Talk:Rape statistics/Archive 2

Rape by use of alcohol bit

 * The article currently reads:
 * However, some have criticized these statistics for using definitions of rape that they consider to be overly broad, specifically for counting sex under the influence of alcohol as rape.


 * The opinions section of the Washington Post has a person criticizing what the Center for Disease Control calls rape. They state "A sample of 9,086 women was asked, for example, “When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?” A majority of the 1.3 million women (61.5 percent) the CDC projected as rape victims in 2010 experienced this sort of “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.” They then state their personal opinion that being too drunk to consent that not mean automatically that is rape.  Should this person's opinion piece be referenced in this article?  Or are we giving WP:UNDUE weight to their opinion?   D r e a m Focus  07:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See the above response in the Steven Pinker section of the Talk, bearing in mind that the questionnaire asks nothing of the state of the women's partners nor of the level of inebriation of the women, but instead lumps any degree of intoxication in with "passed out". 108.203.162.123 (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this editor is questioning the weight given to this particular individual's perspective. Sommers is not a researcher, she's a pundit with a long history of espousing a contrarian viewpoint when it comes to estimates of rape. Its worth asking whether or not her minority view should be accorded as much prevalence as the quote seems to give it. Aside from the weight issue: the CDC really doesn't view all intoxicated sex as rape -- the "and unable to consent" clause is supposed to apply to each of the preceding terms. Sommers is arguing that the wording is ambiguous and could potentially be interpreted that way by respondents, but the CDC says that "consent" is the crucial determinant.  Nblund (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The same or similar criticisms Sommers made of the CDC report have been made by many others, and the report itself is a self-published primary resource that has not been formally peer-reviewed. With that in mind, I can't imagine how the report results can be called the "majority view", as the only external analysis of the report comes from people such as Sommers.
 * The source you cited states "A CDC spokesperson clarified that being unable to consent is key to the CDC's definition of rape", but this is another case of the CDC using ambiguous language: the CDC could well believe that anyone who is intoxicated is unable to consent without contradicting their clarification. In any case, what the CDC intended to capture in their report and what they actually captured are not equivalent, and the fact that the majority of instances that they observed were the result of that question should cast doubt on the survey's results. The other issue that Sommers brings up is the fact that the CDC's qualifications for rape are untenable: the scenario of two people who are both "too intoxicated to consent" is counted as two separate rapes, with each person a rapist and rape victim simultaneously. Hopefully the absurdity of this framework speaks for itself. 108.203.162.123 (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think a report produced by the Centers for Disease Control would qualify as a self-published source under any reasonable standard, and government reports typically aren't peer-reviewed. The fact that only a handful of individuals are bothering to question it doesn't really bolster the argument that their view represents a mainstream viewpoint: David Icke may be the only person bothering to seriously ask whether or not the president is a lizard, it doesn't mean that his view represents a mainstream perspective. These findings are widely cited by policy makers and the press as factual, and are contested primarily by editorial writers with no meaningful research background and whose agendas are fairly well-known. Who are these other critics? Are they also primarily writing editorials and blog posts or are they producing peer-reviewed research? Are they pundits or do they have any meaningful expertise in the field?


 * The portion of the contested sentence which charges that the CDC defines intoxicated sex as rape clearly needs to be dropped or reworded. The CDC "could well believe" any number of things, but the charge that they believe all intoxicated sex is rape isn't a verifiable assertion -- and speculation about what the authors truly mean by "consent" could really be applicable to any rape statistic. The question wording used by the CDC is based on a widely accepted survey instrument called the Sexual Experiences Survey -- which has appeared in peer-reviewed studies for around four decades. Their results are more or less consistent with previous surveys that used different questions all together (ex: National Violence Against Women Survey). The definition of rape that they use in the report (p. 17) clearly states that they are talking about "unwanted" penetration.


