Talk:Rape statistics/Archive 1

India being maligned on unreliable reporting
The following is based on some unreliable Surveys by some feminist organization trying to malign family system in India. It must immediately be removed

"Sexual violence within marriage is common, with 20% of men admitting to forcing their wives or partners to have sex, in a survey by the Centre of Research on Women, US, and Instituto Promundon in Brazil.[62][63] In a 1999 news story, BBC reported, "Close-knit family life in India masks an alarming amount of sexual abuse of children and teenage girls by family members, a new report suggests. Delhi organisation RAHI said 76% of respondents to its survey had been abused when they were children - 40% of those by a family member."[64]

amartya talukdar (talk) 07:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the claim of RAHI should be removed. Either they are outdated or they surveyed only those who were akin to any rape consequences. 109.224.0.13 (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Race Censoring
No mention of the massive racial disparity in the Swedish rape epidemic 90.209.12.140 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

False reporting
The section on false reporting is on-topic, but I think we are dealing with an "undue weight" situation here (WP:UNDUE). It should not be eliminated from the article, but substantially edited for length. NeilK (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Given the sensitive nature of the subject, I think this article could do with a lot of work. For instance, the section on false reporting is composed mainly of a single study into false reporting, and one which looks to me to have a suspect methodology - might many rape victims withdraw allegations out of fear rather than because they are admitting that they made it up? I am not sure, but I do know that more care is needed in such a controversial issue. -gregorya-


 * It's true that true allegations might be withdrawn for various reasons (bribery, intimidation, fear of the court process, embarrassment), but the study tried to take that into account. It only listed those allegations that the women later stated to be false, not those that were simply withdrawn. If you have other studies with contrary information, or published critiques of the Kanin study, please include them. Paul B 15:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't know of any other studies; the reason I came to this page was to find some discussion of the issue. I think the article should at least qualify Kanin's study with the disclaimer that the conclusions of a single study doesn't imply that we know anything to any great degree of certainty.


 * I also wonder if information should be added, either by modying this article, or as a distinct one, about rape convictions. I found this page looking for numbers on the topic after it came up in the news, and the figures were disputed by a times article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2577435,00.html.  It might be nice to see some discussion of how high/low rape convictions actually are, and what this implies.  Again, I'm afraid that I'm not the person to do this; I know very little about the topic. User:gregorya 13:28 2 February 2007 (GMT)


 * Agree with Gregorya. I suggest reading http://oregonsatf.org/resources/docs/False_Allegations.pdf to help ground the discussion about the dishonesty of simply talking about "withdrawn" or "false" allegations and "victim recantations."  It is a tricky, complex topic:  On the one hand, the trauma of going through with an allegation (losing the support of friends/family) is a deterrent to filing any report, let alone false reports.  On the other hand, there is a lot of pressure on alleged victims to recant or withdraw allegations.  The Kanin study is pretty thoroughly discredited from many different sources -- for an overview that is also self-critical of deflating false report statistics, see here: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2009/04/15/eugene-kanins-study-of-false-rape-reports/ 96.25.84.50 (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WHO WROTE THIS SHIT?? To highlight the supposed "false" rape statistics and to downplay the huge numbers of rapes and percentage or rapes, let along the number of women who do NOT report it, is sheer hatred of women.
 * Please don't swear (I would remove the profanity, but I don't know if wikipedia allows me to edit other people's comments). I was going to say, this is a really touchy subject, and if you're not extremely careful, you are only going to see more people like the one above visiting this page. Perhaps it's inappropriate to discuss false rape in the Rape Statistics page. Lets create a False Rape page, but be sure to include both sides of the argument, and inform a moderator before hand as I am sure it will lead to massive, and probably immediate, reverts Paskari (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree -- no need to create a "False Rape" page for many reasons: 1. The topic is "false accusation" not "false rape."  2. The topic of "false accusations" is relevant to the larger topic of rape statistics, albeit very controversial.  3. False accusations are in themselves incredibly difficult to discern for a number of reasons.  To gain a cursory understanding of the complexity of this issue, I suggest reading http://oregonsatf.org/resources/docs/False_Allegations.pdf96.25.84.50 (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I am recommending deletion of the last section about the Colorado prosecutor "who once said that..." -- it gives undue weight to a claim which is merely anecdotal and hearsay, and somewhat random of an inclusion. As such, it has little relevance and adds nothing to the section.96.25.84.50 (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is misleading: "The FBI's 1996 Uniform Crime Report states that 8% of reports of forcible rape were determined to be unfounded upon investigation, but that percentage does not include cases where an accuser fails or refuses to cooperate in an investigation or drops the charges. A British study using a similar methodology that does not include the accusers who drop out of the justice process found a false reporting rate of 8% as well. "

The above section equates "case unfounded" and "false reporting" even though they are completely different situations. Case unfounded is merely a lack of evidence, which sometimes can include false reporting. As such, it is misleading to the reader. This article really needs a lot of work: Explaining the above distinctions; explaining various reasons why they occur and how they affect statistics.96.25.84.50 (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Following should be deleted: Former Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman once stated "During my time as a prosecutor who made case filing decisions, I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made…Any honest veteran sex assault investigator will tell you that rape is one of the most falsely reported crimes that there is [...] A command officer in the Denver Police sex assaults unit recently told me he placed the false rape numbers at approximately 45 percent." It has nothing to do with statistics. It is a person quoting another ANONYMOUS persons assesment. I will delete it, if there are no protests. Fightdane (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Reading the article on 20 Jan 2011 it was incredibly biased. Kanin's research is heavily biased and very out of date. Lisak made a very accurate critique of its flaws, the use of a lie detector does encourage women to recant even if they have in fact been raped. The section on false report really shouldn't be so long, but the most glaring problem was the detailed description of Kanin's research. Including why women said they were recanting biases the article. Kanin's research isn't reliable and giving more space to recanting in that study that rape in the Congo serious biases the article. There really needs to be more development of the non-false report sections. I also think false reporting should be moved to the end of the article, right now it has too central a position.

Lisak's reactionary criticism of Kanin shouldn't have any prominence. No lie detector results were used to determine an incident of false rape accusation, and investigative techniques that are challenging and perhaps intimidating is the only reliable way of discovering and convincing a liar to recant. If Lisak's criticism stays on the page, there should also be mention of rape culture vested interests in hiding the frequency of false rapes. It is not vandalism to remove the Lisak paragraph, because the criticism is empty and worthless.

McDougal and Hibert's 1987 study involving a panel of 3 investigative experts who unanimously agreed that complaints were certainly false in 60% of the reviewed complaints needs its own paragraph.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.185.120 (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Source Material Went Away
I pulled the sentence


 * Fisher found that:
 * "... many women do not characterize their sexual victimizations as a crime for a number of reasons (such as embarrassment, not clearly understanding the legal definition of rape, or not wanting to define someone they know who victimized them as a 'rapist') or because they blame themselves for their sexual assault."

because while trying to determine if, in fact, it says "women and men" as some IP editors have changed the wording to, I made a discovery: the link's to a 404 error. Obviously, the 404 error says nothing about the characterization of sexual victimizations by anybody. So, I moved it to here. Can an alternative source for the Fisher (is this someone with an article?) study be found, to check the quote? Can an alternative quote with the same intended meaning as Fisher be found? Is any quote needed? The Literate Engineer 14:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Source material is here: :https://web.archive.org/web/20040725034749/http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/college/college.txt
 * ~ender 2014-09-20 15:54:PM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.198.144 (talk)

POV Check rape reporting definitions, sources, statistics
I added the following quick and dirty content to raise POV issues about the how rape is reported that need to be shown here. These issues need to be addressed here in depth to make this article credible and NPOV. I don't have time to source and or cite all these statements now but I welcome other editors to weigh in. (drop in editor)

Content at issue:


 * Rape reporting are one of the most unreliable and politicized forms of crime reporting in the United States. States define rape in many different and contradictory ways. Some forms of rape are not defined as rape at all in some states while in others they are.  This leads to wildly unreliable rape incidence statistics.  In addition, male-female rape is a highly political issue so male-female rape statistics are often wildly exaggerated or falsified to fearmonger (see The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability, Laura Kipnis, 2006) for perjorative political purposes.  Reverse sexism is rampant in rape reporting to the detriment of male victims of both male and female rapists.  Female victims of female rapists especially girls are rarely reported at all.  "Indeed, no other major category of crime - not murder, assault or robbery - has generated a more serious challenge of the credibility of national crime statistics" than has rape."  (drop in editor) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.111.95.210 (talk • contribs).

Offensively Biased Political Statements
This page is written in the most offensively biased manner that I have witnessed in a long time.

The author makes a variety of inaccurate claims that are, at best, sexist, and at worst, deliberately misogynist.

The original author needs to give more references than a single book to support the assertion that rape statistics are exaggerated for political reasons. If anything rape statistics are usually based on reported rapes, which are known to be significantly under reported.

I would propose that this page be removed as it perpetuates a stereotype that revictimises rape survivors.

Datura Greenleaf 11:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Its unclear, but I think the opening paragraph refers not to statistics of rapes reported to police, but statistics gained from surveys that use very absurd definitions of rape (such as defining rape as feeling any pressure of any kind to have sex or as regretting it later). These statistics are often passed around college campuses or found on the internet and are used for political purposes to inflame people. The opening parapraph is definitely biased but the rest of the article seems fine. Qvkfgmjqy 14:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay - heated subject so let's go carefully. I agree the first paragraph needs a total rewrite, and far better ciation. I do not agree with Datura Greenleaf that the page needs removing. Indeed, I feel from the tone of that editors entry on this talk page she feels very emotive about the subject. Given this, it is surely better to have a strong, NPOV,article than to "dust it under the covers" by removing all content ???? Pedro 1999a | Talk  14:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried to address the problem re the intro, and have removed the tag. Still, more references would be desirable. Paul B 16:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest concentrating more on rape stats, and moving the bulk of the sensitive material to False Rape. Paskari (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

section about the experiences of those falsely accused of rape
Would a section about the experiences of people falsely accused of rape be added to this article? Or should that be some other article? I know some people have compared being falsely accused of rape to the experience of actually being raped. Qvkfgmjqy 14:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this would be the right article, since it's about reporting statistics and motivations for either failing to report or making a false report. Paul B 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

