Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:51, 4 May 2015

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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."

Law C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Feminism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Men's Issues Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

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)

I have now traced the source. The correct reference is this:

Hazelwood, Robert R.; Burgess, Ann Wolbert (2009), "False rape allegations", in Hazelwood, Robert R.; Burgess, Ann Wolbert (eds.), Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation (Fourth ed.), CRC Press, p. 181-199.

The relevant section of that is copied below.

Who Makes a False Allegation?

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no statistics maintained on false allegations. Recognizing this, Hazelwood and Napier (2004) reported on 20 active and retired federal, state, and city law enforcement officers from different regions of the United States (Washington, D.C., California, Texas, Nebraska, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, and Washington) and two provinces in Canada who were telephonically surveyed in a structured manner as to their anecdotal experience with staged crimes (false allegation of rape is one type). Each of these officers had served as a crime analyst (“profiler”) within his or her department and consequently was much more experienced with violent crime than the average investigator. It is to be noted that this survey was not intended to provide detailed predictive analysis, but to report investigative perceptions. The officers were asked to approximate the number of violent crimes they had been involved with and the number of fatal and nonfatal staged crimes they had encountered over the years. These officers had 560 years of cumulative law enforcement experience and an estimated 33,360 consultations on violent crimes. Of that number, they estimated that 903 had been staged; of the 903 staged crimes, 411 dealt with death scenes and 492 with nonfatal false allegations of sexual assault.

The officers reported that, in their experience, the person typically making the false allegation was female (100%); Caucasian (100%); 15–20 years of age (10%), 31–45 years of age (25%), or 21–30 years of age (65%).

While it is not intended that this information be generalized to the entire population, the findings that the person most often making a false allegation of rape is Caucasian, female, and between 21 and 30 years of age is consistent with the authors’ experience. However, it is important to note that there are no educational, occupational, or intellectual boundaries in this arena. The authors are aware of false complaints being lodged by nurses, psychologists, school teachers, college students, members of the criminal justice system, and female dancers. Investigators would be wise to disregard any criteria presented to them.

Thus, the section is reliant on Hazelwood & Napier (2004). An extract from that is below.

The participants in the survey, all of whom we personally know, were selected from a cadre of highly trained and experienced law enforcement investigators. Because of their expertise in criminal investigative analysis (Napier & Baker, 2002), these individuals have been consultants to their own and other agencies in a wide variety of violent crimes against persons. The participants represented city, state, and federal law enforcement agencies from Washington, D.C., two provinces in Canada, and the states of California, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

...

Because criminal investigators generally do not keep numerical records of the cases or consultations that they have participated in during their career, the officers were asked to approximate the number of violent crimes that they had been involved with and the number of fatal and nonfatal staged crimes that they had encountered. Their estimates were from memory and without benefit of reviewing case statistics or other case materials. It should be noted that because of their crime consultant status, the survey participants were exposed to a particularly large number of complex violent crime scenarios and that consequently, staged crimes may be overrepresented in their casebooks. The findings presented in this article are not intended to provide detailed predictive analyses but rather to report investigative perceptions. Therefore, the survey results should not be generalized. Although we did not participate in the survey, our experience is consistent with the findings of the survey.

...

The 20 officers estimated that of the 903 staged crimes with which they had experience, 492 (55%) dealt with nonfatal false allegations of sexual assault. This figure represents more than half of the staged crimes reported by the participants. Consequently, false allegations of sexual assault were the most commonly staged crimes encountered by these experienced investigators.

In addition to being the most frequently observed, false allegation of sexual assault is also the most politically sensitive staged crime dealt with by investigators. The infamous false allegation of kidnap and rape by Tawanna Brawley in upstate New York became a national media event.

...

The participating officers unanimously reported that the staging offender is most often a White female. When asked to approximate the age range of the staging offender, 13 of the 20 officers (65%) advised that the most common age was between 21 and 30, 5 officers (25%) reported that 31 to 45 was the most common age, and 2 (10%) of the officers advised that the most common age was between 15 and 20.

...

The surveyed officers reported that in staged nonfatal sexual crimes, the most common offender was a White female between 21 and 30 years old. In staged crimes involving fatalities, the staging offender was most commonly a White male, who was an intimate partner of the victim and between 26 and 35 years old.

...

Note that the first author of the paper, Hazelwood, is the same as the first author of the book chapter (and of the book). Hazelwood is apparently a retired FBI officer.