 * The rape while unable to consent category does not make up a majority of the victims: most women were victims of forcible rape or attempted forcible rape (12% for completed forced penetration vs. 8% for alcohol facilitated). Non-consensual sex committed without consent is rape by any definition, not just the CDC's -- you may consider it untenable, but your own view of how the term should be defined isn't really germane to the question of what belongs in this entry. Nblund (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Under-reporting
I deleted a line that states "A 2007 government report says 'Estimates from research suggest that between 75 and 95 percent of rape crimes are never reported to the police.'" The cited government report is clearly an advocacy piece that supports changes in legislation, and the quote pulled from it does not discuss any research papers that were used to arrive at that estimate. Thus, the quoted statistic is completely unverifiable, and its source suffers from heavy bias. 24.63.85.142 (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not even a good reason, can you tell that what kind of verification you are talking about?  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Any sort of quantitative data, or even anecdotal evidence to support those numbers. Nothing of the sort is given. There is absolutely nothing in the source to suggest it wasn't made up entirely. On that alone I would remove the citation, but it also happens to be an advocacy report written by prosecutors that would reap the most benefit from the changes in procedure it proposes. In short, its objectivity is doubtful, and the cited statistic is pulled out of thin air. I think that the lack of any quantitative data—or even anecdotal evidence—in the cited source is a very good reason to remove the citation. I do appreciate that you are actually engaging in discussion on the talk page instead of just reverting my edit, though. Thank you. 24.63.85.142 (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Related discussion here User_talk:Padenton. I've changed the wording to make clearer that it is an estimate by the government, though it always said so. Are you happy now? &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  17:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course not. The claim is pulled out of thin air. The source merely states that "research suggests" without anything more specific. Whose research? What was the methodology? What were the results that "suggest between 75 and 95 percent"? Add to that the vested interest the source has in claiming such crimes are going unprosecuted, and there is absolutely no justifiable reason to treat the cited statement as credible, notable, or neutral. This wouldn't fly in a middle school five paragraph essay. It is ridiculous to include quantitative claims that make no reference to a specific researcher, funding organization, method, or even RESULT. (A "suggested" range is a far cry from a mean with an error level.) You might as well add "Research suggests the moon is made of cheese," in the moon article; the credibility for both claims is the same. 108.203.162.123 (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that your refusal to accept any sort of compromise, and continued edit warring with several other editors over this one sentence -- which was first added in 2008 -- have been unreasonable. Your claims that the Crown Prosecution Service is an "unreliable source" and suffers from "heavy bias" is quite frankly absurd and conspiratorialist. That being said, there have been a more recent study (reported on here by the Guardian), which gives a similar figure:
 * Do you have any problems with this source? / Gavleson (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any problems with this source? / Gavleson (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not unreasonable to expect a statistical claim to be supported by actual data. The quote in question cannot be verified in any way whatsoever. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills since it's now unreasonable to remove completely unverifiable "statistics". The fact that I was the first person to (fail to) verify the citation since it was added some time ago is not any sort of justification for retaining it. Once again, there are no study dates, participants, methods, researchers, or reviewers associated with the contested content. If a source claims that "research suggests" something, it damn well better cite some of that research. Instead, we are not even told whose research "suggests", nor what they mean by "suggest". It is disheartening and rather terrifying that—apart from the specific issue of a completely anonymous and unverifiable statistic—it is apparently controversial to note that there might just be a conflict-of-interest and/or credibility issue in a scenario such as this one: i. e. a government department closely affiliated with the Crown Prosecution Service (formerly a direct sub-division of it, in fact) has written a report suggesting a plethora of budget-burning ways to increase conviction rates for rape, and they've also included alarming claims about detection and attrition rates that are either unsourced (like the line in question) or outrageously calculated. The palpable bias and shoddy methodology can't be missed by anyone who actually bothers to read the damn thing. I might as well summarize the more serious issues, since you seem committed to simply treating the report as gospel, conflict of interest and critical analysis be damned:
 * Detection and attrition rates are necessarily based on incidence rates, but how are incidence rates determined? Simple: all reports to the police are assumed legitimate, though the report authors are clever enough to phrase this procedure in a slightly less absurd way:
 * In no uncertain words, the report states that any accusation that is not demonstrably false should be counted towards the incidence of rape. Anyone at all familiar with domestic and/or intimate crime (>85% of defendants being known to the accuser according to HMCPSI's own numbers) knows that even basing your estimates just on alleged victims making formal allegations is a wildly inaccurate, let alone assuming any and all accusations are legitimate since both under-reporting and chronic false accusations are extremely common in domestic violence areas. (This is what censuses are for, with conviction rates a distant second in credibility.) Acquittals, dropped charges due to lack of evidence, and dismissals by a judge are all still counted towards incidence estimates in this report. Throughout, accused persons are referred to as "offenders" and, despite there being no suggestions nor references to procedures for assessing the veracity of accusations, the police assessment of "no crime" due to a lack of evidence is derided as a breach of procedure:
