Talk:Campus sexual assault/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement."

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to include additional information, such as in the form proposed by Nblund in the second half of the "Proposed wording" section. The "for/against in-text attribution" voices are almost balanced, while the "additional information" section is unopposed, and Nblund's specific proposal has specific agreement from some of each camp. I also have to echo the comments of several participants that this RfC could have been better formatted. I don't know if I would go as far as "abysmally", as I have now closed a fair number of these, and have actually seen worse; but not many. --GRuban (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

---

I've gone ahead and expanded this discussion to WP:RfC input. For those viewing this from the WP:RfC page, my and others' arguments are below on the talk page. The RfC concerns whether or not to add WP:In-text attribution to the "majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement" aspect of the article and/or additional information for further context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

_____

Scoundr3l took issue with the following sentence: "The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement." He added an "according to whom?" tag. I reverted, stating, "Read Template:According to whom. Also, we don't add in-text attribution in a way that can mislead; see WP:In-text attribution. [...] The source is right there at the end. Adding 'so an[d] so stated this' can make it seem like some sole person's opinion." I tweaked the text and duplicated the references via WP:REFNAME so that the material was left in this state. As this link shows, Scoundr3l then added "some" in place of "majority," stating, "That is precisely that point, I'm afraid. Since it's impossible to know how many of a thing are unknown, to say it is a majority is an opinion and I would recommend an in-text attribution in lieu of this much softer wording. Who said it was a majority?", and I replied. "We go by the WP:Reliable sources, not personal opinion. And, per WP:Due weight, we don't need to stack many sources to validate it." I then compromised by adding, "The literature indicates that" in front of "the majority." This also was not enough for Scoundr3l, and he added Template:Specify to "the literature indicates" part, stating, "We've come full circle. There is no reason this statement can not or should not be attributed directly to its source This is standard practice throughout this and similar articles and conforms to all your linked policies, as I'm sure you know."

Scoundr3l is wrong; we do not directly attribute something (meaning with in-text attribution) that is widely supported by the literature to one or a few people; WP:In-text attribution is very clear about that. And that most rapes go unreported is widely supported by the literature. That most sexual assaults go unreported is widely supported by the literature. There is no need to specify what is meant by "the literature"; anyone with common sense should know that we mean "the rape and other sexual assault literature." I just saw that Nblund also reverted Scoundr3l, stating, "This is consistent across several decades of research, attributing it to a specific group seems unnecessary, because it's a consensus that isn't really questioned. We can discuss in talk." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Scoundr3l, to answer the question about how these figures are derived: these estimates are derived from surveys that ask people about criminal and other victimization, and that ask victims whether they reported the crime to the police. Surveys have a margin of error, of course, and there are reasonable disagreements about things like wording and survey context, but the finding that most sexual assaults are not reported is something that is consistent across -- quite literally -- every single data source discussed in the entry, and really every data source I'm aware of. I don't know of any experts who seriously question this finding. Where there's a consensus in a field, it's really not necessary (or possible) include attribution to any particular individual. Indeed, it can give the false impression of a disagreement where none exists (see WP:INTEXT). Nblund (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Indeed surveys have a margin of error. They also do not fact-check, which is precisely why survey results are never presented as facts, but as survey results. Even the worst journalists know better than to present survey results without attributing them in-text because no amount of gallop polls will make "Most people's favorite color is blue" a fact. If I had access to the primary source, I'm sure even it would agree with me: it's a statistic, not an objective conclusion. "According to polls, 68% of people say their favorite color is blue", on the other hand, would be considered a fact (assuming there was a source to verify) and as an objective fact, it could be presented in Wikipedia's voice. If we can't rely on common sense, I'll instead point out Wikipedia:When_to_cite specifically suggests "Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text." and you'll find this practice throughout every survey result in this article and other articles that rely heavily on conflicting surveys. If I'm not mistaken, though, Flyer22's motivation for reverting my request for attribution was not based on his assertion that it's an objective conclusion, but that he did not want it presented as a minority or sole opinion, which I don't disagree with. But I disagree with presenting second-party survey comments as facts in Wikipedia's voice. I don't even dispute the truth of it, only the wording. I know of several surveys that show numbers between 68% and 90% unreported, all we need to do is attribute them. Again, I don't have access to the original source, so I don't know what survey or surveys it's citing, hence the tag. If anyone has that information, or would like to provide other sources, perhaps we can agree on something like this "According to a numerous surveys, such as the National Department of Justice and the Bureau of Crime Statistics, most rapes go unreported", as an example. Or "between x% and y%" if we're going for accuracy. 2001:57A:400B:101:3409:7F75:9DFC:8974 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

preceding IP is me, btw. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's the wording from Unsafe in the Ivory Tower (the first cited source): Despite the prevalence of sexual offenses committed against college women, the majority of women who are victimized do not report the incident to the police (Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003a). There's parenthetical attribution, but it's stated as a fact in the text. The book goes on to cite seven other studies with this finding, and that's not an exhaustive list. Citing seven surveys, in-text, seems excessive, and it's probably not necessary.

