sexual assaults are reported, and I'd argue that the number is even less. 39% comes from Bureau of Justice Statistics. Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention. Seeing as only about 6% of rapists ever spend any convicted time in jail, and the fact people read this for criminal justice purposes, and the overwhelmingly ignorant view so many people maintain on sexual assault (which seems to be thoroughly elaborated upon on this page) it'd be really super if people could start getting their numbers right. There's enough bull out on the subject that we don't need wikipedia keeping it going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sans dermis (talk • contribs) 06:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean "6% of people accused of rape ever spend any time in jail" ? You'll forgive us if we don't take your clearly objective word on the matter.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 06:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have to take Sans dermis' clearly objective word on the matter. The "6% of people accused of rape ever spend any time in jail" is a figure from RAINN . Perhaps you could address other editors' remarks with less sarcasm and suspicion in the future. TheLuca (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw that statistic earlier when that website broke down how they came to that number. And yes, it is 6% of people accused of rape ever spend time in jail.  RAINN doesn't mention they are counting situation where the case is dropped, or the defendant found not guilty.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 20:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence for your assertion that RAINN is counting situation where the case is dropped, or the defendant found not guilty. Thank you. TheLuca (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since they've changed their website since last I looked at it, this is the best I can do: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=333197626  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the website and I have never seen a statement on the website that says that RAINN is counting situation where the case is dropped, or the defendant found not guilty. TheLuca (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That diff is from Dec 2009. You can check the archives for the RS Noticeboard if you prefer.  Editors besides me reviewed that site.  The way back machine might still have a record of that quote.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AzureFury, I believe you. It's just that I've never seen such a statement on RAINN.org. I checked the RS Noticeboard and I'm happy to see that most editors see RAINN as a reliable source. TheLuca (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the method used to establish the "reliability" of the source was to point to another site using RAINN as a source, which had a "we are not responsible for these sites" disclaimer at the bottom.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the statistics from RAINN come from the United States Department of Justice. The NCPA from the US Department of Justice confirms the probability statistics compiled by RAINN and states that factoring in unreported rapes, about 5% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail.. TheLuca (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Accused rapists*  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 22:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide evidence for the sentence "but that percentage does not include cases where an accuser fails or refuses to cooperate in an investigation or drops the charges" which you added despite my objections. TheLuca (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's from Rape_statistics, they mention the same studies. I can copy and paste the source from there if you prefer.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 22:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do that. TheLuca (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As soon as I get home from work. While I'm doing that, Done.  Can you get a ref for the "several small studies" bit?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 22:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference is Philip Rumney's review (2006) where he tries to find empirical proof for the figures and finds several bur rather small studies which confirm the 2% figure. Oh and, if you intend to use this as a reference for your sentence "but that percentage does not include cases where an accuser fails or refuses to cooperate in an investigation or drops the charges," please don't bother because that is not the source. TheLuca (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * looks remarkably similar to . I'm familiar with this report. But I must've missed the part where is says that the percentage does not include cases where an accuser fails or refuses to cooperate in an investigation or drops the charges. Could you please point out the page to me? TheLuca (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I found another article that talks about the 8% FBI study (http://www) theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/. There are two especially important points made...


 * "Of the 90,427 forcible rapes reported in 2007, 40% were cleared by arrest or "exceptional means" (FBI, 2008d) with 23,307 of those being arrests (FBI, 2008b). Clearance of a report by exceptional means occurs when the known suspect dies before an arrest is made, when the victim refuses to provide the information or assistance necessary to follow an investigation through to an arrest, or when the known suspect is being held in another jurisdiction for a different crime and extradition is denied."

and


 * "The term 'unfounded' is not a homogeneous classification and, to date, there is not a formalized, accepted definition of 'false rape allegations.' "

If we assume the UK study which came to about the same number suffers from the same problems, then I'm ready to delete these statistics altogether. What do you think?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfounding is a method of investigative case closure (or clearance) intended to denote a specific outcome of an investigation. Unfounded is not synonymous with false allegation. I don't think that we should delete the FBI's 8% figure because it's the governmental source and because other "neutral" sources are so scarce. Furthermore, the figure clearly states where the rate of unfounded rape allegations is on the 2%-41% continuum. Perhaps we should just point out that "unfounded" doesn't mean "false" and rename the section to "Unfounded reports of rape" or something like that. But you are absolutely correct in pointing out that the terminology we use in the article isn't echoed by some of our sources which use "unfounded" while we use "false."