Regarding what to do with the above, I have no view.  EllieTea (talk) 05:13, 2 May 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)

I do not have a copy of DiCanio readily available either. There is a strong contradiction with Rumney, though, and I feel strongly about addressing that.

Regarding SYNTH, see WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not a rigid rule, which states "Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article"; addressing a strong contradiction improves an article. Additionally, SYNTH is "when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis"; it seems arguable that pointing out the contradiction is a new thesis. In any case, though, there might be a way to address the contradiction that sidesteps this issue, e.g. "DiCanio (1993) claims that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of false allegations, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%; the range claimed by DiCanio can be compared with the rates reported in Rumney's survey of the research literature".  EllieTea (talk) 09:09, 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)

I have looked through Rumney, and I did not find enough to resolve the contradiction. Moreover, I found the following two statements.

... quote one police officer thus: "If rape was treated as any other crime you would probably no-crime a lot more. But because rape is treated as something special, and indeed it is a serious crime, it is much more difficult to no-crime it".

Smith notes that it was not possible to tell whether reports that were not recorded because of insufficient evidence, may in fact, have been false.

Those statements indicate that the police might well be underreporting the true rate of false rape accusations.

Additionally, the WP article cites a (valid) problem with Stewart (1981), but fails to note that Rumney also tells the following.

Stewart examined 18 allegations of rape and concluded that 16 were false. Of these 16, it was claimed that the complainant admitted to making a false complaint in 14 cases.

Thus, the WP article seems to misrepresent the issues with Stewart.

Relatedly, Turvey (2014) states the following.

Unfortunately, it is common for even seasoned investigators to accept an alleged victim’s statement or story without question or suspicion. This uncritical aspect may arise out of a fear of disturbing the alleged victim, being viewed as politically incorrect by victim advocates and colleagues, or a lack of knowledge about the investigation of potential false reports.

... an overall political environment that sanctions such identifications and investigations can promulgate a fearful investigative mindset. This fear of political reprisal routinely provides for the failure to correctly identify and investigate false reports to their fullest conclusion. As discussed in Palmer and Thornhill (2000, p. 160), “To some feminists, the concept of false rape allegation itself constitutes discriminatory harassment.” It is not unreasonable in such an environment for investigators and forensic examiners to be concerned that the investigation of a false report, and even the consideration of false reporting as a viable case theory, will result in negative consequences from colleagues, superiors, the media, victim advocates, and the general public.

Again, it is being argued that the police underreport false accusations.

EllieTea (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Statistics in the lede

The lede said the following.

... in the United States, the FBI Uniform Crime Report in 1996 and the United States Department of Justice in 1997 stated 8% of rape accusations in the United States were regarded as unfounded or false Studies in other countries have reported their own rates at anywhere from 1.5% (Denmark) to 10% (Canada).

The statistic for the FBI/DoJ is highly misleading, for reasons discussed in the section "FBI statistics".

The statistic from Denmark is taken from Rumney (2006). Here is what Rumney actually says.

... use of the 10% figure is part of a study of false complaints by the Institute of Medicine in Copenhagen. As noted earlier, the 10% figure is the highest given during the five year period covered by this study, the lowest number ... was 1.5%.

Thus, the figure for Denmark that is quoted in the lede is also misleading.

The statistic for Canada is also taken from Rumney. The statistic is for a single city (Toronto) in 1970; moreover, the statistic was disputed by the Toronto police. Thus this statistic, too, is misleading.

Considering the above, I have removed all the statistics from the lede.  EllieTea (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm extremely disinclined to trust anything you say about the statistics given the blatantly nonsensical "8 of 52" edit you made. That is flat-out not what the source says, and I'm guessing your goal is to claim a far greater percentage that actually exists and/or imply that the ones which weren't cleared were all false. I am strongly inclined to revert all your edits wholesale, back to the version from a few days ago, unless a trustworthy editor confirms that they actually conform to sources. User:EvergreenFir, would you want to help with that? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese I have reviewed most of the editor's contributions to this page, and I strongly support reverting to a version before EllieTea's first edit. I'm prepared to provide a list of EllieTea's edits that violate policy, starting with his first edits to the page (adding a self-published screed under further reading) to their most recent edit (removing a RS and claiming that it "violates WP policy for facts"). --SonicY (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

FBI statistics

User:Roscelese is again making false accusations against me and refusing to read the sources. Here is what the FBI report states (page 7).

The 1996 violent crime clearance rate was 47 percent, up from 45 percent in 1995. Among the violent offenses, the 1996 clearance rates ranged from 67 percent for murder to 27 percent for robbery. Over half of all forcible rapes (52 percent) and aggravated assaults (58 percent) were cleared.