other interpretations
I took out the other intrepations section. The article only states that in some studies a very high number of rapes reported to the police are recanted and were likely baseless. It says nothing about whether this says anything about all women any more than the rape article says anything about whether the fact that some men rape means something about all men. The fact that some people who recant may well have actually been raped is now talked about(and largely refuted) in the section on Kanin's reports. Qvkfgmjqy 01:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The statistics part of my paragraph can be interpreted independently of that first sentence. I don't see why it needs to be removed. Xiner (talk, email) 01:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * They werent statistics, they were hypothetical numbers used to illustrate a point, correct? Qvkfgmjqy 01:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * A point that is pertinent to the issue. Why do you think people argue over the false reporting rates? Xiner (talk, email) 01:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Noone is saying that all women are liars. Noone is saying that all women who accuse men of rape are liars. I dont understand why you feel the need to specifically refute either of those things. And you're hypothetical, totally out of no where numbers, assume that all women who are raped report it to the police. They also assume that each false accuser only makes one false accusation per year. So if you want to keep them, than you should account for those two things. Qvkfgmjqy 01:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do people argue over the false reporting rate? Xiner (talk, email) 01:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Noone knows the overall false reporting rate. Thats how people figure stuff out, they argue! Assuming that there was no funny business in the town and two universites that Kanin observed, and no funny business by Kanin than those figures form a reliable lower estimate of the false reports of completed forcible rapes in those two places at those two times. Other times, other places? Noone knows! Its unreasonable to assume that Kanin's numbers apply across the US or across the world. But it is reasonable to assume that a significant number of rapes reported in the US are false assuming that the town and two universities are not substantially different from the rest of the country in some way.  Qvkfgmjqy 02:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To argue that everyone argues over the false reporting rate without any ulterior motives is as believable as arguing that everyone argues over the prevalence of rape without any ulterior motives. Xiner (talk, email) 02:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a part about the intellectual and moral bankrupcty of modern feminism, and the stranglehold that that movement has over research into this area but I took it out because I thought that you might think that the feminists are only ones with moral and intellectual integrity and I didnt want to alienate you. Yes it is politicized. But just because something is politicized and just because people say totally different things doesnt mean that the truth isnt out there. Qvkfgmjqy 02:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The other interpretations section is pure OR and special pleading. It has almost no relation to the text footnoted, and is a personal extrapolation. The issue here is reliability of rape reporting not a guestimate about how many women in the population overall would tell the truth if they were raped. Paul B 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree Qvkfgmjqy 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's an article on Rape reporting, it should include relevant debates about the statistics. Otherwise it's just not complete. Why do you think we have pages like this? Xiner (talk, email) 15:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What methodology did they use to get that number? My understanding is that the 2 to 3 percent number is just something that someone said in a book and has never providied any justification for. And, unfortunately, its become gospel and is the number used on rape crisis center pages and the like. Qvkfgmjqy 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the statistics of rape reporting not of the proportion of truthful women in the population. The page you refer to has no connection with what you wrote. Paul B 16:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an encyclopedia article, this is an editorial piece. It's riddled with someone's personal opinion. The author has cherry-picked her research to support her predetermined conclusion, ignoring several widely cited and highly credible studies that reach the opposite conclusion. Quite frankly, I find it rather tempting to edit the whole thing down to just facts... but then there wouldn't be much of an article left, would there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slurpophogus (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are "widely cited and highly creditable studies" that are omitted, then say what they are and add them. "Editing it down" is of no value unless you are removing uncited, O.R. or irrelevant material. Adding more relevant material is useful. Paul B 20:24, 20 January 2007 (UT

Global statistics
I added today a mention of the The Eighth United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (2001 - 2002) and User:Paul Barlow deleted it saying "no reason to mention one specific case". I believe an article on statistics that's tagged "globalize" needs the best available global statistics. So I'm reverting it (albeit with a correction). If anyone disagrees, please talk. --VSerrata 15:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the deletion was a mistake because I accidentally accessed a non-current version of the article. I only intended to delete the reference to the case of Tracy Roberson. Paul B 15:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a concern about the conflation between rape statistics and sexual assault statistics, particularly in the Canadian section. The Johnson and Sacco study refers specifically to sexual assault which includes rape, but also includes any unwanted forcible sexual touching (including kissing). Since the the article is titled "rape" statistics, the citation and description about the 1 in 3 is contextually misleading. I suspect that this will be a constant issue for the Canadian case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.3.90.106 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Individual rape cases
Material added by User:Johntex about an individual case in Texas has been deleted and replaced twice so far. My view is that there's nothing in the facts cited that's relevant to statistics. It could be different if this was an example cited in an academic paper about issues that have an impact on numbers reported/recorded - but it isn't. --VSerrata 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree (though of course you did unilaterally change the title of the article!). We can easily add emotive examples for any aspect of this issue. We don't want the article to turn into a war of stories designed to support one or another pov, with one story about a woman who has been intimdated into withdrawing testimony set up against another about a woman who has blatently lied. Paul B 15:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While I would prefer to cite a more comprehensive study, it is better to cite an individual case than to include nothing of this type of information at all. Leaving it out would mean that the article has no coverage of incidents where the supposed victim (man or woman) falsely alleges rape in order to cover up their own sexual activity.  Therefore the mention should stay in.  I would go along with shortening it to a single sentence if you would prefer that. Johntex\talk 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's completely reasonable to link notable or representative examples (and we can always argue happily about where precisely they're relevant or not). This particular case is actually being reported as a "bizarre twist" (i.e. not representative of anything). If there isn't any secondary source (published opinion of some expert) making Johntex's point that this is more than a passing news story, then IMO it isn't encyclopedic material about rape. VSerrata 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The "bizarre twist" being reported is not that she lied about the rape, but that she is being prosecuted for manslaughter even though she did not actually weild the weapon. That does not relate to its relevance here.  It's relevance here is that it relates to a false report of rape, and a reason for it.  I will shorten the text to exclude the mention of the killing, and we will see how you like that version.  Johntex\talk 17:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This shorter version isn't an obvious sore thumb now and there are loads of other things to fix with a bit of talking, so I'm ready to leave it for now. Thanks, Johntex. VSerrata 08:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for compromising with me. I will keep my eyes out for a more comprehensive survey or scholarly publication but I am not too optimistic on finding one.  Best, Johntex\talk 14:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Issues Tag
Currently, this article is an argument that rape statistics are unreliable, primarily reports of male-on-female rape. Consider the first sentence:
 * Statistics on rape are among the most unreliable for serious crimes

It does not belong in Wikipedia, and blatantly violates many policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. If we don't fix it soon, I think it should be deleted. The current form is unacceptable.

It needs a complete rewrite. A proper article would describe the definitions, techniques, outcomes, leading scholars and agencies, etc. A balanced, NPOV section of criticism is important too, but only as one part, much smaller than the current content.

I'd do it myself, but lack the time and resources. Sorry. Guanxi 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see the Rape Statistics section of the Rape article is similar, though maybe slightly more balanced. I'm going to tag that too, but I suggest we cleanup this article first, then apply the results to the Rape article. Guanxi 17:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it back, it really just needs to be expanded. I just going to add a comment on its discussion page. Guanxi 17:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I put the tags back, removed a month ago. The article is still "an argument that rape statistics are unreliable"
 * That is topic is still 99% of the article, from the second sentence through the only two sections, "Over and under reporting" and "False reporting".
 * It still only presents one side of the argument, that they are unreliable.

I think all my statements above continue to apply. Guanxi (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Below I posted, to show what we're missing. Guanxi (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can it be redeemed?
I have edited some of this article to remove the bias. However it is still basicaly an article that examines the biased and problematic aspects of rape statistics, which is only one small part of what rape statistics constitute.

This entry desperatly needs expanding by someone vaguely familiar with rape statistics, their collection and the types of data involved, so that this article can acually be about rape statistics. Otherwise it should just be renamed "problems with rape statistics" or "bias in rape stats.."

Seth J. Frantzman 14:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This article reads like a set-up for the Kanin report. Since the link is to his study, not to any second- or third-party review, its use as a source is highly questionable. Someone might want to find a peer-review or response to the study, that would be a much better source. But the Kanin material becomes even more questionable when underreporting has so little text (and is considered to be a far more significant issue) and false reporting comprises most of the article with only one source, Kanin's study. One study does not an article on "rape statistics" make. The article's title should be "Kanin's study on false reporting" which isn't all that notable. Suggest total rewrite or deletion. Any thoughts? Phyesalis 06:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article was called Rape reporting until someone changed the title. This might be a reason to change it back. If you have reliable sources on underreporting add them. Paul B 07:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've deleted obvious OR in the False accusations section. I might have been a bit harsh in my previous post. The article isn't bad, but the Kanin material should go, it is fringe OR used to support an implied OR thesis. Suggest immediate deletion of Kanin material. Will add more material on underreporting in the coming week.Phyesalis 07:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean when you say Kanin is OR. Kanin is a legitimate researcher. OR is a rule that applies to editors, not to sources. Paul B 10:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And rightly so, the Kanin material itself is not OR. I feel as if Kanin is a fringe minority view: he is one study claiming an astronomical percentage, sourced from www.sexcriminals.com (which I suspect is an edited copy of a edited crib on someone's personal website, font is the same and the same size on both sites, definitely not the original article itself) based on a sample size of 109?, versus multiple studies and organizations consistently claiming 2-3% of false accusation as part of an overall 8% of unfounded rapes (most of which have to do with issues of prosecution, not the veracty of the allegation) with sample sizes of hundreds of thousands. His study is given undue weight. The presence of such a minority view suggests an implied bit of OR, namely that any credible source suggests that false accusations of rape occur at a rate of 41? 45%? It's fringe and misleading.


 * I'm not trying to be difficult, but I really question the presence and excessive space given to one fringe study. There are things that would really help:
 * 1.First and foremost, the article needs a reliable link to the article in the journal, or reprinted in some reliable source, or it needs to be cited as book with page numbers. Without this, I find the material and citation unacceptable per WP citation standards.
 * 2. It would go a long way to arguing the material's inclusion if someone could find another study or paper which used Kanin's study, in order to help relate the study to the article's subject as a whole. This does not include random essays from journalists to journalists, which use Kanin's study as an example of how unreliable studies on false allegations are (re: CJR quote).
 * 3. If 1 and 2 are met, the material would benefit from a little more summary. Thoughts?Phyesalis 08:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give editors a couple days to recover from the turkey, but if there isn't a reliable source for the study, the kanin material should either go, or be summarized for the value of its fringe view. Phyesalis (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, having read Rumney's paper False Allegations of Rape, I think I can say that the repeated assertions that Kanin's report is in some sense "fringe" is completely false (not that any justification for this assertion has even been made). If anything it seems to be fairly mid-range in its conclusions, given Rumney's tabulation of studies. Jordan (2004), Gregory and Lees (1996) and Maclean (1979) all come up with similar results. Other studies give lower results, but several are still above 20%, giving quite a wide range. For this reason I can see no justification for the POV tag. Paul B (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Source on female sex offender statistics and gross underreporting
[www.canadiancrc.com/female_sexual_predators_awareness.aspx] This site has some taboo information on female sex offenders who prey on children. Please use whatever content that is credible there to bolster or to correct possible biases in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.96.155 (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wildly disparate OFFICIAL stats on Educator-Student sex abuse by SEX
Please search for the PDF file Educator Sexual Misconduct on the official USDE website for the official report on educator-student sex abuse (up to and including rape) from 2004. Notice one set of stats says that males commit 57% and females 43% of educator sex crimes while another says the ratio is a whopping 96% male to a mere 4% female. Talk about absurd statistics. However, common sense says that being no less human than men...women are likely to be just as loathsome as men are evil. Refreshingly, we are at least beginning to see some semblance of balance in rape research and reporting. However this kind of wildy disparate reporting makes one wonder about official rape/ sex abuse statistics in general, particularly where the sex of the offender is concerned. One would hope that murder and robbery reported by sex of the offender are far more reliable than rape stats are now. 128.111.96.155 (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that statistics which include a broad range of abuses ("up to and including rape") cannot be extrapolated into stats on "rape". Please see WP:SYN. Phyesalis (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No one is extrapolating rape from sexual abuse. However, the huge disparities in female sex offender stats in our schools suggests that female sex offenders who rape are also benefiting from reverse-sexism in rape research and rape reporting.  Reverse sexism as well as other shameless abuses of scholarship in rape research directly affect rape reporting.  This point needs to be included in any genuine article on rape statistics.  72.215.181.137 (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Break Overreporting and Underreporting up?
I think it would help to break up the overreporting and underreporting section into two separate sections. That could help provide more balance, especially if a lot of sources can be brought into the underreporting section. Annamcl (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WHAT CAMPUS RAPE CRISIS? (LA Times 2/24/08)
Please bring in some content that reflects the realities pointed out in this recent LA TIMES opinion piece.