Peer reviewed surveys generally do involve fact checking, critique, and replication, and I don't think you're correct that Wikipedia articles always provide in-text attribution for statistics. The entries for diseases, for instance, usually provide an estimate of the prevalence of a disease without in-text attribution, because these numbers are basically uncontroversial.

I think the "When to Cite" guideline is referencing cases where a specific statistic is attributable to a particular author -- for instance -- we attribute the finding about repeat offenders to David Lisak, because that is a finding that is unique to his work. In this case, however, we're citing a tertiary source that makes a general statement about findings of multiple authors.

I think that sentence is un-problematic, but I would be open to including subsequent sentences that bolstered the statement by pointing to specific sources for this finding. Nblund (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for isolating the primary source. Here are the end conclusions as taken directly from that source "Acknowledging sexual victimization as rape: Results from a national-level study." Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner (2003) Justice Quarterly:

*'Our findings, though not definitive, have clear implications for this debate. By building on the best measurement strategies available-in essence, synthesizing the work of researchers like Kilpa [...] we have attempted to develop a measure of rape that is less susceptible to the criticism that we are counting as rape acts that really do not qualify under this legal category'

*'Thus, using a different measurement approach, our findings lend support to the proposition of Koss and other researchers that the acknowledgment of rape is a real problem, not a methodological artifact. We found that only about half the rapes were acknowledged by the victims. Our estimate, as noted previously, is about twice as high as that reported by Koss'

*'In any event, our study suggests that over half the women in the sample who were raped did not acknowledge this event as a rape'

Implications, supports, estimates, and suggestions. The writers of the report at least acknowledge the difference between a datum and an objective truth. You'll find the same thing in any reliable study, I'm sure. Survey results are not facts and second parties who draw conclusions from the data should be attributed as it is their opinion and often not the conclusion present in the primary source. I hope the proposed compromise helps establish that this is a majority finding across all major studies (at least as far as we've seen), but still attributable to those studies and not Wikipedia. That should hopefully make everybody happy. Hopefully. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The entry cites Fisher's 2009 book, which itself cites Fisher et. al 2003. The quotes you're providing are actually a different 2003 publication by Fisher et al. from the one cited in the source, and those statements don't reference findings about non-reporting to the police. Here's the referenced article. Here's the relevant quote from that source.

Quote

Despite the prevalence of sexual offenses, a large proportion of victims did not report their sexual victimization to the police or to other authorities (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Results from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) have consistently shown that rape and sexual assault have been the most widely underreported violent crimes. In fact, the 1999 NCVS results revealed that only 28.3% of these crimes were reported to the police (Rennison, 1999). Notably, other research has provided even lower estimates of reporting (Bachman, 1998; Finkelson & Oswalt, 1995; Gartner & Macmillan, 1995; Kilpatrick, Edmunds, & Seymour, 1992; Kilpatrick, Saunders, Veronen, Best, & Von, 1987; Koss, 1985; Russell, 1983; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Similarly, sexual victimizations of college women have gone largely unreported. To illustrate, Koss et al. (1987) found that only 5% of college student rape victims reported their experience to the police. In a national study of college students, Sloan, Fisher, and Cullen (1997) found that only 22% of rapes and 17% of sexual assaults were disclosed to local police, county sheriff, campus police, campus security, or other authorities