If someone disagrees with the way that I presented that in the article, then fine: revert the edit and explain why.  EllieTea (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Show me where the source says that 8% is out of 52%, not out of 100%. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This is my understanding of what "cleared" means. I do not see the term defined in the FBI report though.

Ahh, I wrote that, then googled the FBI site to find a definition. There is a definition here. I was wrong. I had been thinking that "cleared" meant the same as "closed". I will correct the WP article.  EllieTea (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's clear from the sources that 8% of reported cases were designated as false. EllieTea had absolutely no consensus and no support from the source to change the wording and later edit-war over their changes. --SonicY (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Further reading

Links to websites under Further reading are subject to the same guidelines as external links. The links that editor EllieTea added give undue weight to a particular POV (e.g., Cathy Young as an expert on false accusations of rape anyone?) or do not provide more detailed coverage of the subject. For example, what's a 7-setence article about an Italian Supreme Court decision that women in jeans can't be raped doing in the Further reading section? I'll remove both for now. --SonicY (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The item about jeans is related to the following quote from the WP article.

Stewart, in one instance, considered a case disproved, stating that "it was totally impossible to have removed her extremely tight undergarments from her extremely large body against her will".

My idea was that somebody might think that it was just a rogue police officer who had such an absurd idea. In fact, the Italian Supreme Court had basically the same idea.

How do you think the two "give undue weight to a particular POV"? The jeans link supports the idea that police overreport the number of false accusations. The piece from Cathy Young clearly does nothing like that, and it has been referred to by many and seems to present some important information. The two are clearly not with the same POV. I ask you to give more justification for removing the two.  EllieTea (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

So you wanted to prove that Stewart's statement about jeans isn't as absurd as readers might believe? Cathy Young's article is referred to by many? Like who? Her view is popular in the manosphere and that's about it. Please read WP:Further. Links under Further reading aren't supposed to advance a POV or support parts of the article that you believe might seem absurd otherwise. --SonicY (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you reading at all? I said that Stewart's statement about jeans is absurd. And, worse, there are other people who make the same absurd statement. Please read what I say before commenting.  EllieTea (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Cathy Young's article, Megan McArdle at Bloomberg said "I commend you to Cathy Young’s new piece at Slate, in which she details all the problems that confound investigations into false rape accusations". The article was also reported at RealClearPolitics: here.  EllieTea (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have just found out that Cathy Young has written many columns for TIME magazine, including at least two that are related to rape accusations: "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" and "It’s Women Who Suffer When We Don’t Ask Questions". Thus, the claim made above—"Her view is popular in the manosphere and that's about it"—is manifestly and seriously false. Young is obviously a very highly respected author on the subject, and citing one piece of her work in the WP article seems reasonable.

I also note that there has been no further discussion on the points that I raised above. Thus, if there are no valid objections, I will restore the two items to the "Further reading" section.  EllieTea (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to conflate false with withdrawn

There have been some serious POV changes in the last few days. User:EllieTea wrote that it's "misleading" to describe what RS say about false accusations. Instead, he adds and re-adds content about withdrawn accusations, thus implying that they're the same. Please follow the WP:BRDC cycle instead of just reverting, especially as a "new" editor. --SonicY (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Where have I said that withdrawn allegations are conflated with false allegations? I do not believe that and cannot see where I said that.  EllieTea (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You added and later re-added information about withdrawn accusations, accusations that resulted in formal charges and a host of other related but still off-topic stuff. This article is about false accusations. Yet you insist on your sentence about withdrawn accusations, clearly in an attempt to conflate the two. --SonicY (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason was explained in the Edit Summary. Here is the relevant quote from the WP article.

the contested claim by psychologist David Lisak that only 2%-10% of sexual-assault reports are false. This statistic is misleading. Mr. Lisak’s 2010 study (like others often cited by anti-rape activists) treat as presumptively true all sexual-assault complaints that authorities have not formally labeled either true or false (the vast majority), including most of those dropped for insufficient evidence.

To only give the "false" figure is misleading, because many people will assume that all the non-false cases are true. In fact, only a small percentage is known to be true.