 * Note the emphasis demanding "verifiable information"—the report gives CCTV footage is given as an example—in order to record a report as "no crime". Otherwise, "no crime" will only be assessed if the accuser "retracts" their accusation by officially, on-record saying "I lied, nothing happened"; merely withdrawing support for the investigation/prosecution still contributes to their incidence rate estimation. The report frequently notes that it can be difficult to ascertain the truth in rape cases, but rather than stress the importance of assiduous detective work, the authors make their priorities crystal clear:
 * The main thrust of the report could not be more clear (if you read the entire thing): rape incidence is rising along with attrition, which demonstrates a clear need for more aggressive, specialized prosecution and investigation tactics. The fact that the procedural changes assessed in the report (which assume a crime has occurred from the outset and push forward accordingly) are almost certainly the cause of the (very shoddily) measured increase in incidence rates is completely ignored, despite the obvious positive feedback loop being engineered. The report is allergic to veracity in a criminal investigation as much as it is in its own statistical estimates.
 * All of the above is a summary of the virulent bias of the report, with examples of how slanted and ridiculous the assumptions underlying their statistics are. In reality, I'm just spelling out why it would be outrageous to take anything in the report at face value, even if it is properly cited and ostensibly verifiable. But the line stating that "estimates from research suggest that..." isn't shoddy or biased, it's just made up. The revised version you inserted that states "a British government report estimates that..." is completely inaccurate and misleading: the report itself does not make that estimate. Instead, they quote anonymous "estimates from research" whose veracity they're not responsible for. This is a very popular tactic that got lots of play during the senate global warming debates, but it is academically worthless and has no place in an encyclopedia. It can't be verified or reproduced since it isn't even real data. I'm really struggling to find a clearer way of explaining that a "statistic" without any data behind it is meaningless and should never be presented as fact or evidence.
 * If you want to quote something from the Ministry of Justice report, that's an entirely separate issue. Just because data therein is in line with the anonymous HMCPSI statistic doesn't mean it has been validated. Each source should withstand scrutiny on its own, otherwise any bunch of questionable sources could be cited so long as they agree with each other. As to whether I have issues with that source, yes, I do have two serious issues with it: first, the summaries provided are extremely vague and cursory (probably because they're combining data collected over several years) so it's unclear whether those 15% of victims of "most serious" offenses includes victims of attempted rape and/or assault by penetration or whether it excludes them. Given that they specifically state "too trivial or not worth reporting" was one of the most frequently cited reasons for not reporting, I'd say it's extremely likely that they're once again grouping victims and "attempted victims" together. Second, the "most serious" offenses category groups "normal" rape with forced penetration, so it is not a proper rape reporting rate; the reporting rates of forced penetration and rape might differ enormously, and they're probably mixed in with attempted cases anyway. If you can find a source that parses the same data in a not-retarded way, feel free to cite it. 6-12 month retrospective census data is about as good as it gets for tracking this sort of thing so long as you have someone to competently compile the results. 108.203.162.123 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note the emphasis demanding "verifiable information"—the report gives CCTV footage is given as an example—in order to record a report as "no crime". Otherwise, "no crime" will only be assessed if the accuser "retracts" their accusation by officially, on-record saying "I lied, nothing happened"; merely withdrawing support for the investigation/prosecution still contributes to their incidence rate estimation. The report frequently notes that it can be difficult to ascertain the truth in rape cases, but rather than stress the importance of assiduous detective work, the authors make their priorities crystal clear:
 * The main thrust of the report could not be more clear (if you read the entire thing): rape incidence is rising along with attrition, which demonstrates a clear need for more aggressive, specialized prosecution and investigation tactics. The fact that the procedural changes assessed in the report (which assume a crime has occurred from the outset and push forward accordingly) are almost certainly the cause of the (very shoddily) measured increase in incidence rates is completely ignored, despite the obvious positive feedback loop being engineered. The report is allergic to veracity in a criminal investigation as much as it is in its own statistical estimates.
 * All of the above is a summary of the virulent bias of the report, with examples of how slanted and ridiculous the assumptions underlying their statistics are. In reality, I'm just spelling out why it would be outrageous to take anything in the report at face value, even if it is properly cited and ostensibly verifiable. But the line stating that "estimates from research suggest that..." isn't shoddy or biased, it's just made up. The revised version you inserted that states "a British government report estimates that..." is completely inaccurate and misleading: the report itself does not make that estimate. Instead, they quote anonymous "estimates from research" whose veracity they're not responsible for. This is a very popular tactic that got lots of play during the senate global warming debates, but it is academically worthless and has no place in an encyclopedia. It can't be verified or reproduced since it isn't even real data. I'm really struggling to find a clearer way of explaining that a "statistic" without any data behind it is meaningless and should never be presented as fact or evidence.