 * Could you please point out the page of this that says that "the percentage does not include cases where an accuser fails or refuses to cooperate in an investigation or drops the charges." Thank you very much. TheLuca (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it does. I didn't add that passage or source originally.  But we have confirmation from other sources that it does not include those cases.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 01:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, you did add the statement "the percentage does not include cases where an accuser fails or refuses to cooperate in an investigation or drops the charges" about the FBI figure. I also wrote that I couldn't find evidence for the statement in the source you provided [. The sentence is misleading because it only mentions the victim's refusal to cooperate, but not that of the perpetrator. The misleading impression that this sentence conveys is that the rate of unfounded allegations might be even higher because many victims don't follow through with their accusations, implying that the reason for their refusal to cooperate might be that their allegations are false. In reality, however, the victims may be afraid of being blamed for their victimization, or don't want to relive the rape by retelling it in court or to police officers, and so forth.
 * The point is that saying "FBI statistics for the annual rate of false reporting of forcible assault across the country have been a consistent 8%" is enough. Adding "but that percentage does not include cases where an accuser fails or refuses to cooperate in an investigation or drops the charges" seeks to challenge the results by implying that many victims let the charges drop because she knows that the charges are false. The same goes for the UK study. Saying "A study from the UK found that approximately 9% of cases of rape reported in 2005/2006 were classified as false allegations" is enough. TheLuca (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant I didn't add it to Rape statistics, where I copy and pasted it from. If you're determined to have the statistics in the article, then I'll be adding that 40% are cleared, and that rape has the highest rate of "unfounded" accusations of all Index crimes, straight from the FBI report.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 15:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also intend to add that Philip Rumney was not confident of those "several small studies" ' methodology, if I can establish the reliability of this source:  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 18:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You may add all kinds of info to advance the viewpoint that most rape allegations are fake. It's not a threat, you know. But please source the part about the "highest rate of unfounded accusations of all Index crimes," the part about "the percentage does not include cases where an accuser fails or refuses to cooperate in an investigation or drops the charges," and remove the non-neutral quotation marks from unfounded. Thank you. TheLuca (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That did come out sounding like a threat, I apologize. It seems kind of silly to me to have all these statistics that appear to be basically worthless for a true estimation of false accusations.  Regarding the "highest rate of unfounded accusations of all Index crimes," that is from the FBI report that you pasted: .  Search for the word "false," and read that paragraph.  It is the only occurence.  I'm about to reword the bit about the UK study according to http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf .  I don't think the quotes around "unfounded" are POV, they are emphasizing the fact that this isn't a typical use of the word.  "Unfounded" will have a particular definition in each state's legal code or report that may or may not match up with the average person's interpretation of the word.  The report called it "unfounded," these may be false allegations or not.  Including the quotes emphasizes our non-commitment on the issue.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I ask you for the fifth time to source the sentence "the percentage does not include cases where an accuser fails or refuses to cooperate in an investigation or drops the charges" which you added to the section. This is not the source. Also, I take from your reply that when the FBI uses the term unfounded we must use quotes to "emphasize our non-commitment to the issue." It follows that we must also use quotes for the term false since all other sources in the section are less reliable that the FBI report and use the term in different and ambiguous ways. Please add quotes to all terms false. We absolutely must emphasize our non-commitment after all. TheLuca (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The word "false" is unambiguous. The word "unfounded" is not.  I've reworded the UK bit based on the info from the source second source.  Removing the quotes from unfounded actually strengthens the case for false allegations.  If you take a look at the forensicexaminer source, some jurisdictions have very debatable criteria to determine what is unfounded, including prior relationships with the assailant.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 21:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see that you refuse to source your statement "the percentage does not include cases where an accuser fails or refuses to cooperate in an investigation or drops the charges". Okay. Be so kind and remove it.