The word "withdrawn" is currently only in the section on the Australian study; so I assume that is what you are referring to. We know that 2.1% were false and 15% were very probably true; we do not know about the rest. What do you recommend as an alternative wording to the present text?  EllieTea (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No, to give the false figure is perfectly acceptable because this article is about false accusations of rape. By contrast, to give the withdrawn figure is misleading because it suggests that they were withdrawn because they were false. User:EllieTea: In fact, only a small percentage is known to be true. It's a good thing that you expressed your POV so openly just in case anyone should doubt why you need to refrain from editing this article and others like it. --SonicY (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If only 15% of people were charged, then those are the only people we can be reasonably sure truly committed the crime (assuming the charges are proven in court). This is how the justice system works: under the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If you believe in some other principle, then you do not fit well with our society.  EllieTea (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

By the same principle, neither researchers nor the justice system can assume without any proof that someone has made a false report, which is a crime. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is of being misleading—as per the quote above about Lisak. We know 2% were false and 15% might be assumed to be true. We should not make assumptions about the rest. Thus, out of 17 rape reports whose final status is fully-determined, 2 are false: a false rate of 11.8% among fully-determined accusations. The quote above was given for a reason: we should not "treat as presumptively true all sexual-assault complaints that authorities have not formally labeled either true or false".  EllieTea (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The term "withdrawn" is used in the original source. If you find the term problematic though (I do not), then replace it with something else. For example, maybe change the current "the remainder of the accusations were withdrawn (15.1%) or concluded with no further police action or were still be investigated at the time of the study" to "for the remainders of the accusations, no final determination on truth or falsity was made". That would still deal with the issue and does not mention "withdrawn".  EllieTea (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

While considerable changes have been made, I'm seeing no issue with EllieTea's edits to the article. ― Padenton|✉   20:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Forensic Victimology

The edit at 17:08 by User:Sonicyouth86 changed "The reference work Forensic Victimology (second edition, 2014), reviews several studies on false rape accusations" to "Brent Turvey and Michael McGrath". The Edit Summary gives this reason: they did not review "several studies", they extolled kanin and mcdowell (shows the quality of research here) and dismissed brownmiller

I have some questions/issues about this. First, who is Michael McGrath?

Second, they did indeed review several studies: MacDonald (1973), Haws (1997), Brownmiller (1975), Gregory & Lees (1999), Anderson (2004), McDowell (1985), Kanin (1994), as well as the FBI reports. I suppose that not all of those are full studies, but they are relevant works that are cited.

Third, the work of Kanin was reviewed in a single paragraph. Here is the paragraph.

Eugene Kanin of Purdue University in Indiana conducted one of the few published studies on false reports. Kanin studied all rapes (n = 109) occurring in an unnamed midwestern city with a population of 70,000 from 1978 to 1987. Kanin found a 41% false report rate (Kanin, 1994). It should be noted that in Kanin’s study a false report could only be identified by virtue of a confession from the alleged victim. In the same paper, Kanin also discussed the results of an unpublished study he conducted in 1988, which examined all forcible rape complaints during a three-year period on two midwestern college campuses. The false report rate in that study was 50% (1994).}}

That does not fit with "extol".

Fourth, the work of McDowell was similarly reviewed in a single paragraph. Also, what is wrong with McDowell?

Fifth, Brownmiller is also strongly criticized by Rumney (2006), and I know of no good reason to support Brownmiller.

Would you further explain the reason for the edit?  EllieTea (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is Michael McGrath? McGrath and Turvey are the authors of the chapter "False Allegations of Crime", the chapter that contains the quote. How is it possible that you didn't know who co-wrote the passage that you quoted? McGrath and Turvery mention other studies when they discussed aspects of sexual assault, but their statements about the prevalence of false rape accusations are based on their review of Kanin, McDowell and Brownmiller and their "experience" (whatever that means). --SonicY (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources cited, in addition to Kanin, McDowell, and Brownmiller, include MacDonald (1973), Haws (1997), and Anderson (2004), as well as quotes from Spilbor (2003) and Fairstein. I think that the sentence as I wrote it should have "studies" changed to "sources". Otherwise, the sentence seems good to me.

I dislike saying things like "Brent Turvey and Michael McGrath" without further explanation. Who are they and why should readers trust what they say? The WP article has had this problem elsewhere as well. For example, the article previously referred to "Philip N.S. Rumney" with no explanation of who he is; so I added a sentence to give a bit of background on him.

The WP article refers to the source as a book authored by Turvey; so I assumed that it was a book authored by Turvey. After seeing the book cited in the WP article, I got a copy: the cover of the book only says "Brent E. Turvey"—there are no other names and no "editor". To find things in the book, I used either the Index or Ctrl-f (I did not look at the table of contents). Hence, I did not notice that the chapter is by Turvey & McGrath. The WP article obviously has the reference cited incorrectly. I will fix that.