 * If you want to quote something from the Ministry of Justice report, that's an entirely separate issue. Just because data therein is in line with the anonymous HMCPSI statistic doesn't mean it has been validated. Each source should withstand scrutiny on its own, otherwise any bunch of questionable sources could be cited so long as they agree with each other. As to whether I have issues with that source, yes, I do have two serious issues with it: first, the summaries provided are extremely vague and cursory (probably because they're combining data collected over several years) so it's unclear whether those 15% of victims of "most serious" offenses includes victims of attempted rape and/or assault by penetration or whether it excludes them. Given that they specifically state "too trivial or not worth reporting" was one of the most frequently cited reasons for not reporting, I'd say it's extremely likely that they're once again grouping victims and "attempted victims" together. Second, the "most serious" offenses category groups "normal" rape with forced penetration, so it is not a proper rape reporting rate; the reporting rates of forced penetration and rape might differ enormously, and they're probably mixed in with attempted cases anyway. If you can find a source that parses the same data in a not-retarded way, feel free to cite it. 6-12 month retrospective census data is about as good as it gets for tracking this sort of thing so long as you have someone to competently compile the results. 108.203.162.123 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The main thrust of the report could not be more clear (if you read the entire thing): rape incidence is rising along with attrition, which demonstrates a clear need for more aggressive, specialized prosecution and investigation tactics. The fact that the procedural changes assessed in the report (which assume a crime has occurred from the outset and push forward accordingly) are almost certainly the cause of the (very shoddily) measured increase in incidence rates is completely ignored, despite the obvious positive feedback loop being engineered. The report is allergic to veracity in a criminal investigation as much as it is in its own statistical estimates.
 * All of the above is a summary of the virulent bias of the report, with examples of how slanted and ridiculous the assumptions underlying their statistics are. In reality, I'm just spelling out why it would be outrageous to take anything in the report at face value, even if it is properly cited and ostensibly verifiable. But the line stating that "estimates from research suggest that..." isn't shoddy or biased, it's just made up. The revised version you inserted that states "a British government report estimates that..." is completely inaccurate and misleading: the report itself does not make that estimate. Instead, they quote anonymous "estimates from research" whose veracity they're not responsible for. This is a very popular tactic that got lots of play during the senate global warming debates, but it is academically worthless and has no place in an encyclopedia. It can't be verified or reproduced since it isn't even real data. I'm really struggling to find a clearer way of explaining that a "statistic" without any data behind it is meaningless and should never be presented as fact or evidence.
 * If you want to quote something from the Ministry of Justice report, that's an entirely separate issue. Just because data therein is in line with the anonymous HMCPSI statistic doesn't mean it has been validated. Each source should withstand scrutiny on its own, otherwise any bunch of questionable sources could be cited so long as they agree with each other. As to whether I have issues with that source, yes, I do have two serious issues with it: first, the summaries provided are extremely vague and cursory (probably because they're combining data collected over several years) so it's unclear whether those 15% of victims of "most serious" offenses includes victims of attempted rape and/or assault by penetration or whether it excludes them. Given that they specifically state "too trivial or not worth reporting" was one of the most frequently cited reasons for not reporting, I'd say it's extremely likely that they're once again grouping victims and "attempted victims" together. Second, the "most serious" offenses category groups "normal" rape with forced penetration, so it is not a proper rape reporting rate; the reporting rates of forced penetration and rape might differ enormously, and they're probably mixed in with attempted cases anyway. If you can find a source that parses the same data in a not-retarded way, feel free to cite it. 6-12 month retrospective census data is about as good as it gets for tracking this sort of thing so long as you have someone to competently compile the results. 108.203.162.123 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to quote something from the Ministry of Justice report, that's an entirely separate issue. Just because data therein is in line with the anonymous HMCPSI statistic doesn't mean it has been validated. Each source should withstand scrutiny on its own, otherwise any bunch of questionable sources could be cited so long as they agree with each other. As to whether I have issues with that source, yes, I do have two serious issues with it: first, the summaries provided are extremely vague and cursory (probably because they're combining data collected over several years) so it's unclear whether those 15% of victims of "most serious" offenses includes victims of attempted rape and/or assault by penetration or whether it excludes them. Given that they specifically state "too trivial or not worth reporting" was one of the most frequently cited reasons for not reporting, I'd say it's extremely likely that they're once again grouping victims and "attempted victims" together. Second, the "most serious" offenses category groups "normal" rape with forced penetration, so it is not a proper rape reporting rate; the reporting rates of forced penetration and rape might differ enormously, and they're probably mixed in with attempted cases anyway. If you can find a source that parses the same data in a not-retarded way, feel free to cite it. 6-12 month retrospective census data is about as good as it gets for tracking this sort of thing so long as you have someone to competently compile the results. 108.203.162.123 (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, first off i am going to move the remaining sentence and put it under the USA section.Frederika Eilers (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC) I also think most of the USA section should be incorporated into the specific article. As for this statistic, there were some similar ones in the movie the Hunting Ground, i can see if they can hook me up with the source of their estimate.Frederika Eilers (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: We should mention this unreported rape statistic?
In the light of recent edit war over the unreported rape statistics that have been carefully objected by an IP. I am starting this RfC to know what others have to say about it. Previous discussion can be read above.

