| Revision as of 04:15, 28 April 2015 editEvergreenFir (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators129,494 edits →DiCanio← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:36, 28 April 2015 edit undoRoscelese (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,788 edits →DiCanio: re:Next edit → | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
| :::Dicanio is cited as saying that researchers generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%. That is contradicted by Rumney's table (in the WP article): the table has a majority of research studies finding a figure greater than 10%, and close to half the studies finding at least 20%. ] (]) 04:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | :::Dicanio is cited as saying that researchers generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%. That is contradicted by Rumney's table (in the WP article): the table has a majority of research studies finding a figure greater than 10%, and close to half the studies finding at least 20%. ] (]) 04:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::We'd need a reliable source to point that fact out. Otherwise it would be ]. I don't have access to DiCanio, but they could be considering more sources than Rumney. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 04:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | ::::We'd need a reliable source to point that fact out. Otherwise it would be ]. I don't have access to DiCanio, but they could be considering more sources than Rumney. ] ] <small>Please {{]}}</small> 04:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::It's also ignoring Rumney's own observations, which noted that a lot of the estimates are overestimates due to police skepticism of accusations, and singles out a few of the higher numbers as coming from particularly flawed studies. –] (] ⋅ ]) 04:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:36, 28 April 2015
 | Law C‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the False accusation of rape article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Rape Is Rape: How Denial, Distortion, and Victim Blaming Are Fueling a Hidden Acquaintance Rape Crisis by Jody Raphael (Chicago Review Press, 2013) ISBN 9781613744796 "...between 2010 and 2011, Misplaced Pages users edited and added some of the new studies—as well as Professor Lisak's critique of Eugene J. Kanin—to the site's "False Accusation of Rape" entry. As recorded by the entry's "Talk" page, the article's author, a rape denier, then removed some of the new material. These actions caused the new research, non-Kanin material to be unavailable to Misplaced Pages readers. The hullabaloo stands as a mini-version of the whole controversy." |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the False accusation of rape article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Poorly Written Article
The key issue here is the tone of the article. The entire article appears to be a persuasive essay trying to discount any studies that provide a false accusation figure of higher than 2%. This is especially dubious because the majority of the studies cited on the page provide figures much larger than 2%. It's for this reason I cannot understand why:
"The "conventional scholarly wisdom," according to American law professor Michelle J. Anderson, is that two percent of rape complaints made to the police are false".
is included in the overview. First of all, it would appear from the article itself that most scholarly wisdom places the number much higher (18 of 20 studies). Secondly since when is an uncited anecdote of an anecdote a legitimate overview of an issue? So you're telling us (uncited) that Michelle Anderson says that others (uncited) conventionally (vague) state that 2% of reports are false. There is no study that even begins to indicate that! As previously mentioned, an accusation proven to be false vs. being false are two entirely different things that can't be responsibly conflated!
This paraphrasing needs to be removed as it is no where near being factual or authoritative. It is the opinion of one professor on the opinion of "scholarly wisdom" with no citation or data supporting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.129.113.158 (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Figures without citation
The sentence that said that the US justice department estimates 2% of rapes to be false is not cited in the overview or in the body of the article. In fact, quite the contrary, the article cites a source where the Justice department cites the FBI figure of 8%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.129.113.158 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- FBI says 8% are unfounded, but that's definitively not the same thing. I think we could allude to the issue of different definitions in our lede, but inclusion of the FBI figure must necessarily take into account, and clearly state, that not everything in that 8% is actually false. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- So I'm still blown away that this Michelle Anderson quote is in the overview. There is 0 justification for it. You are practicing disinformation because you don't want it to be true. Once again you restored this DOJ 2% figure WHICH HAS NO SOURCE AND IS ENTIRELY MADE UP. In any case 8% of rape accusations are deemed unfounded whereas only 2% of other felonies are deemed unfounded. Still 4 times the rate of other felonies. The fact of the matter is False accusations of rape are much more prolific than that of other crimes and you merely not wanting it to be true because it's not politically correct is absurd. I will change the word to unfounded but the Michelle Anderson quote and the 1.5 to 8% (which you mistakenly wrote as 1.5 to 108%) have no merit whatsoever and are anecdotal and anti-scientific. 