What are the problems with McDowell?

You seem to not believe that Turvey is a high-quality source. I disagree, but in the interests of fairness, will say that I have found one piece of evidence to support such belief. Turvey & McGrath claim this: "out of 2,000 uninvestigated cases in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 1995 to 1997, investigators determined that “600 were false reports or allegations that did not amount to crimes”". In fact, that is a serious misrepresentation of what their reference says. The truth is revealing, and I think important. Hence, I added a paragraph about it to the WP article.

EllieTea (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The sources cited in connection with the aspect of false rape accusations are Kanin, McDowell and Brownmiller. Why do you dislike naming the two authors who wrote the stuff you're quoting? Is there a reason why you claim that Turvey and McGrath's book chapter is a "reference work"? A reference work usually contains the scientific consensus view or confirmed facts. It's clear that Turvey's book is not a reference work and he doesn't claim that it is. In fact, he and McGrath seem eager to stress the fact that they're speaking from personal experience and belief rather than based on scientific evidence. Sentences like As those of us who work cases know from experience, the numbers can be very high are a dead giveaway. 100% opinion, 0% evidence. I actually think it's best to remove the quote altogether and then let you try to convince others of its merits. --SonicY (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not care about calling it a "reference work", and certainly agree to changing it to something else. What term do you think would be good?  EllieTea (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

British Home Office study (2005)

The section contains a quote from the study. The quote was brief, and omitted sentences that I think are important. Hence, I have expanded the quote.

The study is based on this data: 2643 sexual assault cases, of which 2284 were reported to the police (with the remainder reported to Sexual Assault Referral Centres only); of those, 216 were classified as false. The study includes the following statement.

There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as a proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 per cent; as a proportion of the 1,817 cases not proceeding beyond the police stage it is 12 per cent (see Table 4.2).

The WP article previously cited the 8% but not the 12%. The police can only classify something as false if they have received a report about it: thus, the relevant percentage is neither 8% nor 12%, but rather is 216/2284 = 9.5%. The source Cybulska (2007) states that the relevant percentage is "about 9%"; so I have changed the article to cite that, as well as to give the actual data.

The WP article rightly cites the study as saying that the relevant percentage is reduced to 3% after applying the Home Office counting rules for establishing a false allegation. That 3% figure is calculated via a basis of 2284 (not 2643). Thus, the 9% rate is directly comparable to the 3% rate (unlike the 8% and 12% rates).  EllieTea (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, you have misrepresented the source (again). The source is quite unambiguous in stating: There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 percent (p. 47). It's obvious that 216/2,643≈8.17. The source repeats this in the sumary: Eight per cent of reported cases in the sample were designated false by the police (p. 52). What's also obvious is that the 355 cases (2,288+355=2,643) in the comparison areas were also reported to the police: In the Comparison areas all cases were (n 355), by definition, reported to the police, making a total of 2,643 reported cases from all sites (p. 41). So not only did you misrepresent the percentage of cases classified as "false" by police but you actually misrepresented the number of cases that were reported to the police. And it's not the first time that you blatantly misrepresent sources. --SonicY (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

First, you might consider WP:FAITH. You might consider that especially given that the change was from 8% to 9%—which is hardly a major change.

Second, the figure of 216 is given on the page cited in the reference: page 40. That figure is clearly based on 2284, not 2643. You do not seem to address this in your comment. The report also states "Cases with missing data at the police (n=299) and CPS stages (n=60) are, again, removed, making a base sample of 2,284". You seem to ignore this.

EllieTea (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Compare what the source says (There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 percent) and what you say (That figure is clearly based on 2284, not 2643). Notice anything? Yes, the figure 216 is given on page 41. But the total number of cases reported to the police is also given on that page: 2,643. And 216 or 2643 is 8%, not 9%. I suggest that you stop misrepresenting this and other sources now. As you know this article is subject to both the men's rights article probation and discretionary sanctions. --SonicY (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Following WP:BRD, I am not reverting your last edit on this. I note that you have still not really addressed my point, nor considered that I supplied a separate Reliable Source.

The difference between 8% and 9% is bordering on negligible, though. Much more important is that you also removed my extension of the quote. Moreover, you did that without any explanation.

For convenience, here is the quote as it was, and now is again.

The interviews with police officers and complainants’ responses show that despite the focus on victim care, a culture of suspicion remains within the police, even amongst some of those who are specialists in rape investigations. There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated.