Here is the major edit, I would like to know how whether we should keep the following sentence on lead, or not.

Thank you.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I can see no reason why it should not be mentioned. Of course it is almost impssible to accurately estimate unreported crimes (not just rape). But that does not mean that attempts to do so should be excluded. Paul B (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you read through the report? To say that "A 2007 British government report estimates that 'between 75 and 95 percent of rape crimes are never reported'" is more than bending the truth. The report itself presents data and statistics, but it contains zero data on unreported crimes. The literal, exact quote from the report is
 * Whose research? Who knows. (Not theirs.) There is no footnote, reference, or source given to verify that number, and it is in fact the only reference to the rate of unreported cases in the ~200 page report. Simply put, there is no data to support that claim, as the report within which it was made deals with completely different data, leaving this statement wholly unsupported and unsourced. This isn't even a "secondary source" statistic—it's straight up rumor. I don't know how this citation snuck by the first time around, but I'm agape at the fact that I actually have to defend the removal of completely unsubstantiated statistics. Seriously? 108.203.162.123 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this helps: An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales. From page 16 "Further questions, related to the most recent incident, were asked of victims of offences in the most serious sexual offence category. Around a quarter (28 per cent, Table 2.5) of females had not told anyone about the incident. One in seven had told the police about the incident (15 per cent), and all of these respondents had had also told somebody else. " The stat isn't well sourced in the report, but its not really out of line with estimates produced elsewhere. This seems like a simple matter of finding a better citation.Nblund (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to not report government stats either, but maybe referencing the source above would work for a compromise? Ex: "A 2012 United Kingdom report estimates that 85% of rapes occurring that year were not reported to police. " Citing An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales (p. 16) Nblund (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the 2013 MoJ report to the UK section. / Gavleson (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly estimates of unreported rapes should be included—and—108.203.162.123 seems correct in their assessment that the 75–95% claim is weakly supported. This problem can only be solved by someone digging in and finding higher-quality research. In truth, the issue of underreporting, and other aspects of statistics, deserve better coverage on a theoretical level in this article. Google Scholar (example search) might be a good place to start. Articles such as this one look like they will be good for critical analysis of information. Unfortunately many of the best sources for this topic are behind paywalls. A university library is a good place to go for access. peace & good luck, groupuscule (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Differing National Laws
I agree that the differing definitions of 'rape' (or 'sexual assault') are important to include here so that the numbers for those countries can be understood in context, but right now they take up the vast majority of the article. Could we maybe do some cleanup? I've moved all the countries into a new heading so that people can see the rest of the article, but it does seem to require a bit more work over time. &#8213; Padenton  &#124;&#9742; 16:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of those definitions mean that the statistics for those countries are basically unusable, and in no way comparable to statistics for other countries. The charts are completely useless without that context. - Alltat (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Following this line I put the comparison charting in the Swedish section where it can be better understood in context. The best would be for this chart to have a section on itself I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.207.238 (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