 * The term "false" may be unambiguous to you. David Lisak, among many others, points out that Kanin's use of the term isn't synonymous with false in the sense that the rape did not occur. If you intend to use quotes for the terminology of some sources (the most reliable one), you must be consistent and use quotes for the terminology for all sources. Please add quotes to "false." After all, "emphasizing our non-commitment is very important." TheLuca (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you're asking me to source something which is no longer in the article o.0 . One of the large points made in the sources was the ambiguity in the definition of "unfounded."  There was no universally accepted definition and some of the definitions used were ludicruous.  Perhaps you could go into more detail regarding the disagreement over the word "false," and we could address it in the article.  Or if you prefer, we could exchange sarcasm and disguised incivility.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 22:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see now that you removed your unsourced statement. Thank you.
 * You have no sources. In fact, your use the John Bancroft book and the FBI report as sources for your statements despite the fact that neither mentions anything about it. The entire sentence "In 2007, 40% of the 90,427 forcible rapes reported were cleared by arrest or "exceptional means." Exceptional means refers to situations where the victim refuses to provide information or assistance necessary to obtain an arrest, the defendant dies before being arrested, or the defendant can't be extradited from another state." has nothing to do with false allegations of rape. Including it in the section implies that the 40% that were cleared by "exceptional means" might be false rape reports. This is a breach of WP:SYN.
 * The FBI is very clear on the "unfounded" part. All other definitions of the word except the FBI'S are completely irrelevant. However, since you continue to insist that all sources deserve our "emphasis of non-commitment," yet refuse to remove the quotation marks from the term unfounded, I must assume that you wish to exhibit the same degree of "non-sommitment" to all sources in the section. Hence, please add quotes to the term "false."
 * The exchange of sarcasm and incivility has been rather one-sided, starting with your reply to Sans dermis and ending with your threats of combining more sources to advance the position that the rate of unfounded rape reports is astronomical. TheLuca (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh, the bit about exceptional means is sentence #1 in an article titled, "False Rape Allegations: An Assault On Justice." If you want my continued assumption of good faith, you won't call inclusion of that WP:SYNTH. Of course some of those 40% are going to be false allegations. If we want to give readers accurate measurements to establish the bounds of their own personal estimates, we have to include information like that.

This is what the forensic examinder says regarding the word unfounded. If you're disputing the accuracy of this, let me know:
 * "This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false."

I'm not going to argue with you about who has been sarcastic. I assume your mention of "astronomical" rate of reports is referring to my original good faith edit putting false accusations between 1.5 and 90%, which was supported by sources, but sources that you alleged were biased. I'm not, and have never claimed to be, an expert on the subject. But my reasoning was that a large bound like that won't politically hurt anyone, and will encourage readers to visit the main page for the real debate, rather than force us to fight it out here. It didn't work, and I didn't push the issue. See WP:BRD.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 23:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to include information that "give[s] readers accurate measurements to establish the bounds of their own personal estimates." A section about false/unfounded allegation of rape is supposed to --- be about false/unfounded rape allegations. Not about the percentage of rape cases that are dropped due to reasons other than being FALSE/UNFOUNDED. Meaning: Information that a victim decides not to go through with the charges is irrelevant unless you can prove via reliable sources that the victim chose to do because the allegation was unfounded/false. Including this information here creates a misleading impression.
 * Once again, the FBI uses the term unfounded. Kanin's research is disputed, but we don't use quotation marks for his terminology. The rationale is that if a term is attributable to a reliable source and commonly used, it is non-neutral to use quotation marks while not using quotations marks for the terminology of other sources.