"If the one in four (25% of college coeds are raped) statistic is correct, campus rape represents a crime wave of unprecedented proportions. No felony, much less one as serious as rape, has a victimization rate remotely approaching 20% or 25%, even over many years.  The 2006 violent crime rate in Detroit, one of the most violent cities in the U.S., was 2,400 murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assualts  per 100,000 inhabitants---a rate of 2.4%."

As author Heather MacDonald notes there is a huge disparity between the point of view of "rape culture" researchers and the so-called 'victims' point of view. She also notes that this 1 in 4 lie has been repeated so often that it has become "proven beyond all reasonable doubt" in the minds of many activists. Phony rape research has created a phony campus rape epidemic she says. 72.215.181.137 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes 25% is huge. I'd have to agree that, unless there is evidence for it, this should be removed Paskari (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This just occourred to me, according to the UN statistics, South Africa has the highest rate of [recorded] rape, at 115 rapes per 100,000 people. That's 0.1%, which is a far cry from 25% (1 in 4). Either those stats are wrong, or this 1 in 4 business is unreliable. Even if we assume that 75% of rapes go unreported, then that only bumps it up to 0.4%. Am I missing something? Paskari (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are missing something: Just because a number is high does NOT mean it is false.  Rape is incredibly under-reported.  Reported/recorded rapes account for only a fraction of total rapes.  One in six women is the victim of a forcible rape in the US, and in my state, Oregon.  Most of them do not report the rape, for many reasons.  Campus rape rates are higher than the average population, so the one in four makes sense.08:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.84.50 (talk)
 * Wow thanks for the insight! Could you please add a reference or link to back up your claim. It would be nice if you could show where the real numbers in a statistic sense are going as opposed to simply asserting rapes aren't being reported, for many reasons (as you mention). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.119.68 (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 115 rapes per 100,000 people is the annual incidence of reported rapes (in a specific year) - that is not the same thing with the lifetime prevalence of rape, which is how many women were ever raped. Just because a woman was not raped in 2012, doesn't mean she has never been raped in another year. Also this incidence of annual reported rapes is for all the population, both men&women, from birth to old age.2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4510 (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The statistic is not over a lifetime, but over the period of study in a college (normally 3-4 years). The source says: "It is a central claim of these organizations that between a fifth and a quarter of all college women will be raped or will be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years." One problem is that "attempted rape" is somewhat difficult to define. Paul B (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I admit I didn't read carefully this section and I didn't check the sources on the college statistics, but I was just responding to the comments above, since I've seen many other similar comments on rape related articles' talk pages, where people seem to confuse the annual incidence of reported rape with all sorts of other statistics and/or to take the liberty of drawing all sorts of conclusions based on the annual incidence, through WP:OR.    2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:4510 (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

What this page should look like
A simple outline of an encyclopedic, NPOV page on Rape Statistics. I don't have time to write it, and it doesn't need to follow this plan exactly, but the article should cover this information:

First, we should probably rename it, Sexual assault statistics. Rape statistics is too narrow and the definition varies too much (see my example, below). If you don't agree, you can substitute the term rape for sexual assault below.


 * 1) Intro: Sexual assualt statistics are the quantified measurement, often by government institutions, of the frequency of forms of sexual assault among a certain population during a certain time period. ...
 * 2) Definition of sexual assault: ''The definition of sexual assault varies in different statistical studies, often due to variations in law and cultural norms. In some places, sexual assault is defined as (insert here example of loosest definition). In others sexual assault is (insert narrowest example). See sexual assault for a more details ...
 * 3) Rape compared with Sexual Assault: Rape is usually sexual assault that includes penetration, but the definition varies widely. For example, in a prominent case, the defendants were accused of sexual assault but not rape, because the alleged penetration was with an object and not the defendants' genitalia. ...


 * 1) Sexual Assault statistics by country.
 * 2) Worldwide (UN stats?)
 * 3) Defintion
 * 4) Latest statistics
 * 5) Sources
 * 6) United States
 * 7) Defintion
 * 8) Latest statistics
 * 9) Sources
 * 10) By state?
 * 11) any other countries we have info on
 * 12) Defintion
 * 13) Latest statistics
 * 14) Sources

Guanxi (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Problems in measuring sexual assault: Insert various criticisms here.
 * 2) More information


 * Non-one is stopping anyone from adding extra information. That does not make what is currently here "POV". I am getting rather fed up with editors adding tags because they don't like what they read but providing no useful content that would add to the article or contradict its current contents. Paul B (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it would be better if I could add the content (I don't have the info or the time, sorry) and I agree that the lack of the content I listed above has little to do with POV. So there are two issues: It's POV because it presents one side of an argument -- that is, it fails the WP:NPOV standards. The problem I'm addressing in this section is that there far is too much content on one topic, the reliability of the stats, and almost none on anything else. Guanxi (talk) 13:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually looking through the "over reporting and under reporting" section (to which I have contributed nothing), it does seem biassed in favour of emphasis on the claim that there is over-reporting, and is also unclear what is meant by 'reporting' (ie when what is meant is reporting to the police, or when what is being discussed is reports of academic surveys concerning the extent of rape.) I have done my best to find academic literature on the topic of false reporting and to fairly characterise it. I don't see what is "one sided" about this. If you wish to read Rumney's "False Allegations of Rape" in the Cambridge Law Journal and to summarise its contents otherwise, it is available online. Paul B (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
 * "FOXNEWS" :

According to the 1999 United States National Crime Victimization Survey, only 39% of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement officials. For male rape, less than 10% are believed to be reported. Female-male and female-female rape are ignored altogether in this survey. The most common reasons given by victims for not reporting rapes are the belief that it is a personal or private matter, and that they fear reprisal from the assailant. A 2007 government report in England says "Estimates from research suggest that between 75 and 95 per cent of rape crimes are never reported to the police." Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, Without consent: A report on the joint review of the investigation and prosecution of rape offences, January 2007 accessed at April 5, 2007 - p.8 DumZiBoT (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Rape in the United States of America
I've removed this section, as it adds nothing to the article. Also see a number of WP:NPOV violations. Ottre 06:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your censorship adds nothing. The statistics I posted come from an excellent source, the U.S. Justice Dept.

Why does your highness not like the statistics?

Who made you king? Brutanti (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this paragraph appears to be included mainly to make a non-neutral point about the inferiority of black people to white people. It is phrased in a way that is strongly based in opinion and point of view.  I would also point out to User:Brutanti that racists tend to bring Wikipedia into disrepute, and only those racists who are scrupulously neutral in their writing and very polite to other editors manage to avoid being blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * you might be right that it was added to make a point about the danger hypothetically posed by black men, but talk about non-neutral, "inferiority" is surely wrong and your personal judgment as regards, see Darwin, procreation, and survival of the fittest 68.174.97.122 (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This paragraph, or variations of it, has been repeatedly inserted into and removed from this article. Paul B (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ms. FisherQueen, would you delete the article on slavery in America because it is included mainly to make a point about the oppresive nature of white people?Brutanti (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The correct order for a talk page discussion is chronological; moving a section to the top is rather confusing, so I've returned it to the bottom of the page. No, I would not support deleting the article on slavery in America.  Is there a suggestion that that article should be deleted?  I thought we were discussing the paragraph you proposed adding to this article, which includes opinion-language such as 'the way it presents rape data obscures the racial element rather than clarifies it' and 'In my opinion this is a sad state of affairs that deserves attention. Sweeping it under the rug doesn't help the thousands of woman who will be raped if nothing is done,' which are clear violations of WP:NPOV in my opinion.  If you want to discuss the deletion of Slavery in the United States, you should start that discussion on Talk:Slavery in the United States. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Extremely disturbing that this passage from RAINN was allowed (so deleted). It Presumes that all complaints of rape (are true) involve a rapist then horrendously distorts logic to claim 15 in 16 rapists go free. "If rape is ever reported, there is only a 50.8% chance of an arrest. If that arrest is made, there is an 80% chance of prosecution which still only has a 58% chance of a conviction. If there is a felony conviction, there is about a 69% chance the convict will spend time in jail. So even if the 39% of assaults are reported, there is only a 16.3% chance the rapist will end up serving prison time. So that means 15 out of 16 rapist will walk free without ever serving time for their heinous act." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godspiral (talk • contribs) 01:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to insertion of the following?

Rape in the United States of America

The FBI keeps very detailed national records on crime. In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. In other words, on average, every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man, and zero or one black females are sexually assaulted or raped by a white man..

Source is United States Department of Justice "Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005"Brutanti (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I still object, because you've made it clear that your primary motivation is racist, and so I'm reluctant to support anything you might write related to race. However, I'm only one voice; if other users agree that this paragraph should be included in the article, then that consensus will prevail. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As written, it is entirely inflamatory. Proper summary of the statistics might approriately include a comment on race. After all the serial killer article prominently asserts that the majority of such murderers are " white males", so we should not adopt double standards. But is should be done briefly and dispassionately. Paul B (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the US section again, it is just a duplicate of the information appearing on the Rape in the United States page. It's existence just adds more work for those updating and information. Hvatum (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There should still be a brief summary in this article, but the main page needs considerable work before I would venture creating that summary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll make a brief summary. But it's absolutely insane to maintain exactly IDENTICAL copies of the same thing on THREE different pages. I'm going to revert it and put a summary in, as it is clearly against Wikipedia guidelines for multiple pages to simply be copies of exactly the same material. Hvatum (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not identical copies. You're not going to delete material because you are too lazy to go through and read the section.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 02:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The paragraphs are also not identical. In particular, I added the bit about internet pornography to Rape in the United States not too long ago.  That's not in the other versions.  There are other tiny changes too, I think.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 02:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The bit about Internet pornography is in the other one as well. If there's anything else I missed, please feel free to add it. But if they're not identical, and merely 95% of the same stuff, all the more reason to consolidate them, so people do not need to read through a plethora of information just to get the one new bit. I'll leave this page as it is until tomorrow, and then put the summary back in. I've read through them both pretty carefully and I think everything that is in this one is in the US one now as well. Lesson learned though, I did miss the bit about internet pornography, I'll be sure to read more carefully before doing any edits like that in the future. Thanks for your help.Hvatum (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Undent. If we're using a main, then what remains should be a very brief summary. If they're essentially the same but for a few tiny changes, I'd say that's more of a duplication than a summary. I'd suggest three sentences at the most, neutral and I wouldn't even bother sourcing it. Normally I would work with the lead from the main page, but that's pretty terrible. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I've given up because people insist on maintaining three (nearly) identical sections. Occasionally some new bit of information is added to one of them, or something is improved in one section so they diverge. My idea was to keep one well edited section with this information, but people always revert any summarized section to the full form. Making the section conform to WP guidelines and just putting the effort into one well maintained version would be the best course, but it doesn't seem to be possible. Not really much point in investing so much time into this section since it will only be reverted later anyway Hvatum (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

RAPIST PROFILE
In several well documented studies on rape, basic characteristics of rapists, in general, have been identified. These include:

AGE: 75% under age 25, 80% under age 30; over 30 if sadistic type

SEX: Usually male

RACE: Mostly black (75-90% of rapists in prison are black); crime tends to be intra-racial; rapists are usually unarmed; 1 in 4 (25%) uses a knife or instrument.