True Comparison
This article has no organization. Each nation's stats are listed (if at all) in completely different orders. There is no uniformity. Numbers that do not relate to one another are just thrown in under one nation, and seemingly ignored in others. View https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate for an article that has something of a semblance of order. 207.119.177.77 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Rape statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140319013040/http://sgdatabase.unwomen.org/uploads/Police%20and%20Prosecution%20Training%20Needs-%20Country%20Report.pdf to http://sgdatabase.unwomen.org/uploads/Police%20and%20Prosecution%20Training%20Needs-%20Country%20Report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101204205953/https://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA23/001/2010/en/17ebf558-95f0-4cf8-98c1-3f052ffb9603/asa230012010en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA23/001/2010/en/17ebf558-95f0-4cf8-98c1-3f052ffb9603/asa230012010en.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Reported Rapes
Does the compression of reported(!) rapes between different countries with

a) different definitions of rape (very wide in Sweden, very narrow in Germany) and b) different likelihood that a rape victim reports the crime (high in Europe, low in North Africa and Arab world)

any sense?

India or some north African states with less rape then Sweden is very unlikely.

Are there any better statistics (for comparison)? I know that reported rapes are relatively precise numbers it just doesn’t say anything about the real amount of rape.

Are the maybe polls that can be compares. Polls maybe less precise, but when it comes to comparing different countries they seem to be the only available option. --79.222.230.139 (talk) 11:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly, no. The data about sexual violence is difficult to work with in general because of underreporting and the dark figure of crime. Generally self-report data are considered better for this topic because of the differences in laws, prosecution, and norms about reporting, but even then there are issues of translations, recognizing sexual violence as violence (and not just normative behavior), and willingness to report even on anonymous surveys.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 one external links on Rape statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130730075555/http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/reports/License_to_rape.pdf to http://www.burmacampaign.org.uk/reports/License_to_rape.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120131193304/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/library/asset/ACT77/001/2010/en/5ba7f635-f2c3-4b50-86ea-e6c3428cf179/act770012010eng.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT77/001/2010/en/5ba7f635-f2c3-4b50-86ea-e6c3428cf179/act770012010eng.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140613211935/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR18/001/2011/en/7a777ab6-deff-4ec0-9fb0-62d1fa6d1a06/eur180012011en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR18/001/2011/en/7a777ab6-deff-4ec0-9fb0-62d1fa6d1a06/eur180012011en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150528141816/http://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/UN%20verdict%20on%20East%20Timor.pdf to http://gsp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/UN%20verdict%20on%20East%20Timor.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222202126/http://sgdatabase.unwomen.org/uploads/Ethiopia%20-%20Revised%20Criminal%20Code%202004.pdf to http://sgdatabase.unwomen.org/uploads/Ethiopia%20-%20Revised%20Criminal%20Code%202004.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140130145034/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jHFt_Rut8_u89I1UBLUuadghpzPw?hl=en to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jHFt_Rut8_u89I1UBLUuadghpzPw?hl=en
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140620023926/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR44/005/2014/en/66f2522f-36df-4984-ac35-994ff7d668e7/afr440052014en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR44/005/2014/en/66f2522f-36df-4984-ac35-994ff7d668e7/afr440052014en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140107143906/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA24/010/2013/en/d9d754b7-8fd3-4eaf-bb6b-a533f67bb450/asa240102013en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA24/010/2013/en/d9d754b7-8fd3-4eaf-bb6b-a533f67bb450/asa240102013en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140518204926/http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/38635924/NKVTS_vold-voldtekt-2014.pdf to http://www.regjeringen.no/pages/38635924/NKVTS_vold-voldtekt-2014.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140620023938/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE22/004/2014/en/7b7121b8-37c1-4e49-b1a1-2d8a005450a3/mde220042014en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE22/004/2014/en/7b7121b8-37c1-4e49-b1a1-2d8a005450a3/mde220042014en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131002123958/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR52/009/2013/en/03eed775-84d9-4e3b-bd29-60dd56fafe0d/afr520092013en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR52/009/2013/en/03eed775-84d9-4e3b-bd29-60dd56fafe0d/afr520092013en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111209203938/http://www.aegis.com:80/news/suntimes/1999/ST990401.html to http://www.aegis.com/news/suntimes/1999/ST990401.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130913012254/http://www.goss-online.org/magnoliaPublic/en/Laws--Legislation--Policies/mainColumnParagraphs/0/content_files/file12/15.pdf to http://www.goss-online.org/magnoliaPublic/en/Laws--Legislation--Policies/mainColumnParagraphs/0/content_files/file12/15.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130913012254/http://www.goss-online.org/magnoliaPublic/en/Laws--Legislation--Policies/mainColumnParagraphs/0/content_files/file12/15.pdf to http://www.goss-online.org/magnoliaPublic/en/Laws--Legislation--Policies/mainColumnParagraphs/0/content_files/file12/15.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110808182016/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR54/076/2004/en/f66115ea-d5b4-11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/afr540762004en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR54/076/2004/en/f66115ea-d5b4-11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/afr540762004en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140714125901/http://www.bra.se/download/18.22a7170813a0d141d21800061146/1364311914171/100La-2012.xls to http://www.bra.se/download/18.22a7170813a0d141d21800061146/1364311914171/100La-2012.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091211060154/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rape statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141214201219/http://goobjoog.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2704:press-release-somali-government-welcomes-uk-s-leadership-on-global-summit-to-end-sexual-violence-in-conflict-and-given-particular-attention-to-somalia&catid=124:local-news&Itemid=653 to http://goobjoog.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2704:press-release-somali-government-welcomes-uk-s-leadership-on-global-summit-to-end-sexual-violence-in-conflict-and-given-particular-attention-to-somalia&catid=124:local-news&Itemid=653