Here is the quote after my extension—there are three additional sentences at the end.

The interviews with police officers and complainants’ responses show that despite the focus on victim care, a culture of suspicion remains within the police, even amongst some of those who are specialists in rape investigations. There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated. These perceptions and orientations are not lost on complainants.

International research contains salutary lessons about the ease with which cases are dismissed as ‘false’. In her analysis of 164 police files in New Zealand, Jordan (2001b) found 3 cases that had been designated false, which subsequently turned out to be early reports of serial rapists.

What is your justification for reverting my extension of the quote? (In reply, perhaps you could strive a little more for WP:CIVIL.)  EllieTea (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So this is your excuse? That the difference between 8% and 9% is "negligible" and that your misrepresentation was only a "negligible" one? What about the difference between 2643 and 2288? Also "negligible"? Or is it possible that you still don't understand that 2643, not 2284, cases were reported to the police and that of those 2643 cases 8%, not 9%, were considered false by police? As for your completely unnecessary "extension" of the quote, Misplaced Pages isn't Wikiquote. The additional one or two sentences you added offer absolutely no additional relevant information. But my problem with your edit isn't that you unnecessarily extended an already longish quote, my problem is that you have demonstrably misrepresented the findings and the sample of the British Home Office study. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of your misbehavior on this page. --SonicY (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I gather that your striving for WP:CIVIL is proving difficult.

If there are no records for the 2643-2284 = 359 cases, then presenting the percentage for those cases seems to me to be misleading.

Your claim that the last three sentences "offer absolutely no additional relevant information" is not comprehensible to me. Those sentences conclusively demonstrate that the police sometimes classify a true rape as a false rape.  EllieTea (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, there were 355 cases in the three comparison areas in addition to the 2288 in the three SARCs. The total of cases reported to the police was 2643. Again, from the source: In the Comparison areas all cases were (n 355), by definition, reported to the police, making a total of 2,643 reported cases from all sites (p. 41). Yet you misrepresent the source and claim that only 2288 cases were reported and that 9% were designated as false. Now that is misleading! I think that the quote is overlong as is and that it already expresses that police officers and prosecutors over-estimate false reports and are suspicious of rape victims. Feel free to restore the longer quote but do not restore your misrepresentation of the sample and findings of the study. --SonicY (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Introduction

The WP article might benefit from having an Introduction section. A potential draft of such a section is below.

The phenomenon of false rape allegations is a subject of widespread controversy. It is an area littered with misunderstanding, myths, and stereotypes.

Two broad approaches have emerged in response to the subject. The first approach involves an insistence that women reporting rape must be believed by criminal justice professionals, that false allegations are rare and to believe otherwise is evidence of the existence of "rape culture". The second approach involves a fear that an increasing willingness to believe will lead to an institutional failure to distinguish between true and false claims, that due process rights for the accused are under threat, and that false allegations are common.

These two approaches share common characteristics in terms of the way in which false allegations are discussed and analyzed. This shared analytical orthodoxy is empirically flawed, inflexible, and resistant to counter-evidence or dissent. Those who promote this orthodoxy fail to take seriously the data on false allegations and neglect to carefully analyze the existing literature for weaknesses. There is also a failure to acknowledge the differing types of false allegation – from those that are malicious, through to the mistaken, wrongful, and third party allegations. In addition, much of what is written on the subject involves the selective citation of evidence, use of confirmation bias to support claims, and failure to acknowledge that the "other side" has legitimate concerns.

This has created at least three problems. First, both approaches to the question of false allegations promote the widespread dissemination of flawed data in which factual ambiguity is ignored in favor of ideological certainty. Second, this flawed data is used to underpin various legal policy proposals. Third, a growing body of empirical research examining the impact of allegations on the falsely accused, comparative false allegation rates, motivational factors, and social allegations is ignored, because the false allegation orthodoxy is resistant to data that challenges preferred policy positions.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EllieTea (talk • contribs) 09:54, 30 April 2015 UTC‎
Updated by EllieTea (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

British Home Office study (2005): the percentage rate

The percentage rate of false rape reports, as determined by the British Home Office study (2005), has been discussed above. I thought that it might be useful to start the discussion afresh, in a section devoted to the rate alone.

To begin, consider a simple example. Suppose that there were 2000 rape reports. Suppose additionally that we only had records for 100 of those reports—and that all the other records had been lost. Suppose further that among the 100 records of rape reports, the police determined that 5 reports were false.