PHYSICAL: 6 feet tall, 160-200 pounds, muscular build, dark complexion.

CLASS: Most are from poverty-lower class backgrounds, are products of unstable families, and are abused or neglected.

IQ: Majority in normal range 90-110

EDUCATION: Typically a high school graduate; some college possible; discipline problems likely, most likely involving pornography interest

PEERS: Mild to moderate social maladjustments, but normally one of the "boys"; tries to cultivate a reputation as a tough fighter, but known as a punk and low life to many; usually married, divorced, or lives with a women, in that order, but has demonstrated poor relations with women

WORK: Most work reliably around women; lack self-confidence to improve self; if sadistic, takes better job. More than half are unskilled laborers or unemployed.

CRIMINAL HISTORY: Most average 2.5 priors, only 2 years served on each. Most also have history of alcohol-related charges.

ARREST: Frequently leaves clues with victim; plays games with police; difficult to get confession

DRUG/ALCOHOL: Noted problems in this area

MENTAL: Antisocial personality; defines self as normal in every way except sexually.

VEHICLE: Older American cargo-type van with sliding side door, white or light-colored. No side windows. Brutanti (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems inappropriate Paskari (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't match the US statistics on rape.
 * http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf
 * If that doesn't work, look here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=942
 * Or just the bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov site and then look up "Offenders demographics"
 * About half of rapes are committed by white people, according to US FBI statistics. Blacks do commit a disproportionate number, but by no means the majority. Hvatum (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Care to add a country, or refrences? This sounds like it was taken from concervativepedia. If fact this is so bad I would suggest someone delete it from the discussion page. But I don't know the protocol of that. 219.90.224.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC).


 * "when last seen, what direction was he headed?" is how that reads, i.e. stupid for an encyclopedia 68.174.97.122 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV Source articles/books for other editors to use on this article
Here are some sources I found that will be useful for those editors who use common sense rather than 'feeling' to edit loaded articles like this.


 * 1) False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought Wendy McElroy (online)
 * 2) Until Proven Innocent (see Amazon book reviews)
 * 3) False Rape Allegations Eugene J. Kanin Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994

The stats range from false and baseless stats of 2% from fraudulent feminist sources to a high of 41% in a single small sociological study. The perps' motives were to 1) provide and alibi, 2) seek revenge and 3) obtain sympathy and attention. As Until Proven Innocent shows false rape accusatons can destroy the victims' lives while the perps, their allies and the mass media usually escapes with no meaningful sanctions for false rape charges. 72.215.160.18 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have witnessed one such woman when in court for another matter, after it was discovered that she had lied about such an attack. The sheriff was furious, rightly stating that everyone who does this makes it that much harder for REAL victims to come forward, but then could only give her 100 odd hours of community service by way of punishment. As a door steward, among other jobs, over the years, I have noticed a number of young females make such claims, often to cover up revealed infidelities, or simply to cause trouble for certain people. I don't intend to make out as if the majority of claims are false, but they certainly do occur IME far more frequently than they should. One of the reasons may be that there is little or no disincentive to do so, as any punishments may be quite minor, whereas the accused may be attacked, lose their jobs or standing in the community, or worse. At present, there is still controversy in the UK at least, where the accused are often clearly identified on TV or in the newspapers, whereas the alleged victims are guaranteed anonymity. The new coalition government were originally going to change this, but now have backpedalled, apparently under pressure from certain groups based on claims that revealing the identity of someone who has not yet been found guilty may encourage others to come forward, totally disregarding the point of being innocent UNTIL proven guilty...82.6.1.85 (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

UN Statistics
I realize these are the UN statistics, but I just can't believe that Canada has the second highest rate of rape, even more that Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Romania, and Tunisia.

Also, it has over twice the rate of America! I edited it to indicate that it is a list of recorded rapes Paskari (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The UN Statistics were not copied correctly. I spotted errors in the US statistics. The rates reported on the Wikipedia page for the US are roughly 4 times those on the UN page. Also, I think it should be citing reference #4 not reference #15 which has to do with prisons and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalekinvasion (talk • contribs) 14:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

just to let everyone know, the UN statistics were copied wrong. Take a look at the source of the statistics, which is a UN website--and you will see that the numbers for every country on the wikipedia page has been changed...Suspicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.120.22 (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The data in the chart is (apparently still) wrong and also the sorting doesn't work properly. SkySilver (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rape statistics
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rape statistics's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Abbey": From Sexual assault: Abbey, A., BeShears, R., Clinton-Sherrod, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2004). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 323-332."Similarities and differences in women's sexual assault experiences based on tactics used by the perpetrator". Accessed 9 July 2008. From Rape in the United States: Abbey, A., BeShears, R., Clinton-Sherrod, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2004). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 323-332."Similarities and differences in women's sexual assault experiences based on tactics used by the perpetrator". Accessed 10 December 2007. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Broken links
Many of the references are now broken. This article is failed for verification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpattiris (talk • contribs) 22:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"Real World Statistics"

 * Real World Statistics


 * The website http://www.rape.co.za/ has a poll which asks "If you are a rape survivor, how old were you when it happened". The poll reflects that 29.0% are between the ages of 16-20; 26.4% are between 10 and 15; 17.7% are between 21 and 30; 14.7% are younger than 10; 7.1% are between 30 and 40 and 5.1% are older than 40. The poll had 693 respondents as of 2010-01-27.

I just deleted this part of the article because it doesn't give any evidence of notability per WP:N. In case anyone can come up with it, put it back in. RichLow (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:N explains about whether or not an topic is notable as the subject of an article. See N.  Content of an article has much less strict guidelines.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, sorry. Per WP:V the cited website doesn't as of now show to be a reliable source. RichLow (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh? How do you know it's an unreliable source?  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it seems to be a personal blog and, after a quick and superficial search, I only found mentions of it on other personal, first-party websites. I could be wrong, of course. RichLow (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look when I get back from work.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 19:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thanks. RichLow (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like you were right. Informal poll by some random site.  Don't think it qualifies as encyclopedic.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 19:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

False Reporting, undue weight
The False Reporting section has ridiculously undue weight, being much longer that the entire rest of the article combined (except for the table). It also duplicates the page on False accusation of rape. And it cherry-picks sentences from good articles, and includes fringe articles that have been described in respected articles as "non-typical" as evidence. And the person who just re-ordered the section shows his bias when he says that he reordered it to explain the "bias" of the "low figure" of 8%. He has an agenda to make it seem that 8% is a low estimation of false accusations. (not that that was needed to reveal that he is biased and has an agenda, given that his personal page describes himself thusly: "I am a men's rights activist. You may learn more here: http://jayhammers.blogspot.com. I am well-aware of Wikipedia editors' tendencies to hide the facts of feminism, men's rights, domestic violence, false rape accusations, etc., so I've largely given up trying to influence Wikipedia pages run by feminist liars."). This undue weight can be remedied by simply referring people to the False accusation of rape page where the issue can be dealt with at length and in a more appropriately situated fashion. QuizzicalBee (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It can also be argued that the focus on discrediting acknowledgement of false reporting is, also, given undue weight, given the section doesn't even mention there is a controversial range until the 6th paragraph (as you well know, since you put it back there), and instead focuses on demonstrating that even 2% isn't a valid number. Neutrality would dictate an acknowledgement of the controversial range of false reporting and THEN the attempts to discredit those values. --Kratch (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But that question is dealt with in False accusation of rape. Why put it here?QuizzicalBee (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Who's been turning the 'False Reports' section into their personal blog?
Someone has been crowbaring their POV into the false reports section and I have removed some of the offending commentary. More work, however, needs to be done to remove the vandalism from the section.--75.134.142.69 (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These sections are given undue weight by their inclusion and represent fringe views from advocacy groups. Caveats are already provided for the studies contained in this section.  The inclusion of those portions is in violation WP:Weight and WP:POV--75.134.142.69 (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There a plenty of studies that show that fake rape claims are higher than the article suggests. This is a good place to start, if you want some honesty and unbiased articles; hXXp://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/  Yeah, yeah, I know I'll be called a woman hater now. -raphjd- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raphjd (talk • contribs) 21:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone removed a large chunk off the Sweden section without any apperent reason.
I just reverted the deletion, but the IP should be lit up for vandalism. 94.255.143.88 (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"False Reporting" suffering from heavy POV, studies deleted for no reason
When I first came upon this section a week or so ago, it called the US Justice Department's finding of 8% of false reports erroneous and far too high (WITHOUT any sources), stated that a study that found 3% of false reports (incidentally, one of the smallest such figures according to the main article) was the best and "most rigorous", (WITHOUT any sources at the time, although one was later added) and lastly, that the Kanin study that found a figure of 41% was not just highly criticized (which it certainly was, and is fine to point out) but also that it was garbage that was widely "debunked". (Also WITHOUT any sources) Even though the main article has studies with a mean false reporting rate of roughly 15%, much higher than the most recommended studies in this section, I didn't include any of them, and simply sought to make the section more impartial and less severely biased. Here is what I amended it to;

"FBI reports consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%.[8] However, critics have argued that "unfounded" is not synonymous with "false" allegation.[9] A much criticized[10][11][12] 1994 article describing 109 rape complaints made between 1978 and 1987 alleged that 41% were "false allegations."[13] A study Kelly, Lovett, and Regan in 2005, based on 2,643 sexual assault cases, found 22% of cases recorded by police as "no crime" and 3% as "possible" or "probable" false allegations. [14] This was called "the largest" and "most rigorous" by researcher David Lisak, [15][16] who himself found a figure of 5.9% of false reports in a 2010 study. [17]"