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Are we still using the 1 in 4 claim for US colleges?
I'm a bit in awe that this claim is still floating around. It's an old claim from 2006 - 2007 that has long since been disproven by a great many independent studies and are likewise contradicted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics which finds that the number of rapes on college campuses are 1 in 55. It's rather, infamous and in a nutshell, the claim included people, not on college campuses, undesired kissing, inappropriate groping, drunken sex, and those who later regretted engaging in sexual activities, and with a very low survey sample size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.135.167.146 (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2016
The statistics chart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#Rape_statistics_by_country) at the bottom seems to be vandalized. Im not sure of the other numbers, but I noticed that for India, the numbers are different from that given in the UN source file. I cannot correct them because the article is semi locked... and I can assume the vandalism is by "patriots" of the respective countries. It would be nice to have some correct facts back in those charts, and keep it locked indefinitely :)

Sony Sasankan (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The numbers in the table for India match those found in the source at this Excel file. If there is indeed an error, please specify which number is incorrect.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This topic mentions "Rape and sexual assault crimes are very high in India" in the section on India. However the numbers mentioned in the section as well as the statistics table seem indicate the incidence of rape in India is among the lowest in the world. Which one is correct? Is there some estimate that explains the discrepancy? I am mainly wondering because the media reporting often create the impression of very high rates of rape in India but the numbers on a proportional basis never seem to back it up. I would very much like to have something that shows the real situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.250.206 (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Changes to the Introduction
In my opinion the introduction had a few problems. I've made several changes listed below. Pre-edit parts of the article are in bold. Post-edit parts of the article are in italic.

1. "Rape is severly under-reported"

Problems:
 * This is without a doubt true, but very imprecise. Is it more or less than assault? Are the majority of all rape cases not reported? In the U.S 16 percent where reported according to the ncjrs and the National Women's Study-Replication. In Italy almost all of them are not reported (91,6%).

Edit:

''Rape is a severely under-reported crime with surveys showing dark figures of up to 91.6%. '' A more general discription of the dark figure of rape might be better, but is hard to find due to the spotty statistics.

2. "In many parts of the world, rape is very rarely reported, due to the extreme social stigma cast on those who have been raped, or the fear of being disowned by their families, or subjected to violence, including honor killings."

Problems:
 * Repetition of the fact that rape is under-reported.
 * The citation does not substantiate the claims of fear and the consequence of less reporting but instead backs the fact that there are honor killings (See next point).
 * None of the claims of reasons for not reporting crimes are therefore really substantiated. The study by the ncjrs above instead lists different reasons for not reporting rape: "Major barriers to reporting rape included not wanting others to know about the rape, fear of retaliation, perception that evidence was insufficient, uncertainty about how to report the crime, and uncertainty about whether a crime was committed or whether the offender intended her harm." According to the bjs (2010) reasons include: "Personal matter" (13), "Not important enough to respondent" (8), "Police could not do anything to help" (2), "Police would not do anything to help" (13), "Did not want to get offender in trouble with law" (7), "Fear of reprisal" (20). These two studies are obviously americentric, but show that the current state of the article does not represent large parts of the world.