142.129.113.158 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- The DOJ figure is in the cited source. I can see that you're taking this personally, but there's no need to do so - instead, let's respect reliable sources and report their content correctly. I suggest that you undo your unconstructive edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- The US Department of Justice report in the Cambridge University Law Journal article dates to 1997, when what actually constituted rape was understood differently by different jurisdictions (forcible? by a stranger? By an acquaintance? etc). The article also states that at least one police department (specifically the Philadelphia Police Dept for at least two decades) dumped information to create better crime statistics. Though the article itself dates to 2006, I am wondering if there are any more recent US government/statistically valid studies to cite for this article re the percentage of accusations being false? Also, if we are going to use this article and cite the US stats as being 8% or whatever, then keeping in mind that Misplaced Pages has a worldwide readership, we should also include the Denmark figures for 1.5% plus the issues with police/reporting bias that the article mentions, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, certainly we could do with updated numbers, if they're available. Shearonink, re US-centrism and issues with police, what do you think of the previous lede before the IP's changes - what is good and how would you improve it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- The US Department of Justice report in the Cambridge University Law Journal article dates to 1997, when what actually constituted rape was understood differently by different jurisdictions (forcible? by a stranger? By an acquaintance? etc). The article also states that at least one police department (specifically the Philadelphia Police Dept for at least two decades) dumped information to create better crime statistics. Though the article itself dates to 2006, I am wondering if there are any more recent US government/statistically valid studies to cite for this article re the percentage of accusations being false? Also, if we are going to use this article and cite the US stats as being 8% or whatever, then keeping in mind that Misplaced Pages has a worldwide readership, we should also include the Denmark figures for 1.5% plus the issues with police/reporting bias that the article mentions, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- The DOJ figure is in the cited source. I can see that you're taking this personally, but there's no need to do so - instead, let's respect reliable sources and report their content correctly. I suggest that you undo your unconstructive edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Shearonink: - looking at your edit, I think that given the low number of studies per most geographical distributions, we'd want to avoid implying that the rate is different in these countries, as opposed to these countries happening to be the location of some of the studies. Perhaps "Other studies" rather than "Other countries"? I think we could also foreground the definitional issue if you're going to invoke it in the first statistic you cite (the previous lead had the range of "unfounded, unproven, or false", but I think keeping the IP troll's conflation of "unfounded" with "false" is unhelpful even if the clarifying statement is added afterwards). Something like, after the first sentence, "While it is difficult to assess the prevalence of false accusations due to such accusations being conflated with non-prosecuted cases as 'unfounded', the FBI..."
Do you have full access to Rumney's paper? I'm not sure I do, but that could be useful in summarizing the statistics (relatedly, it seems like our citation to Forensic Victimology is only nominal at this point). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- I found a complete copy of Rumney 2006 here: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/6478/1/Download.pdf . Not sure what you mean about the "Forensic Victimology" book, but I found a least a preview Google version online that had many pages available:https://books.google.com/books?id=OAVjnpqx2zUC&dq. I agree my wording is clunky but think it is important to make it clear that "unfounded" doesn't mean "false" (for instance "not guilty" is not technically "innocent" and "nolo contendre" does not really mean "guilty"). The years for the statements in the lede are important, otherwise there isn't any context, just an assumption that the FBI/DOJ/whatever says This is So. And, therefore, it is so. I think if the lede is going to mention US sources then it should also mention information from other countries, perhaps studies of statistics from other countries exist that examine larger pools of data...I don't know. I am concerned that the lede is too US-centric if it only uses sources/data/surveys/information from the United States to make blanket assumptions for a world-wide readership. I'll trim some bits - just noticed the page cite was incorrect on something in the lede - but I don't really have the time to do anything more right now. Shearonink (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for the paper! And no, I totally agree with you that it's important to make it clear that "unfounded" != false - what do you think of my wording, proposed for inclusion before the first "unfounded" statistic? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And I have no objections to that - I just don't want these various yearly studies to be cited as if they were written in stone and true forever. Shearonink (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Roscelese There is no cited source so I don't know what you're referring to. Once again I cited the DOJ and their 8% figure, where is this DOJ 2% figure? If you're referring to the not publicly available book cited after the statement "Scientifically etc." I find that rather dubious i.e. "trust me it's in there". As for the US bias that can be corrected but the fact remains this is an English wiki and the world's largest English speaking country is the United States. Moreover these are the largest and most authoritative analysis. Furthermore the largest study in Britain also confirmed an 8% false report rate as cited later in those article. These sources are somewhat authoritative though there is criticism on both sides (i.e. the true number is much larger or much smaller). One could argue as one does in the body of the article that the definitions of false accusation is too broad and includes accusations that are not truly false. Personally I believe that 8% is MUCH smaller than the true number because every accusation that "could be true or could be false" as defined by the police, is in these numbers considered to not be a false report when in reality at least some of them are. In the case of the FBI only cases in which officers demonstrated though evidence that the report was extremely unlikely or in cases where the accuser recanted did the cases amount to "Unfounded Accusations". For example if a woman and man were in a room on Tuesday together and a woman reports on Friday she was raped by the man and no injuries are present and no DNA evidence is intact, the only way to consider her testimony false is if she admits she was lying. In every other case her testimony stands. The only study in which every case was investigated until it's completion found that 41% of rape accusations were false as defined by the accuser admitting they lied. I don't think that readers will be misled by thinking the FBI and DOJ numbers apply across the world. As mentioned Law Enforcement can't determine what happened if there's no evidence and they don't have the resources to fully investigate every case. However the FBI's standard for determining if an accusation is false is the same standard they apply to ALL other crimes and the fact remains that in rape cases, accusations are 4 times as likely to be found unfounded. For this reason I think the FBI numbers are the fairest. No need to mention specific criticisms of figures in the overview since those are dealt with in the body. It wouldn't be right to include the arguments that make 8% smaller if you'll exclude those that make it larger and if you're going to include both you may as well write the whole article in the overview!142.129.113.158 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- This stinks of WP:POINT.
Personally I believe that 8% is MUCH smaller than the true number
... and there I think is the motive behind these edits. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)- Wait so instead of responding to valid criticisms, edits because of misinformation (DOJ says 2%) and edits because of false information, you revert to the old edit and say it's biased of me to request accurate properly cited information because it reflects poorly on women. The article as is houses false information. The Michelle Anderson quote which is an anecdote of an anecdote and a plethora of biased PC motivated editing. Misplaced Pages is worthless if you can just post anecdotes and say they are the scholarly consensus and falsely report DOJ figures (reducing their numbers by a factor of 4) it's like what's the point of information then? Just believe whatever you want to make up numbers and live in lala land. 142.129.113.158 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- This stinks of WP:POINT.
- @Roscelese There is no cited source so I don't know what you're referring to. Once again I cited the DOJ and their 8% figure, where is this DOJ 2% figure? If you're referring to the not publicly available book cited after the statement "Scientifically etc." I find that rather dubious i.e. "trust me it's in there". As for the US bias that can be corrected but the fact remains this is an English wiki and the world's largest English speaking country is the United States. Moreover these are the largest and most authoritative analysis. Furthermore the largest study in Britain also confirmed an 8% false report rate as cited later in those article. These sources are somewhat authoritative though there is criticism on both sides (i.e. the true number is much larger or much smaller). One could argue as one does in the body of the article that the definitions of false accusation is too broad and includes accusations that are not truly false. Personally I believe that 8% is MUCH smaller than the true number because every accusation that "could be true or could be false" as defined by the police, is in these numbers considered to not be a false report when in reality at least some of them are. In the case of the FBI only cases in which officers demonstrated though evidence that the report was extremely unlikely or in cases where the accuser recanted did the cases amount to "Unfounded Accusations". For example if a woman and man were in a room on Tuesday together and a woman reports on Friday she was raped by the man and no injuries are present and no DNA evidence is intact, the only way to consider her testimony false is if she admits she was lying. In every other case her testimony stands. The only study in which every case was investigated until it's completion found that 41% of rape accusations were false as defined by the accuser admitting they lied. I don't think that readers will be misled by thinking the FBI and DOJ numbers apply across the world. As mentioned Law Enforcement can't determine what happened if there's no evidence and they don't have the resources to fully investigate every case. However the FBI's standard for determining if an accusation is false is the same standard they apply to ALL other crimes and the fact remains that in rape cases, accusations are 4 times as likely to be found unfounded. For this reason I think the FBI numbers are the fairest. No need to mention specific criticisms of figures in the overview since those are dealt with in the body. It wouldn't be right to include the arguments that make 8% smaller if you'll exclude those that make it larger and if you're going to include both you may as well write the whole article in the overview!142.129.113.158 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're welcome. And I have no objections to that - I just don't want these various yearly studies to be cited as if they were written in stone and true forever. Shearonink (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you for the paper! And no, I totally agree with you that it's important to make it clear that "unfounded" != false - what do you think of my wording, proposed for inclusion before the first "unfounded" statistic? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- So properly cited figures aren't allowed only made up ones that fit with your narrative and if I try to edit a page to remove claims with no sources I am engaging in an edit war. Aren't you engaging in an edit war? My side has justification and reasoning. Yours is because you're sensitive. Meanwhile you're not responding to the discussion on the talk page or the questioning of your bullying on your talk page. You're the information police who try to silence dissent that doesn't fit in to their world view. Then you report me? The liberal Gestapo at its best!142.129.113.158 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Roscelese - this your first time being called Gestapo? It's mine... Anyway, assuming bad faith on this user. Can't revert page as I'm at 3 reverts, but this user is POINT and NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- So properly cited figures aren't allowed only made up ones that fit with your narrative and if I try to edit a page to remove claims with no sources I am engaging in an edit war. Aren't you engaging in an edit war? My side has justification and reasoning. Yours is because you're sensitive. Meanwhile you're not responding to the discussion on the talk page or the questioning of your bullying on your talk page. You're the information police who try to silence dissent that doesn't fit in to their world view. Then you report me? The liberal Gestapo at its best!142.129.113.158 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- If anyone is POINT it's you. His figures are supported by the FBI and DOJ, yours are fabricated out of thin air. 108.251.172.19 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- The latest edit seems to address everyone's concerns citing proper statistics, qualifying the FBI's 8% figure and including international rates as well. Should satisfy all but extremists on both sides 108.251.172.19 (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Survey of 20 police officers
In the section False_accusation_of_rape#Police_opinions_on_false_rape I have removed this:
According to a small-scale survey of 20 US law enforcement officers conducted in 2004, officers believe that the typical person making a false accusation is "female (100%), Caucasian (100%), 15–20 years of age (10%), 31–45 years of age (25%), or 21–30 years of age (65%)". A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge, or to cover up behavior deemed "inappropriate" by the accuser's peers.
'Small-scale survey' is an understatement. 20 US law enforcement officers is an absurdly low number of participants for a survey. This sounds more like a survey conducted for a grade-school assignment. Unfortunately, the source is non-free so I can't read more about their methodology. If anyone has access to this, I would appreciate if someone could post information on the methodology (particularly selection methodology) for this specific survey. ― Padenton |☎ 18:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
DiCanio
Why is the DiCanio citation being removed? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking and discussing. My reasons were given in my edit summary. The main reason is that it is strongly contradicted by the cited table from Rumney (2006); note that Rumney is a research article in a respected journal, and that the WP article has a whole section devoted to Rumney. The other reason is that, in my experience, Facts on File is not the best in terms of reliability (though it is not bad either).
- I do not feel strongly about removing DiCanio. If DiCanio is kept, however, then I feel strongly that the article should deal with the contradiction with Rumney.
- My own preference would be to remove that entire section, including the citation of Greer. EllieTea (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not for us editors to resolve contradictions in data. The DiCanio piece is a tertiary source in an encyclopedia. Rumney is a secondary source and a literature review. Both are decent sources so I see no reason to remove either.
- What exactly do you see as being contradictory to Rumney? I don't want to assume. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Dicanio is cited as saying that researchers generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%. That is contradicted by Rumney's table (in the WP article): the table has a majority of research studies finding a figure greater than 10%, and close to half the studies finding at least 20%. EllieTea (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- We'd need a reliable source to point that fact out. Otherwise it would be WP:SYNTH. I don't have access to DiCanio, but they could be considering more sources than Rumney. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's also ignoring Rumney's own observations, which noted that a lot of the estimates are overestimates due to police skepticism of accusations, and singles out a few of the higher numbers as coming from particularly flawed studies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Dicanio is cited as saying that researchers generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%. That is contradicted by Rumney's table (in the WP article): the table has a majority of research studies finding a figure greater than 10%, and close to half the studies finding at least 20%. EllieTea (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)