If anything, this still suffers from mild POV, but is at least well-sourced, and doesn't make any extreme statements one way or the other. Unfortunately, a certain editor has kept reverting these edits into something that is much better suited for an opinion piece/blog than it is for an impartial encyclopedia. I hope this issue can be resolved. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The Kanin sudy has certainly been criticised, but it has not been "debunked" (a term which implies something close to proven wrong). I should also add that I have read the Cambridge Law Journal article cited in the paragraph beginning "a review of studies of false reporting...". The summary is an outrageous misrepresentation of its contents, which only mentions criticism of police use of 'no crime' unjustified scepticism of complainants. It makes no mention of the fact that the article also criticises feminists and others for equivalent failings from the other side of the debate. A fair summary of that would not that it consuiders both the low and the high end results unreliable. Paul B (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The main findings in Rumney's own words: "'Two conclusions can be drawn from this review of literature on the prevalence of false rape allegations. First, many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies and, so we cannot discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations. A key component in judging the reliability of research in this area relates to the criteria used to judge an allegation to be false. Some studies use entirely unreliable criteria, while others provide only limited information on how rates are measured. The second conclusion that can be drawn from the research is that the police continue to misapply the no- crime or unfounding criteria and in so doing it would appear that some officers have fixed views and expectations about how genuine rape victims should react to their victimisation. The qualitative research also suggests that some officers continue to exhibit an unjustified scepticism of rape complainants, while others interpret such things as lack of evidence or complaint withdrawal as ‘‘proof’’ of a false allegation. Such findings suggest that there are inadequacies in police awareness of the dynamics and impact of sexual victimisation and this further reinforces the importance of training and education. However, the exact extent to which police officers incorrectly label allegations as false is difficult to discern.'" Rumney particularly criticized the Maclean (1979), Stewart (1981), and Kanin (1994). In comparison, the Kelly et al. (2005) study (which has been described as the "largest and most rigorous" by other researchers) is the only one that has received at least some praise: "Of central importance in this respect is research that examines how and why police officers determine that particular allegations are false. The recent study by Kelly et al. has, to some extent, alleviated this evidence gap, though there continue to be areas where we know relatively little. For example, an examination of the role played by forensic medical examiners and prosecutors in the classification of rape reports at different points in the criminal justice process is also of importance..." --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am completely fine with adding in Rumney's findings, as long as they are an accurate representation of the entirety of what he said, as opposed to cherry-picked quotes to push a POV. Also, I would ask Sonicyouth86 not to revert other aspects of my edit without discussing them first. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Rumney's "conclusions" as reported by Sonicyouth86, do not in fact come from the conclusion of his essay, but from an early section in which he is reviewing the literature. This has been plucked out and represented as Rumney's general conclusion. For absolute transparency I reproduce the whole of Rumney's final section to the study labelled "Conclusion":

VI. CONCLUSION The issue of false rape allegations should not be viewed as a peripheral matter of little concern to those who are seriously concerned with the way in which rape complaints are handled by the criminal justice process. It is not only an important issue for those concerned with the treatment of complainants, but it also has implications for suspects and defendants. The actual rate of false allegations may also be highly relevant to the future direction of legal policy. For example, if the rate of false allegations is significantly higher than for other serious offences, then this may require a re-assessment of legal provisions relating to such things as suspect/defendant anonymity. It is also evident that police officers no-crime some reports on the basis of highly questionable assumptions concerning appropriate or expected complainant behavior and responses to rape. In order to address this particular issue, the actual rate of false allegations is much less important than educating police officers regarding the range of normal responses exhibited by rape victims. Education, however, should not be limited to police officers and should include prosecutors and forensic medical examiners. The issue of false rape allegations also has implications for scholarship, as well as the enforcement of rape law. The literature on false allegations requires careful analysis, yet such an approach is often absent from discussions within legal and other scholarship. One of the interesting aspects of this analysis has been the way in which scholarly trends repeat themselves. Just as early legal commentaries uncritically adopted psychoanalytical theories of why women make false complaints, along with claims that false allegations were common, in the last three decades there has been a lack of critical analysis by those who claim a low false reporting rate and the uncritical adoption of unreliable research findings. There has also been a failure to acknowledge the methodological limitations of much of the existing research and the state of our current understanding of the rate of false allegations. As a consequence of such deficiencies within legal scholarship, factual claims have been repeatedly made that have only limited empirical support. This suggests a widespread analytical failure on the part of legal scholarship and requires an acknowledgment of the weakness of assumptions that have been constructed upon unreliable research evidence. Ultimately, the criminal justice system and those writing about the issue of rape have dealt poorly with the issue of false allegations. Given the legal and societal prominence of this subject, it is a failure that should be addressed. In addition to the other arguments and issues of policy that are also of importance when considering reform.

As we can see, Rumney criticises the assumptions of both "sides" in the debate, just as I said. Paul B (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * His conclusions come from the part in which he reviewed specific quantitative and qualitative studies. I fail to see how this is a problem. No, Rumney does not criticize "feminists" or "both sides" or whatever it is you think you read. He actually never mentions feminists. He simply states that the existing literature about false allegations of rape has severe methodological limitations, something that he examined with the help of specific, selected studies in the actual review part which served as a basis for his two conclusions that I quoted above. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We will not include Kanin. As I said in my edit, this is a summary article. You would need to be able to make a good case for including any single study, as opposed to reviews of the literature, and a study that a) reached a result that's a complete outlier and b) that scholars agree was cripplingly flawed in terms of its methodology is not going to support that sort of good case. We can talk about how we're representing the Rumney review, but it's a review and is more appropriate in a summary article. Kanin's is a single study that gives a completely inaccurate impression of scholarly opinion and of statistics. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see any justification for saying that there is scholarly agreement that it was "cripplingly flawed". Kanin's was one of the very few detailed field-based studies, and I think for that reason the most discussed (included the criticisms, which range from the legitimate to the nit-picking). I do think the Kanin result should be mentioned for that very reason. Describing and discussing a study is not the same as an endorsement of it. Surely that is obvious. The extent of the 'debunking' of Kanin is completely misrepresented in the main article on false reporting. For example, the criticism section contains the following statement derived from an article in Forensic Examiner. "Bruce Gross writes in the Forensic Examiner that Kanin's study is an example of the limitations of existing studies on false rape accusations. 'Small sample sizes and non-representative samples preclude generalizability.'" This passage can indeed be found in the article; however, it is not exclusively about Kanin. The main discussion of the Kanin study is not dominantly critical, but supportive of the legitimacy of the study and its methodology The sample size issue is important (see additional comment below), but it is an aspect of the issue which complicates the interpretation of results, not a "debunking". When one study stands out as significant for the amount of debate it has generated, it is worth including. It is not the highest estimate, though Stewart's wild "90% false" conclusion is based on the clearly absurd claim that only those reports that result in a conviction are 'true'. BTW, you have no right to make ex cathedra statements like "We will not include Kanin". You are not the vicar of God on earth. Paul B (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Roscelese, can you kindly provide any source or justification for the unilateral decision not to include the Kanin study? I have asked countless times for any indication that it has been "debunked" or is "worthless", and have yet to provide any.  You must provide PROOF and SOURCES for such extreme statements. It is also not an "outlier"; the main article on False Rape Allegations lists 3 other studies that found figures in the 40-50% range.  I could just as easily call the Kelly et al paper that found 3% an extreme outlier, since only 2 obscure studies back in the late 70s (one with no statistical work at all) found a lower rate. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

On a separate, but I think, important point, I think there is missing something in both this and the main article: a discussion of how statistics can be dramatically affected by a few individuals. There is a general tendency to conflate a high(ish) percentage of false accusations with the percentage of dishonest, confused or at least mistaken accusers. But one or two individuals who repeatedly make unsubstantiated accusations can create a statistically high percentage of false accusations. I don't know if there is published material on this, but clearly in a social context in which there a relatively few accusations of rape, the acts of one or two individuals can create statistical mayhem. Relatively higher statistics on false claims do not necessarily imply that a larger number of women make false claims. In other words apparent inconsistencies in the results of different studies may not really be as significant as implied. Obviously we would need legitimate sources to address this. Paul B (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of recent edits
This is a continuation of an ongoing discussion here.

ChessPlayerLev, you did not just make one revert and you know it. Many of your edits were reverted because they were unhelpful (such as your removal of Rumney's literature review because you considered it too critical of the police), not because editors are ganging up on you. You made only one point on the article talk page that needed a response since the two other issues you mentioned were already resolved without any fuss. You requested a reliable source for the description of the Kelly et al. (2005) study. I provided one almost immediately. Other than that, you made relatively vague accusations of "heavy POV" which I consider unhelpful because they are so vague. To explain my most recent edit: I restored the uncontentious sentence and the relevant source that "unfounded" is not the same as "false". You've repeatedly tried to remove this vital distinction without any explanation. I also restored the description of the Kelly et al. study since it is sourced to a reliable source (a 2009 literature review by Lonsway, Ashambault & Lisak), is in part confirmed by Rumney's literature review, and there is nothing that contradicts that description. Moreover, I deleted your misrepresentation of the authorship of said 2009 literature review (hint: it was written by three people, not just one). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have never accused anyone of "ganging up on me", if only because said "gang" would consist of a grand total of two editors; yourself and Roscolese. (Nice try using a populist/numbers argument, though!)  Incidentally, you have reverted my edits as often as I have anyone else's.  The difference is that I started a topic on the Talk page immediately after making just one revert. You largely refused to participate until I repeatedly asked you to on another page, instead preferring to revert my edits instead.  As for my "vague accusations", they are excessively clear if you only bother to read the Talk section above.  All that aside, I actually think the present version of the Article is an improvement, but a passage like "most rigorous" is a highly subjective, powerful statement.  Just because one research paper stated this does not make it objectively so.  I am fine with keeping the statement in there, as long as it has quotes and is properly sourced.  Otherwise, you are simply breaking Wikipedia's neutrality policy.  ChessPlayerLev (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The present version differs from the original version only insofar as the former quotes the Rumney conclusions in full. I am glad to see that you now understand that the original version was actually the best version. It is a shame that it took you an edit war to come to this realization. I see that you no longer dispute the description of Kelly et al. as the "largest" study. Progress. Personally, I do not think the current description is a problematic statement given the Lonsway, Ashambault & Lisak and Rumney reviews. I don't see (why and) how we can attribute it as a quote. "In their 2009 review article, Lonsway, Ashambault & Lisak..." is too detailed for a summary section such as this. However, in order to reach consensus would it be acceptable to you if we removed the "most rigorous" part altogether as well as the Kanin study? The presence of Kanin (1994) was a point of contention before, see the section above. As a sign of good will, I'll go ahead and remove the "most rigorous" part. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that strikes me as a very fair edit. Thanks, and glad we got it sorted out!ChessPlayerLev (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

CCASA (Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault) sourcing is highly questionable
To someone familiar with USDOJ statistics on rape it is obviously baseless to claim that:

"According to the RAINN about 3.3% of rapes in the US are black-on-white and 3.4% are white-on-black."(Reference 28)

"Fact: In 93% of assaults, the rapist and victim are of the same race. In 3.3% of sexual assault cases, black men did rape white women, while in 3.4% of the cases, white men raped black women."

CCASA provides NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE for it's claim. If needed I will take the time to prove it's bogus with DOJ statistics Bluebye (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

'''Update: I've contacted CCASA and they completely disown the RAINN document. It has been scrubbed from their website but is still floating around in cyberspace, much to their chagrin'''Bluebye (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Biased, unsubstantiated guesswork and speculation in Sweden subsection
The two last paragraphs in the Sweden subsection are entirely speculative. The one source provided is a report that indeed shows a statistical overrepresentation by immigrants, but has no support for the conclusions drawn or any understanding of the implications of the statistics. What's more, the paragraphs parrot common political talking points from certain Swedish parties, amking it an obvious ideological edit. I've marked them with appropriate tags for now. If no solid sources or rewriting appears within a reasonable time, I will remove the paragraphs. HertzaHaeon (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed the two last paragraphs, since they obviously didn't have supporting citations. If someone get some good citations, feel free to reincorporate the text. 81.231.252.80 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rape Statistics in Brazil
Brazil really isn't in that table provided by the UN, but I have found this link from a security agency in Brazil: http://www2.forumseguranca.org.br/sites/default/files/Anuario%20IV%20-%20Tb.5.xls which gives the rape statistics in each state of Brazil both in absolute and average per 100,000 people numbers. I have taken the liberty to sum and take the average of the averages for a rough number for the whole country. And it is as follows:

For 2008: 26485 is the absolute number of rapes and 10.7 per 100,000 is the average.