This formulation is similar to what I proposed: it begins with a general conclusion about the prevalence of non-reporting, then cites specific supporting evidence. This seems like a reasonable way to address your concern. If your proposed standards were applied, it seems like virtually every bit of statistical information would require in-text attribution. This clearly isn't the case: the entries for unemployment in the U.S., voter turnout, the epidemiology of Parkinson's disease are all rely on statistical estimates, and -- in every entry -- statistics are cited without in-text attribution. Are these problematic as well? Nblund (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, once again, I do not have access to the source, which is why I requested attribution. With only the citation to work with, I had to assume what quotes are being referenced. As for the new quote, I hope you've noticed that every claim in this quote attributes it either directly to the source or to "other surveys" which it then cites. Only the vague claims like "a large proportion" are not directly supported in-text. I would be fine with changing the text in this article to "a large proportion", as an example, but I'd rather reflect a more accurate number and where the information came from. As with your previous example, the obvious difference is that HIV epidemiology, voter turnout, etc are objectively measurable. You don't survey people and ask if they have HIV or if they voted, you measure quantifiable data. That is not the case with these surveys, so their conclusions are not "x amount of people were affected by z" it's "x amount of people reported being affected by z". And since we're not here to call them liars, or debate onus probandi, what we have to do instead is accurately report the information as it was received. I'd be interested in seeing an example of your proposition because I don't think we're disagreeing as much as it may seem like we are. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Totally understandable, the first quote is from the source cited in the entry. The second quote is from the source cited by the source cited in the entry. Both quotes provide citations, but they also both make general statements of fact about the prevalence of unreported rape without providing in-text attribution. The first citation uses "a majority" without in-text attribution, so it seems like this is a perfectly reasonable way to do it in the entry. We could bolster that argument by citing specific studies in subsequent sentences.

BLS unemployment data come from a monthly household survey. HIV/AIDS data comes from asking health departments how many people they diagnosed. Those numbers don't necessarily count all diagnoses, and are usually adjusted to account for under-reporting. I'm not sure I follow the distinction you're drawing between self-report surveys and other kinds of data, but it seems like other entries attribute widely accepted survey data any differently from any other scientific fact. Nblund (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Which part of the distinction did you not follow, exactly? A self-reported survey is an unsupported claim, while other forms of data are objectively verifiable. If a conclusion is not based on objective data, it's not a fact, it's a proposition or an estimate. Additionally rape is a crime and all crimes, at least in my country, are subject to due process. The accused are innocent until proven guilty in court of law, so any unreported crime is inherently an unverified claim. I can't imagine any of that's what confused you, so are you disputing that it's based on an estimate or merely that estimates don't require attribution? If we're using examples from other articles, I'd be happy to find 8 examples of attributed estimates for every unattributed example, but perhaps we can save time if you'd just explain why this statement should not be clarified. Aside from 'I don't think it's necessary', have you got any reason to dispute me clarifying where this information came from, assuming of course that it's objective and balanced? I have plenty of sources I can use if you aren't willing to use your's, I just need to know if and why good information will be reverted.Scoundr3l (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Scoundr3l, I disagree with you per what I stated above. You stated, "Flyer22's motivation for reverting my request for attribution was not based on his assertion that it's an objective conclusion, but that he did not want it presented as a minority or sole opinion, which I don't disagree with. But I disagree with presenting second-party survey comments as facts in Wikipedia's voice." Well, just to get this out of the way: I'm female. As for your points, not only do I not want the "most rapes and other sexual assaults go unreported" data presented as a minority or sole opinion, which is indeed what your in-text requests would have resulted in, I do not want it to seem like it's something that is less supported in the literature than it is. I repeat: It is widely supported. It is consensus. There is absolutely no reason at all to alter the text to name a few researchers or a few organizations, when many researchers and organizations state the same thing. Above, I pointed you to Google Books sources stating the same thing. Many WP:Secondary sources state the matter as fact. And so should Wikipedia. Other than that first compromise I gave you, I will not compromise on this. We can take it to a WP:RfC, but I won't be changing my mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On a more personal note: There is the fact that I've know many teenage girls and women throughout my life who were sexually assaulted in public in broad daylight and never reported it; by this, I mean a breast grab, a slap to the butt, and so on. And I don't mean by boyfriends. I mainly mean that this was done by male acquaintances who were not at all romantic with the girls or women, or was done by male strangers. I can't say how many times I've seen this happen with my own eyes. The girl or woman usually just hits the guy with a "jerk!" type of face, calls him a name, or laughs it off. I have no doubt that many other women have seen the same. So not only do I believe the data that most sexual assaults go unreported, I have personally seen it in life. One fault with the data is that it mainly focuses on female victims, but that's because girls and women are documented as the majority of victims of rape and other sexual assaults. For machismo and other cultural reasons, it also seems that males are less likely than females to report being victims of sexual assault or rape. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Do what you need to do. My requested changes do not have any effect on how well supported the statement is, it merely attributes the statement to its source rather than presenting it in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia isn't the one drawing that conclusion, the source is drawing it from survey data, so it's the source's conclusion. Your change to "the literature" was a step in the right direction, but unfortunately I find it too vague and unencyclopedic to be useful to the reader. Surely "the literature" doesn't all share this conclusion, and it's been demonstrated that it does not (Fisher, et al. does not present this conclusion). Instead, let's attribute it to what it is: survey results. We don't need to list every survey to do that, only where the conclusion is coming from. So why then would you not accept "multiple surveys", "numerous surveys", or even "general consensus" in lieu of "the literature"? Admittedly, we should source the consensus (per WP:RS/AC) but it's demonstrable and a step up from attributing it to divine providence. Also, I apologize for assuming you were a 'he'. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty, but for obvious reasons, we should try to set our personal feelings aside for this issue. It's not my intention to diminish the validity of the statement, so let me know if you think of any way we can attribute it without doing so. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