Here is the key question: what is the rate of false rape reporting? If we have 100 records, and 5 are false, then the rate is 5%. (Think about that, please; it should be clear.)

Suppose that someone were to claim that the rate was 5/2000 = 0.25%. That would be an error. Again, that should be clear.

Unfortunately, the latter error is essentially what the British Home Office study made. The numbers are different, but the error is otherwise the same. The study found that there were 2643 rape reports, but it only had records for 2284—the other records were apparently lost. Among those 2284, there were 216 that the police determined to be false. Thus, the rate of false reports is 216/2284 = 9.5% The study, however, calculated the rate to be 216/2643 = 8%. Thus, the study is in error.

The error seems to have been noticed by at least one other person: Cybulska (2007), cited in the WP article. That is a reliable source, which describes the rate as "about 9%". (There might be other such sources; I have not looked.)

Considering the above, I edited the article to say the following (references omitted).

The study was based on 2643 sexual assault cases, of which 2284 had adequate reports with the police. Of these, the police classified 216 as false reports, i.e. about 9%.

The "about 9%" was referenced to Cybulska (2007).

User:Sonicyouth86 said that I am wrong to do that, and undid my edits. Sonicyouth86 and I have discussed this, but to no avail thus far. In the discussion, Sonicyouth86 repeatedly violated WP:FAITH and also, I believe, WP:CIVIL.

Rather than continue the argument, I decided that the difference between 8% and "about 9%" was too small to be worth fighting for. Hence, I tried to diffuse the situation, and let the issue go. Sonicyouth86 interpreted my attempt at diplomacy as evidence that I actually believed the rate to be 8%. Primarily for that reason, I decided that I should create this section, and explain the situation in more detail.

To conclude, the correct rate is 9.5%, the study is in error but there is a reliable source that is correct, and I do not consider the correction to be worth fighting for.  EllieTea (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from presenting your original research as facts. At no point do the researchers suggest that they "lost" the 355 records from the three comparison areas. The researchers repeat over and over that 2643 cases were reported to the police, 2288 in the three SARCs and 355 in the three comparison areas. And no, the Cybulska source doesn't support your misrepresentation of the British Home Office study. Cybulska never actually singles out the British Home Office study for discussion. She only uses it twice as a reference. The fourth paragraph that you refer to which contains the 9% figure is sourced to four separate studies and is supposed to be a summary of all four, not just to the British Home Office study. The only other secondary source that specifically discusses the British Home Office finding is the paper by Lonsway et al. who state: The largest and most rigorous study that is currently available in this area is the third one commissioned by the British Home Office (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005). The analysis was based on the 2,643 sexual assault cases (where the outcome was known) that were reported to British police over a 15-year period of time. Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. Yet the researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators, ... (p. 2). You misrepresented the British Home Office study, your edits were reverted, and now you need to give it a rest. --SonicY (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is another way to look at this. There were 216 false reports; those 216 were among a set of 2284 reports. There were, altogether, 2643 reports. That means that there were 2643−2284 = 359 reports not included in the set of 2284.

How many false reports were among the 359? If the rate of false reporting is 8%, then we would expect about 359×0.08 = 29. In fact, there are 0. Obviously, this is wrong.

As for original research, I did not at any time attempt to put any original research in the WP article.  EllieTea (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You've repeatedly attempted to do your own math and to put your own conclusions in the article instead of the sources' conclusions. In this very comment you're defending your original research. Quit it before another editor really does decide that sorting through all your edits to this article looking for something constructive is a waste of time and just reverts back to April. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit Summary, repeated, for removing a piece from Comment is Free

theguardian.com#Comment is free: it is unneeded and violates WP:RS#Statements of opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllieTea (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the first sentence from theguardian.com#Comment is free.

Comment is free is a comment and political opinion site within theguardian.com.

Here is the first paragraph from WP:RS#Statements of opinion.

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

EllieTea (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you or do you not understand that it's a comment by Keir Starmer and that the source is used as a reference for a quote by Keir Starmer? --SonicY (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:EllieTea believes against all evidence that an article in the Guardian "violates WP policy for facts". I assume that EllieTea believes this because the source contradicts his personal stated POV that In fact, only a small percentage of rape accusations) is known to be true."] Please also note that the Guardian article is used a source for a quote by Keir Starmer whose opinion is based on recent CPS research. EllieTea seems to have no problem adding opinions when those opinions are more in line with his own opinion such as the quote by Turvey and McGrath who claim that "As those of us who work cases know from experience, the numbers can be very high", based on nothing other than personal opinion. EllieTea, please stop your disruptive editing. --SonicY (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You are again ascribing motives to me in violation of WP:CIVIL. You would have understood my actual motivation if you had read the Edit Summary I gave for the edit. I have explained further above.  EllieTea (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why you believe that a quote by Keir Starmer sourced to a comment by Keir Starmer in The Guardian "violates WP policy for facts". You have explained absolutely nothing so far. You have just continued to edit-war over your contentious changes. --SonicY (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I had not noticed that the citation was for a quote from the author of the opinion piece. I agree that the citation is valid, and I have undone my edit.  EllieTea (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Section "Police opinions on false rape accusations"