For 2009: 38555 is the absolute number of rapes and 14.6 per 100,000 is the average.

I don't think it's right to just put it in the UN table, since the table is stated as being really only about the UN report, but I think that somehow those numbers should be put in the wiki. I'll leave them here because I don't know a better way of putting it in there. I hope someone else does.--187.72.109.229 (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Changed from "occupied" paletinian authority to just palestinian authority,
Simply beacuse the area where the palestinian authority resides was left by jordan in 1988 as they have removed any statement of control from this certain area,after it has been occupied from jordan and there was a a disagreement about it's sovereignty in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorpwnz (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

1-in-4 rape myth still making the rounds
would you believe that the "1 in 4" rape myth is STILL making the rounds... guess where? in WIKIPEDIA, of all places! In this day and age? Seriously? I know that Wikipedia is very feminist-slanted, but this is ridiculous. This rape myth was debunked decades ago... by a FEMINIST!

"Koss, Gidycz & Wisniewski published a study in 1987 where they interviewed approximately 6,000 college students on 32 college campuses nationwide. They asked several questions covering a wide range of behaviors. From this study 15% of college women answered “yes” to questions about whether they experienced something that met the definition of rape. 12% of women answered “yes” to questions about whether they experienced something that met the definition of attempted rape[19]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.54.114 (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.54.114 (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Where did any of these numbers come from?
Look at Australia. In 2003 it was 91.9/100k. In 2003 it was apparently 6.4/100k? Seriously? According to the Australian institute of criminology , all of those numbers were falsified. I'm undoing it with the numbers that got deleted back in January. Given the gun control debate / violence discussion and internet country dick-waving I'm not surprised if people are changing their numbers to look better. Uranium - 235 (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a separate page related to australia, should be made, and it will help.

Footnote 7, Koss 1987
This footnote ("The scope of rape: Incidence and prevalence of sexual aggression and victimization in a national sample of higher education students.". Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55: 162–170.) links to an unrelated PDF. Sparr (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Reporting Stats
According to a statistical average over the past 5 years, about 10% of all rapes or sexual assaults in the United States are never reported to the authorities.

Where is this from? this looks invented...It is the opposite of most surveys on the subject which put the rate of reporting at about 16%.

''For college students, the figure is 5%, noted in the Fisher, Cullen and Turner study cited above.[citation needed] ''

This is completely misleading and false, the study cited is here

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

Exhibit 12 on Page 24 lists the reasons why rape was not reported

Completed rape Incident was not reported 95.2%

Attempted rape Incident was not reported 95.8% — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumbanger (talk • contribs) 11:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This was the original wording. Due to persistent vandalism the numbers have been changed from 60% to 10% and from 95% to 5%. I'll restore the relevant passages with the pre-vandalism sources. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

US Prison rape statistics
I noticed the word prison was only mentioned once in the article. The United States Department of Justice (USDJ) published a report available here, stating the large quanity of male rapes in prisons in the US. Google trends suggest that 'male prison rape' has been popular on the internet since 2003 when the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 was introduced. I do not have skills to write a section on this issue but I feel it is important and it needs to be considered since male rape unfortunately yet it receives little mention in the article and anywhere else for that matter. Below I have some statements with statistics quoted from the USDJ report:


 * •"According to the estimates in the BJS Report, 4.4% of prison inmates and 3.1% of jail inmates experienced sexual victimization within a period of twelve months or since admission to a correctional facility, if the admission took place within less than twelve months. “Nationwide, these percentages suggest that approximately 88,500 adults held in prisons and jails at the time of the survey had been sexually victimized."


 * •"Approximately 2.1% of prison inmates and 1.5% of jail inmates reported inmate-on-inmate sexual victimization, whereas approximately 2.8% of prison inmates and 2.0% of jail inmates reported staff sexual misconduct."


 * •"Reported sexual activity with facility staff involved 2.9% of male prisoners, 2.1% of male jail inmates, 2.1% of female prisoners, and 1.5% of female jail inmates." Undefined 19:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomSleeUK (talk • contribs)

Regarding Norway
Hi,

(apology in advance for all strange paragraph breaks etc.) I think one could aim for a higher level of precision wrt. the material in the Norway section. The statement "One in 10 women in Norway are raped" is poorly referenced: The ref nr 44 ("Immigrants behind most rapes in Stavanger", The Local) says nothing about the frequency of rape in Norway. In ref nr 43 a newspaper interviews the secretariat of one of Norway's two Shelter Movements, Krisesentersekretariatet, which specializes in DV, not rape. The "1 in 10" includes underreported numbers, the level of which, according to ref 45, an actual police report, cannot be estimated reliably; the police reports mentioned that the 1/10 has been the traditional estimate, but also launches the hypothesis that the rising trend in reported rapes is due to more reporting than in earlier years, i.e. lower underreporting. There is no national rape statistic with in-depth analysis, (written by the same two (female) police analysts as ref 45) gives some numbers for Oslo the following year); the numbers are presented in this report (sry about the weird format) from the Government Ombud For Equality Against Discrimination (LDO, Likestillings-og Diskrimineringsombudet) as: " Per 1. januar 2012 var det for året 2011 blitt anmeldt 256 voldtekter eller forsøk på voldtekt til politiet med gjerningssted Oslo politidistrikt. Dette representerte 42,7 anmeldelser per 100 000 innbygger i Oslo. (//Til sammenlikning ble det anmeldt 189 voldtekter eller forsøk på voldtekt i 2010, eller 32,2 anmeldelser per 100 000. Økningen er dermed betydelig med 67 (35,5 prosent) flere anmeldelser i 2011 enn året før. Økningen i antallet anmeldte voldtekter i Oslo politidistrikt fra 2010 til 2011 er størst for forsøk på voldtekt. Disse økte med hele 59,3 prosent fra 27 anmeldelser i 2010 til 43 i 2011. Anmeldte fullbyrdete voldtekter økte også, med 31,5 prosent, fra 162 til 213 anmeldelser.//)"

Hasty translation: "As of 1.1. 2012 256 cases of rape or attempted rape perpetrated in Oslo PD had been reported to the police during the year of 2011. This represents 42.7 reports per 100 000 inhabitants in Oslo. ..." (// Comparison of 2011 to 2010, registering a significant rise, mainly in attempted rape, but also significant for rape//).

This, of course, are pre-investigation numbers, where the actual numbers (prosecuted + non-prosecutable, but minus "no case" cases (20 instances in 2010, as per ref 45, p. 78) of actual rapes necessarily will be slightly lower.

As far as I have been able to google the nationwide number for 2011 was ca. 1060 reported cases (899 + 40 + 6 + 115). I don't know how to give this in a simple fraction, but I doubt that it is 1 in 10.

Regarding victim blaming, I can joyously report that Reform has undertaken a new study in 2010 (no need to rely on the Scandinavia experts in "African Press International" anymore), where it turns out that Norwegian men are not prone to victim blaming: The relevant numbers are found on pages 12 - 14. The methodology has been the following: Interviewees are presented with a list of circumstances that could affect the sentencing in a rape trial. They are then asked if these circumstances should be irrelevant to the sentencing, lead to a more lenient sentence, or to a harder sentence. Circumstances mentioned include flirting, provocative or sexy dress, intoxication etc. etc. 70 - 90 % of all interviewd men held that circumstances like these should either be held irrelevant or lead to harder sentencing. HTH! MVH, T 88.89.144.119 (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

.... it is a process ....
Hi,

or, hrmph: All my refs vanished, just because I put them in <-ets. The original ref 45

https://www.politi.no/vedlegg/lokale_vedlegg/oslo/Vedlegg_1309.pdf

LDO/ Ombud: http://www.ldo.no/Global/Diverse%20PDF/Vold%20i%20n%c3%a6re%20relasjoner.pdf

National summary: https://www.politi.no/vedlegg/rapport/Vedlegg_1536.pdf

Victim-no-blaming: http://www.reform.no/images/stories/Engasjerte_og_enige.pdf

MVH, T 88.89.144.119 (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

... a long process ....
Hi,

fiddled with the "Norway" entry, removed stuff, including misleading links. Which led to "ref 45" in the sections above now being listed as ref 43.

T88.89.144.119 (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Last Revert
Let's remove the BBC related text then, which dates back about 13 years before. Capitals00 (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could find a more up-to-date RAHI statistic? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No new stats have been published, maybe since 1999.Capitals00 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How then do you know that RAHI's statistics are damagingly out of date? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Because it's not backing anything like that it remains as it is to this day, and it's from 1999, which is probably not needed anymore. Capitals00 (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyways, let's wait for the newer stats, hope this one is over now. Capitals00 (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Section on India - United States removal of text; editors invited to comment
The text below, from the section on India, has been removed by IP 122.169.31.36, with the summary "It's useless, not even coherent". I don't think it is all useless, neither do I think it is not coherent; and I think more discussion is needed. At least parts of it could be re-introduced.

The text which has been removed is this:

"Under section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which creates the offense of rape, the age of consent is set at 18, as sex with a girl under this age is considered rape, regardless of consent. In practice, this is rarely enforced, and India is a destination for child sex tourism. Sexual violence within marriage is common, with 20% of men admitting to forcing their wives or partners to have sex, in a survey by the Centre of Research on Women, US, and Instituto Promundon in Brazil.  In a 1999 news story, BBC reported, "Close-knit family life in India masks an alarming amount of sexual abuse of children and teenage girls by family members, a new report suggests. Delhi organisation RAHI said 76% of respondents to its survey had been abused when they were children - 40% of those by a family member." 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A02A (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Both are easily, very off topic. One is labeling india as "child sex tourism" while no Indian is aware of it, as it's very rare case, if we consider all 1.2 billion population. 1999's RAHI dubious voting station would probably count only those who are actually raped, otherwise there unpopular organisation won't have it's meaning.