Edit: ''Prevalence of reasons for not reporting rape differ across countries. They may include fear of retaliation, uncertainty about whether a crime was committed or if the offender intended harm, not wanting others to know about the rape, not wanting the offender to get in trouble, fear of prosecution (e.g. due to laws against premarital sex), and doubt in local law enforcement. ''

3. "Furthermore, in countries where adultery or premarital sex are illegal, victims of rape can face prosecution under these laws, if there is not sufficient evidence to prove a rape in the court. Even if they can prove their rape case, evidence during investigation may surface showing that they were not virgins at the time of the rape, which, if they are unmarried, opens the door for prosecution."

Problems:
 * The source does not substantiate the claim in the context that fear of prosecution does actually lead to less reporting of rape, but shows one case where a girl is being prosecuted for premarital sex.
 * Undue weight is given to this issue. (The weight should be validated in the context of rape statistics, specifically rape reporting. See also Due and undue weight. The issue fits the article on rape much better.)

Edit: See 2.

'''4. "A United Nations statistical report compiled from government sources showed that more than 250,000 cases of rape or attempted rape were recorded by police annually. The reported data covered 65 countries.[5]"

Problems:
 * The data is from 2001 to 2002 (14 years old)
 * 70 countries actually provided data (65 claimed)
 * Since the problems of rape statistics have been discussed previously why does such a generalization now appear in the article?

Post-Edit: I left it in for now. If someone has a better source for a world-wide statistic I'd love to have it.

I'm open to discussion. Kulukimaki (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2016‎ (UTC)


 * Remember to sign your posts; I signed your above post for you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

_____

Data for India in table is not for rape but SV against children
Data for India in table is not for rape but SV against children according to Ref No 304 "Statistics : Crime : Sexual Violence (see second tab of spreadsheet)". Unodc.org. Retrieved 2013-12-04. please update — Preceding unsigned comment added by SinghAnupam (talk • contribs) 16:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Rape in India
Edits made under Rape in India with proper citations. Anyways, who exactly decides that "Rape is very high in India" ?, coupled with no source or citation? Does not seem very neutral to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.165.235 (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting here that the IP removed fairly-recent two WP:RS cites, in preference for two six-year old, harder-to-WP:V cites, plus a third that contradicts the edit (747078892). ... richi (hello) 11:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Now I see why Wikipedia is not taken seriously anymore. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.184.137.184 (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, Wikipedia shouldn't be taken seriously by those looking for a vehicle to push an agenda by citing out-of-date research and research that doesn't support your conclusions ;-) ... richi (hello) 15:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan Rape Data & Numbers
The Thesis which was cited in table mentioned 5119 rapes in 3 years 2006 - 2008. Yet somehow wiki is showing over 3500 rapes per year.

This is supposed to be OFFICIAL DATA. so why using other numbers? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268871149_Violence_Against_Women_in_Pakistan_Constraints_in_Investigation_and_Data_Collection

Also the official UN report didnt mention Pakistan so how are you populating these numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.117.106.189 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Rape statistics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sgdatabase.unwomen.org/searchDetail.action?measureId=26309&baseHREF=country&baseHREFId=675
 * Added tag to https://www.dawn.com/news/916449/feminism-war-and-silence-fuel-domestic-abuse-in-finland
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140620023952/http://ncrb.nic.in/CD-CII2012/Statistics2012.pdf to http://ncrb.nic.in/CD-CII2012/Statistics2012.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107143906/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA24/010/2013/en/d9d754b7-8fd3-4eaf-bb6b-a533f67bb450/asa240102013en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA24/010/2013/en/d9d754b7-8fd3-4eaf-bb6b-a533f67bb450/asa240102013en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130108020408/http://www.hawaii.edu:80/hivandaids/Similarities_And_Differences_In_Women_s_Sexual_Assault_Experiences_Based_On_Tactics.pdf to http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Similarities_And_Differences_In_Women_s_Sexual_Assault_Experiences_Based_On_Tactics.pdf
 * Added tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110314171826/http:/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041024015252/https://www.fbi.gov//ucr/ucr.htm to https://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)