The section False accusation of rape#Police opinions on false rape accusations is currently a single paragraph, as follows.

Statements by the Finnish Police estimate that false rape accusations have risen in like manner with female alcohol consumption in the country, and that many false rape accusations are made when intoxicated, with many of the people falsely accused of rape being men who are typically immigrants.

The reference for the paragraph/section is the following.

"Raiskausilmoituksista yli viidennes perättömiä", Turun Sanomat (in Finnish), 30 June 2010, retrieved 2 May 2015 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help).

I do not read Finnish, but I used Google Translate to get a rough English version. That version is given below.

Rape reports, more than a fifth of untrue

Domestic | 30.6.2010 3:00

Unfound rape reports are weekly problem with the police. Officials estimate that more than one in five rape claims reported to the police turns out to be false. These cases do not lead to consideration of charges and the court process.

Every year, police record about a thousand rape notices and over a thousand more lenient notifications of sexual abuse.

Police sergeant Berry Vuento, the Helsinki Police Department, says that the amount of undue notices has been growing at the same pace with the consumption of alcohol by women.

- A large part untrue declarations made drunk thoughtlessly. Someone may want a free ride taxi from the driver, another invents a rape allegation in order to avoid jail night and the third explains the emergency lie spouse or the folks back home. When the man then contacts the police, the speeches are hard to be canceled, Vuento says.

Untrue allegations designated factor is often a foreign man or men. According to Detective Chief Inspector Ville Hahl, there are two reasons for this.

- A foreign background are, for example, the metropolitan area suspicion about every second rape case.

- Secondly, if the notifying party shall appoint factor dark-skinned, he is not expected to be as accurate distinguishing features as if the author would stem Finnish, Hahl to find out.

A large number of untrue declarations are bound police resources but the notifications do frost also true for victims of sexual crimes.

- Sisters make insanely great disservice to other women. Rape victims are treated, at least in substance today, but the police have interrogated to ensure the veracity of the story, says Vuento.

Because rape is usually not witnesses, the police authorities and the judiciary need to consider the alleged victim and the author's reliability speeches.

- Years of experience have to admit that the judicial killings take place in both directions, Vuento says.

EllieTea (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Brownmiller (1975) and the claimed rate of 2%

Brownmiller (1975) claims that the rate of false reporting is 2%. The claim has been widely cited and discussed. Hence, the WP article should presumably have a section about this. I will write the section, but before I do, there is a question—what secondary sources should the section cite?

The relevant sources that I know of are Rumney (2006), Greer (2000), and Turvey & McGrath (2014). (I have searched with Google Scholar, and not found more.)  EllieTea (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted back to Amaury's version from April 25. EllieTea's conduct in the article and on this talk page gives me little hope that their edits conform to WP:V and WP:NOR, as in the week they've been here, they've blatantly misrepresented sources numerous times. EllieTea, since you are unable to edit the article in accordance with policy, I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page, gain consensus, and let other users implement them if consensus is achieved. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This is way too large a revert, and there were plenty of good edits in there. There is countless discussion on this talk page about the various edits and its clear EllieTea put countless hours of work into them. You want to fix the problematic edits? You can do so without biting newcomers. You and SonicYouth aren't the only editors on this article, it doesn't matter that you two discussed it (wherever that was). ― Padenton|✉   02:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If an editor puts countless hours into edits that violate Misplaced Pages policy, that's their loss. EllieTea was warned about edit warring and disruptive editing and has continued the behavior anyway - you see BITE, I see a disruptive SPA. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Roscelese has suggested that I violated WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, but has not presented any evidence for that. She should either withdraw the accusation or list some edits showing where I violated those policies.  EllieTea (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• C-Class law articles
• Unknown-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Unassessed Feminism articles
• Unknown-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• Unassessed Men's Issues articles
• Unknown-importance Men's Issues articles
• WikiProject Men's Issues articles