Other one from US, is not not related with the subject either. 122.169.34.202 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we can add the Recovering and Healing from Incest's figures on the main article of rape in India, and 1995's CDC report in a main article of rapes in US, as they don't give the full view. That's it, these articles are mainly, highlights of current events. InfocenterM (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If it's the age of consent issue that is the problem, why are you removing the entire paragraph of content that's exactly what the article is about? The rationale given for removing the US figures, and the suggestion that RAHI is making up its figures because otherwise they'd have no reason to exist, are likewise utterly nonsensical. (It's possible that RAHI's sample size and composition isn't suitable and should be removed or clarified, but "I don't like them and they want people to be raped so that they can keep existing" is not going to fly.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, hope everyone will agree now, the way article is for now. As the "age of consent" one remains unclear, with the sources claiming that "it may have", and other one "It is hard to measure the incidence", so both are doubtful. I found that only RAHI and CDC's conclusion added should be kept to the article, and other one, which is suggesting about the marital sexual abuse. Thanks InfocenterM (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

1 in 6?
The section for the United States says this: "One of six U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape." The reference link for that is an activist organization. If the number has any validity, an original source should be provided. This is like referring to Jenny McCarthy as a source about vaccines. Nicmart (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add on that: the linked page mentions "1 in 6" out of nowhere, but later on it mentions "In 2004-2005, 64,080 women were raped", which is a statistic taken from "U.S. Department of Justice. 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey. 2005." If 1 in 6 women experienced rape, and 64,080 women were raped in 2004, that means the US has less than half a million women. Wolfram Alpha puts the number of women in the US at 156 millions - if we assume the official number is under-reported, that means that only 1 in 46 cases is reported, which is way lower than the 16% mentioned in the Wikipedia article. Now, I won't remove the link as I haven't looked into the subject deep enough, but I think a better citation should be found - perhaps a link to the original study?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.89.97.213 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * 1 in 6 refers to women who had ever (during their lifetime) been raped/experienced attempted rape, not who were raped in 2004-2005 (during the course of that year). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:500F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9F82 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent point that I missed. The numbers now look much "better", but still not quite: if we assume none of those cases involve the same woman twice, by multiplying that number by 80 we'd get the number of women who were victim of abuse in the last 80 years (which should be close to all the living ones), which is 5.1 millions. We then multiply by 6 (because it's supposed to be 1 in 6 women), and we get almost 31 million. With this numbers, the "1 in 6" should actually be 1 in 30, which is still pretty ugly but significantly higher (unless I missed something, of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.89.97.213 (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Another issue here is that one part of the US bit mentions, very unprofessionally, the falseness of a study (the one in 4 study that is mentioned a few paragraphs later and is treated as fact. The essay is largely discredited and should be mentioned due to its fame and disregarded as a poorly done study  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.155.27 (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan
There have been numerous reverts and edit worrying at the section on Pakistan. I think this has to be discussed here on talk to avoid conflict.2A02:2F0A:500F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:1A1D (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have made reverts to removal of content/blanking of the Pakistan section recently and today. My concern is that this content is supported by reliable references and its removal has not been properly justified, making those edits look non-neutral or biased. If people have concerns about the content of that section they should discuss it here and it can be fixed if necessary. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, pakistan's current section won't be removed, in fact, the pakistani section speaks more about the reason behind the widespread rape quietly more than anyone as they have banned any medical tests as proof, for proving rape now. Obviously it will offend any pakistani apologist. Just be aware and alert with the edits around. Only way it will be removed, if some other reliable source debunks these sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.0.13 (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

in the statistics, it would be useful to separate or distinguish statutory rape
Statutory rape should be separated out in some parts of the statistics in order to make the information more meaningful. I'm not suggesting it's not rape or not a crime, but from the victim's point of view, an adult woman in the US does not need to worry about being statutory raped (at least meaning underage, not sure what drunk date rape would be called), so what is her chance of being raped not on a date, and not in the home? For example, the statistic for rape by a relative is shown: how much of that number is what Whoopi Goldberg would call rape rape, and how much is an adult pervert taking advantage of a child? It seems an important distinction from the point of view of how the problem should be addressed and I haven't the foggiest sense of it. Again, not suggesting that the overall number of rapes should be redefined or that the various "types" aren't equally serious, just wondering what society should be addressing 68.174.97.122 (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * What is Statutory rape? SvenAERTS (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Its False
At the beginning Turkey is given as a rapist country. The reference is not even correct. Police don't think rape is fair. No man can think. IT's wrong to publish a nation rapist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memetyucel (talk • contribs) 00:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If it is not correct, explain how it is not correct. Paul B (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Dicle News as a reliable source?
"Dicle news" is the official press of PKK. So how can editor of this page list their "kurdish girls are being raped in turkish prisons" news as a reliable source? Thank you for your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therou (talk • contribs)


 * In fact it is cited to The Guardian newspaper. Certainly the report needed to be more accurately presented. Paul B (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

2011 data
The 2011 data by UN is already out. Somebody may need to add them. (I am too busy to add). -- TX55   TALK  18:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've removed the bar graph based on the UNODC data from the top of the page. As is explained in the section of the article on the UNODC data, these numbers are not comparing apples to apples.  Different countries have different definitions of rape, and these numbers simply count the number of reported rapes in different countries with making any attempt to address either underreporting or false allegations, which may vary from country to country.  To display these number in a bar graph, especially at the top of the page far away from where the data are explained, will lead people to incorrectly believe that these numbers are to be used as an apples-to-apples comparison. DGAgainstDV (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. -- TX55   TALK  19:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Major rape statistics in Norway
Please check this out and be polite dor adding

http://www.newsinenglish.no/2014/02/26/rape-statistics-surprised-researchers/

--88.255.183.34 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Somalia stats
Of note is the discussion linked here: User talk:2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A05C. From what I'm seeing, it appears that UNDP and Amnesty International are in disagreement, but I could be reading this wrong. I came across this dispute while recent changes patrolling, and it seems that the reverting has been re-reverted. Hence, I am bringing this up here so that consensus can be reached on the Somalia section. Reminder to everyone involved to be WP:NICE. -- KRAPENHOEFFER!  TALK  18:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The only actual stats that Amnesty and HRW provide are from the UN, so there's no real disagreement. These figures mainly pertain to Mogadishu in 2012 and early 2013, a few months after the city had been militarily pacified and the new central government was still trying to exert its authority. Amnesty also asserts that it is not always possible to establish whether the perpetrators of sexual crimes were members of militias, security forces, or other groups or individuals. This is because uniforms/fatigues were illicitly sold in markets. That said, the UNDP provides the actual nationwide range estimate; it indicates that the overall sexual assault prevalence rate is a low 2% to 13%. One can informally confirm this by converting into a percentage the ~1,700 reported cases UN figure that Amnesty indicates per 100,000 population. This gives a rate of around 1.7%, well within the range of the low prevalence rate areas in the wiki-table. Middayexpress (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Rape in sweden is not rape but sometimes it is?
"According to the FRA study there's a strong correlation between higher levels of gender equality and disclosure of sexual violence.[217] This, and a greater willingness among Swedish women to report rape in relationships,[218] may also explain the relatively high rates of reported rape in Sweden, which has a long-standing tradition of gender equality policy and legislation, as well as an established women's movement,[204] and has been ranked as the number one country in sex equality.[205][219]"

According to explanation in subsection has very very confusing and contradictory expression. Rape and sexual violence are caused because of high rank civilization and gender equality. Also this high rank rapings are because swedish women's greater willing to report rape, and so. But sometimes definiton of rape is depending to person who doing it.If its any non swedish its definitelly rape but if its swedish its probably not. No offence but this tape of explanations sounds like attendings to deflect the topic and to aviod the awful truth.--Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is based on a quote from a relevant international study on gender based violence in Europe, done quite scientifically by criminologists. The second and third source is from Professor Liz Kelly, commenting on another EU-wide study on rape, led by her and a couple of colleges at London Metropolitan University, and the fourth and last sources simply back up the statements on gender equality, based on a published article on rape in Sweden in a scientific journal by Professor von Hofer, and an article in the BBC, confirming the statement on gender-equality. This is all very relevant to the subject at hand. Like I said in the article on Rape in Sweden (on which you have already complained about): Are we not supposed to cite relevant sources, crime studies and scientific journals, because it doesn't fit with your opinion, or other widely spread misinformed or preconceived notions about the subject? Sorry, but that's not how an encyclopaedia is supposed to work... Gavleson (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The passage does not say "Rape and sexual violence are caused because of high rank civilization and gender equality". It says that higher levels of reporting rape are caused by gender equality. There is no suggestion that gender equality increases the overall number of rapes. As for your claim that non-Swedes are more likely to be accused (I think that's what you are saying), that may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant to the passage quoted. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Finland
The following statement has repeatedly been removed:


 * According to Amnesty International, in Finland, fewer than 10% of rapes of victims aged below 15 were reported to the police during 2006.

Having now read the source cited, I can confirm that Occult Zone appears to have confused matters by adding "aged below 15", which is not in the report. Indeed it seems to refer to adults, as the following sentences indicate. However the report clearly says: "In Finland it is estimated that fewer than 10 per cent of rapes are reported to the police." (p.88), which is exactly what the article said before the IP tried to remove it This is cited to: "see reference 37 (Crimes reported to the police 1991 & 1992 and Piispa (et al.): Violence Against Women in 2005". The "reference 37" is "National Police Commissioner, 1998". The report also states "The number of unreported cases seems to be particularly high in Finland: an estimated 2–10 per cent of all rapes are reported, compared to 27 per cent (official estimates) in Denmark." (p.144)

The only reference I can find to "victims aged below 15" is the following passage: "In Finland, 2 per cent of girls under 15 have experienced coercion into sexual activity, with 6 per cent of these girls having experienced violence in this context. Among boys of the same age, 0.3 per cent reported having experienced sexual coercion or violence." There is no reference to what percentage of these under 15-year-olds have reported "coercion into sexual activity" to the police.

Another passage relevant to rape statistics is: "Only a few of the rapes reported to the police reach court, with only one in seven reported rapes ending with the conviction of the perpetrator. Most of the analysis here is based on statistics in the latest Crime Trends Yearbook (2006), which presents figures for 1997-2005. However, more recent information from Statistics Finland relating to acquittals and the reasons behind decisions not to prosecute are also presented here." "however, the statistics in relation to prosecution rates give rise to some important questions. To take an example with actual mean values: of 541 rapes reported to the police, 311 are referred to the prosecutor. Of the original 541, the prosecutor will only prosecute with rape as the main offence in 15 per cent of cases (n= 80, out of 541) -> 15 per cent of all reported rapes end up in court. However, a greater per cent of these cases are in fact prosecuted in Finland. The overall prosecution rate in cases of rape is 59 per cent (n=185 cases, out of 311). This is why the non-prosecution rate is 41 (n= 126, out of 311)"

So I will change the text to "According to Amnesty International, in Finland, "it is estimated that fewer than 10 per cent of rapes are reported to the police" and that two per cent of girls under 15 "have experienced coercion into sexual activity."

I'm not too sure about the coercion bit, since this does not appear to mean rape. The passage goes on to say that "6 per cent of these girls" experienced "violence" (that's 6% of 2%, a tiny proportion). Since it's not clear what "coercion" is intended to mean here, or how the "violence" relates to it, I'm unsure whether this should be in the article.