 * Since you insist on using the "forensic examiner" as a "source" (see what quotation marks do?) and filling up the section with information about anything but false/unfounded rape allegations, I will include that gigantic paragraph from the "forensic examiner" to clarify your statements about unfounded cases. Since the section is now filled with irrelevant information and you refuse to remove it, I am forced to add more to correct the misleading impression. TheLuca (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "We report what the sources say" as you like to so often point out. An accusation is created and documented whether or not the victim cooperates with the investigation.  So the percentages of cases where victims do cooperate is an important part of the methodology of these studies.  I am telling you right now that you will not get consensus from me to remove the percentage of cases dropped due to victims not cooperating.  If you wish to pursue this further, you can start an RFC or third opinion etc.  I believe your attempts to remove this information is unsupported by both logic and policy.  Let's look at it from a purely mathematical perspective.  Both the FBI report and the UK study include accusations that were reported but not prosecuted in their count of "rape cases" when calculating "percentage of rape cases that are false allegations".  I hope you're not so biased that you think 100% of cases reported but not prosecuted are actual rapes.  When we say "9% of rape cases were false allegations," the implication is that 91% were actual rapes, and this does not indicate that 50-66% might be rapes or might be false allegations, as it should.  So by not mentioning what percentage were dropped before prosecution, we are adding all of those cases to the "rapes, and not false allegations" category, unfairly inflating what is counted as rapes, through implication.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 15:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Luca, this is getting exhausting. You add outrageous, sensationalist, and biased statistics, and then I find their refutation. This is not my job. I'm not going to continue to mop up after you. We have plenty of statistics in the section as it is. And the ones you've added are not particularly unique or informative. The say the same thing as the others. You think finding a different source that says 8-9% can establish the accuracy of that number, after the FBI report you were so proud of explained in the document itself its limitations (not considering cases that were dropped)? I wonder if these books that you were reading also explained that issue? Did you overlook it? It would be nice if you would demonstrate some level of objectivity rather than finding the lowest possible number of false accusations, or highest possible number of rapes that you could find in any cell of any table of any study in North America.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 22:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the sentence that "most sources state that around 2% of reported rapes are false accusations" be deleted as it is at best terribly misleading and essentially factually false. Most PRIMARY sources (i.e., did their own studies) do not support the 2% rate, which would be apparent by following the references for sentence that refers to Philip Rumney's Cambridge Law Journal article. That sentence references (currently footnote 96) a SLATE article entitled "How often do women falsely cry rape?", which summarizes the Rumney article and concludes that the best studies (their words) give an 8-10% figure. The "most sources" that give a 2% figure are referencing the unsupported Susan Brownmiller figure, either directly or indirectly; the fact that it was widely quoted but ultimately found to be unsupported is the whole point of the Greer Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review article. (And Greer quotes Brownmiller's own notes that say that she got that number from a speech, and not from a systematic study.) I contend that the "most sources" implies "most primary sources" which would be, in view of the Rumney review, factually untrue. I don't believe that echoing the Brownmiller figure over and over merits its status as a "most sources" figure, and certainly does not belong in the article as is. If the sentence must be included, then I think the most accurate AND OBJECTIVE statement would be to say something like: "most secondary sources directly or indirectly quote the Brownmiller figure of 2%, which was found to be unsupported by Greer in a Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review article," or something to that effect. As a side note, I am actually surprised that whoever edited in the Rumney reference/SLATE review mentioned his review of the poorly done small 2% studies, but neglected to reference the main conclusion that 8-10% would be the most reliable figure. Why? I mean, why quote the review and not mention the main point of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.182.212 (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Since it is widely reported we are obligated to mention it here, whether or not it is false. We do mention that it is unfounded.  Also, you ask us to state that "8-10% is the most reliable figure," but that is beyond what our policies allow.  It is not up to Wikipedians to mention which is the "correct" figure in something as controversial as this.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 06:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to: "We do mention that it is unfounded. Also, you ask us to state that "8-10% is the most reliable figure," but that is beyond what our policies allow. It is not up to Wikipedians to mention which is the "correct" figure in something as controversial as this." Actually, I am not asking you to conclude what is the most reliable figure at all. I was only asking you to include the QUOTE from the review (which was footnoted) in which the AUTHORS said that based on their review/Rumney article, that "8-10%" was the most reliable figure. Since other parts of that reference was quoted (the 2% portion), I don't see what the problem is with quoting further from that same reference. I'm not asking Wikipedians to approve that number as a fact, but merely to quote the results of an academic review. Therefore I suggest including that portion as well as the 2% portion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.182.212 (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)