The report itself is a good source and should not be deleted. It is far far better to improve text by accurately reporting what a source says, than just to cut it. How does that improve the coverage? The IP's edit summary was "Not in the source provided. Firstly this is not the study, this refers to it. Could not find anything about any 10% in the study linked to by the Amnesty pdf. This Amnesty pdf also seems like an extremely biased source, judging by the language used." The Amnesty report may or may not be biased, but they are a respected organisation, so it is legitimate to use the source. The IP has provided no evidence that the statistic is "Not in the source provided". It certainly is in the source provided, which is Amnesty. If it is not in the cited studies, then the IP needs to give evidence of this. Just repeatedly asserting it is not sufficient. Paul B (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Piispa study is about domestic violence. It mentions rape only a few times, and doesn't talk about rape prosecution or percentages. Again, your 10% statistic doesn't exist here. Ask any other Finnish person about what this study says - you'll find they agree. You'll have an easier time finding the pdf by googling for "Naisiin kohdistunut väkivalta 2005", which is Finnish for "Violence against women 2005". I will thus erase this no-source bit.
 * https://facebook.com/Helsinginpoliisilaitos/posts/669274493154088 "Of this year's 309 reported sex crimes, 225 have been closed, and as much as two-thirds have been one of the following three: the reports have been completely falsified, not involving any crime, or that the defendant has redacted their claim." - From the only actual source possible: the police. Your sources try their best to make the dropped cases look like a police conspiracy.
 * First of all, it's not truly "Amnesty International", but simply Amnesty Denmark, a tiny subsect of a mainly third world concentrated aid organization. The article states it's a collaboration between the Nordic Amnesty subsects, but the other countries versions of this article show only 404 anymore. They must have considered it to not be worth hosting anymore. And these subsects are continously ignored by all the powers and governments, like their own article states. They need a problem to exist for their subsect to have a reason to exist. They are a worthless, biased source. Even your Wikipedia page for Amnesty reports the organization to have been criticized as having selective bias. --37.136.151.137 (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * First, please do not interleave comments with an existing message. It makes it very difficult to read and confuses the timeline. Reply in a separate post. I have consolidated your responses. Secondly, you are technically in breach of your block by editing under another IP. You should wait for the block to end. I find your comment, "Ask any other Finnish person about what this study says - you'll find they agree" somewhat difficult to believe, as I doubt the entire population of Finland has read a report on domestic violence. I don't know what you mean by "I will thus erase this no-source bit." Please also remember that what you call "our sources" are just sources that are used in good faith. As for Amnesty International itself, of course the organisation has been criticised. All organisations are criticised. The fact that some web-versions of the report are no longer online means nothing. I still can't really see that your objection amounts to much more that WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OR. You'd be better advised to get alternative sources than to try to censor this one. I'm not clear where your quotation comes from. It's not in the Facebook link. Paul B (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * An alternative source? How about this: http://webpage14124124.com


 * It leads to nowhere, doesn't it? It's just as good as your source. It seems like you're incredibly biased and even inclined to accept something that leads to nowhere as a source - incredible. --80.220.107.202 (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * http://webpage14124124.com/ is not opening.  Occult Zone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And that Facebook page was in Finnish. If that is a problem for a source, then why are all your sources in Finnish yet completely viable? Ridiculous! --80.220.107.202 (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, and when I told you to ask any Finnish person what this means, I meant you to get someone who understands Finnish, because the study is in Finnish. I bet you didn't even bother to check the study out. You were content that your world view was right. You're so full of bias that you must have diarrhea all the time. Conclusion: I provided a link that lead to a post by the Finnish police. Your source lead to a study which doesn't talk about the things it was stated to mention. It seems like it's 1-0 for me. Do we have a concensus here? Qui tacet consentit. --80.220.107.202 (User talk:80.220.107.202|talk) 08:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * ip 80.220.107.202: It is clear that nobody approves of the change you want to make. You have been blocked for repeatedly making this change. I reverted you. Seek consensus here before you make any change. 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A20E (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There have been a total of two people opposed to this. You write exactly like the other guy, the one before Paul, and your first edits were on this matter, so you must be him. That guy, meaning you, has also never bothered to open any links or read anything. At least Paul bothered to open some links - only not not the original study like I pointed out, otherwise he would have figured out it's written entirely in Finnish. And all you did just now was write some random stuff on the talk page that has nothing to do with the earlier discussion. Wow, real participation there. I didn't expect any more from you. You're like a religious person, putting your opinion before facts. Go check the actual Finnish study, please. There is no 10%. It's just made up. How are you two so sure when neither of you can even read Finnish? What's wrong with you people? The only reason I can think of is that you're incredibly biased.


 * Oh, and I'll once again wait a few days for any kind of a response. --80.220.107.202 (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * First of all, I am not him. Second, you need to read the rules of this encyclopedia: making personal attacks isn't going to win your case. Third: you have no valid reason to make your change - nobody agrees with it, and the material is sourced to a reliable source, a report from Amnesty International. You have engaged in WP:OR to conclude that there is something wrong with the information from that report, but that is not a valid reason for you to remove it.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:31B6 (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Calling you biased and pointing out that neither of you bother opening links is a personal attack? Yet again you didn't bother checking the source. At best you opened it and quickly glanced at it to confirm your bias. It's not a report from Amnesty, it's a Finnish report mentioned by the Amnesty article. There is no mention of a 10% in the Finnish report. It's not even about rape but domestic violence.


 * ALL YOU DO IS KEEP REPEATING THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE NOT BOTHERED TO CHECK THE SOURCE.


 * Please actually refer to any of the points I have made when you disagree with me. Don't just utter lines that have nothing to do with the talk that has been going on. Again, I will wait a few days for you to disprove anything I've written. As it stands it's not even a matter of concensus, but people who haven't even checked the source shouting at someone who has, because what he points out disagrees with their world view. --80.220.107.202 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems like concensus has been reached. WP:NOR has been proved.--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I restored the removed bit mentioning similarity with Germany. It's a good mention. I also turned a paraphase into the person's exact quote.--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Again Finland (factual accuracy and up to date information)
A couple of things:


 * What is the current legal definition of rape in Finland? According to this: Finland to toughen rape legislation the country planned changing laws in 2013. Does anybody have a link to the up-to-date version of the Criminal Code of Finland?


 * The section reads:" In Finland, rape is defined by the use of violence or threat of it." But apparently taking advantage of a helpless state of the victim is also rape.

According to this (it's an unofficial translation of the Criminal Code of Finland as of 2012)


 * Chapter 20 - Sex offences

Section 1 - Rape

(1) A person who forces another into sexual intercourse by the use or threat of violence shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least one year and at most six years.

(2) Also a person who, by taking advantage of the fact that another person, due to unconsciousness, illness, disability, state of fear or other state of helplessness, is unable to defend himself or herself or to formulate or express his or her will, has sexual intercourse with him or her, shall be sentenced for rape. 86.127.146.255 (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC) (3) An attempt is punishable.


 * I made some fixes. See also the main article Sexual violence in Finland. Hope the section is much better now. Perhaps the tag should be removed.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:567F:9335 (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I've removed the tag, since you've clearly fixed any perceived problems. Gavleson (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

United States Rape Statistics
There is an incredibly misleading section of this that states "However, when prison rapes are included in the statistics it has been reported that, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, "In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time... compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison."" The quotation is from the Daily Mail, not the Department of Justice, even though it uses numbers from the Department of Justice. Furthermore, this sentence really shouldn't be included as it is incredibly misleading comparing an estimated number of prison rape to the number of rape cases that have been reported to police outside of prison. This has an obvious political bias. Comparing the estimate for prison rape and the estimate for rape outside of prison would have been fair and much more accurate. We should not have such grossly misleading statements in Wikipedia. Additionally, the Daily Mail is not a reliable journalism source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.40.99 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm unclear what "political bias" is involved. The statistics are placed in context after all. The poiint about the difference between estimates and reports is duly made. Paul B (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * IP, I reverted you here because your edit made it seem like those statistics came from the Daily Mail; technically, they, as you acknowledge, came from the U.S. Department of Justice. I'm in agreement that we shouldn't use the Daily Mail as a source, however; this is because, at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and at the WP:Biographies of living persons noticeboard, it has repeatedly been discouraged as a source. Flyer22 (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm changing it to "In 2013, Daily Mail reported that, according to statistics published by the U.S. Department of Justice, "in 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time... compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison.""


 * It might be WP:UNDUE to mention the Mail at all, but I think the best thing would be to find a source pointing out the inconsistency in using estimated rapes on one hand and reported rapes on the other. If we can't, we should probably cut it altogether. Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Auto-archiving
So this talk page has 61 sections, and it's current page length is 150,746 bytes. So, I've started the auto-archiving bot (I think I did it correctly, check if you care to). Since most of the discussions seem to be years old, and I didn't think it would be good to cut it down to only a couple discussions, I started the bot with archiving discussions that are 180 days old. This is a bit larger than what I think the norm is (30?) but looking at the history, that would leave only 2 discussions, one of which I added to today, and one in which I am the sole participant. Let's see how well 180 days does for us and reduce it if the talk becomes more active.&#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  18:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It would've taken about 180 days. I have just manually archived most of the discussions that were no longer active.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is Steven Pinker's non-notable book quoted from?
How is this person or his book notable enough to be in a blockquote? That seems like undue weight to me.  D r e a m Focus  03:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

1. No, I have not edited Wikipedia from a different name previously (as you accused me of). 2. I mainly undid your revision because I felt like it was based off personal bias (quoting your reason for the edit here, "rape by use of alcohol is a crime. The fact a few random idiots don't consider it rape, isn't relevant here". I feel like that revision was based off personal bias and while I myself do think that rape is a horrible and extremely cowardly thing to do, I felt like your reason to delete the other person's work wasn't justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anipad68 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You reverted me based on my edit summary, not based on the content that I removed from the article? Kindly read the information and tell me if you still think it belongs there.  I'd like some other opinions as well.   D r e a m Focus  06:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Lets discuss the two things separately for clarity.  The article currently reads:
 * According to the psychologist Steven Pinker,

"Junk statistics from advocacy groups are slung around and become common knowledge, such as the incredible factoid that one in four university students has been raped. (The claim was based on a commodious definition of rape that the alleged victims themselves never accepted; it included, for example, any incident in which a woman consented to sex after having had too much to drink and regretted it afterward.)"
 * How is this person's book important enough to publish his personal opinion in this article?  D r e a m Focus  06:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you've missed the point and then some. The issue with the CDC definition of rape is that it is hopelessly incoherent and hinges on the implicit notion that only women have the privilege of being raped during heterosexual sex. This fits nicely into a dim bulb's poorly-reasoned gender bias so long as they (ze?) assume all the respondents were straight, and no pesky critical thought is spent pondering why only the women (womyn?) were asked if they had ever had sex while inebriated. What if, while a man was helplessly drunk (or intentionally drugged), some woman were to take advantage of him (bearing in mind that men (mansplainers?) can become erect even while unconscious)? Surely this gross violation of bodily autonomy, personal space, and sexual privacy would constitute rape, or at least some lower, cruder, less tragic he-man-rape, yes? Easy enough, but what happens when Ms. Doe has a glass of wine at dinner, and Mr. Doe has the rest of the bottle, and then they go for a romp in the hay? And when they've split the bottle 50/50? The plot thickens, and now it's not so clear who's raping whom! And this is why some very, very bad people find fault with the "vodka" + "vagina" = "victim" formula of sexual politics(/victimhood). They seem to think the fact that lesbians don't nurse their hangovers by venting their violated vulvas at the nearest police station in a game of Double Rapery means that women are just as capable as men of mixing drink or drug into sex, for better or for worse. After all, if men and women were equal, they'd be equally capable of giving and receiving consent while intoxicated, so it wouldn't make sense to transfer all culpability and responsibility from one group to another (as if from a child to a father...) the moment a catalyst for bad decisions and regret were thrown into the mix, now would it? Which is why certain people find fault with that particular study's methodology, given that they don't ask about the state of the girl's partner, and generally treat male and female respondents completely differently within a rather chauvinist/feminist (irony!) framework. 108.203.162.123 (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)