We agree to disagree then. I would not accept "multiple surveys" because "multiple" is often interpreted as "three or more" or "a few." I also don't think we should state "surveys" unless that is directly supported by the sources. "Numerous surveys" is WP:Weasel wording and is unnecessary. I could accept "general consensus," but it's not needed.

And apology accepted. It's well known that Wikipedia is mostly made up of males; so I expect others to assume that I'm male unless otherwise stated.

As for personal feelings, I don't edit with my personal feelings (well, not unless I'm in some heated dispute where emotions tend to spill over); my user page and talk page are clear about how I edit. I was simply offering you a perspective that you likely have not witnessed, at least to the same degree as females. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

'Numerous surveys' was shorthand for the original demonstration above, which provided examples. This original example was more than enough to satisfy WP:WEASEL and any other slippery slopes of citation overkill.Scoundr3l (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"Numerous studies," "many studies" and similar (yes, things like "numerous surveys" too) are sometimes needed, but I've also seen some Wikipedians argue (or seem to argue) that the wording is weasel wording or close to it; so I prefer to avoid it when I can (as you know, I believe this is one of those "can" cases). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as the technical name for weasel words is "unsupported attributions" and I'm the one in this discussion on the side of an in-text attribution, I don't think weasel words will be an issue on this end. Any of the above examples are simply more specific synonyms of literature. Scoundr3l (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Numerous" has been argued as vague, just like "many" has been argued as vague, and "vague" is one of the primary things that the WP:Weasel word guideline addresses. But like I noted, such terms are sometimes needed; not in this case. I don't see how "multiple surveys" or "numerous surveys" are specific synonyms of the literature in this case. As made clear by Nblund and me above, the literature usually states this matter as fact; this is because it's rarely disputed. WP:Due weight allows us to simply state the matter as fact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll remember that my original suggestion was a direct attribution, so factor into your calculations that anything vague or resembling weasel words is an attempt to comprise with your refusal to attribute the statement. In other words, unless you have an alternative suggestion, citing what constitutes a weasel word is both ironic and unnecessary. Additionally, by refusing to attribute the statement, you are interfering with the ability to provide the additional information you deem required to attribute the statement. I can not elaborate on a statement if I don't know what statement is being used. Due weight only comes into play if I were attempting to promote a minority viewpoint when in fact I am attempting to provide additional information on the cited majority viewpoint. Kindly assume good faith in that regard as I am assuming you are not attempting to hide the original source of information behind vague but verifiable claims. Aside from undue weight, what other objections might you have for providing this additional information? Scoundr3l (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; the statement is already attributed, just not directly attributed to any one person or group of people. There is no need for a "direct" (meaning in-text) attribution. I've already made my case against in-text attribution above and against other suggestions you've made. So has Nblund. To state more would be repeating myself. WP:Due weight very much applies in this case. Nowhere have I stated anything about your lack of good faith. And my refusal to compromise further on something that does not need to be compromised on is not about any lack of good faith on my part; it's about what I've already stated on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The only reason you've provided so far is that in-text attribution would provide undue weight to the idea that this is a minority opinion. Nowhere does this policy allow you to prevent the addition of source information because that information might somehow lessen the strength of those claims. It's either supported as strongly as you claim or it's not. Providing evidence of the support couldn't unduly take weight away from the claim, unless of course the article text is inaccurate. Or unless you're assuming it'll be done unfairly, which you've no right to assume. If providing the source in any way weakens the statement, this is a failing of the source and not of Wikipedia in reporting on that source, nor is there any legitimate reason to prevent the addition of that source under due weight. IF your stance is that there is an academic consensus, by all means, find a source other than a Google search to support that there is a consensus. That'd be a welcome addition to the article because it would at least provide some measure of objectivity to the claim. What we can't do, however, it conceal where the information comes from in order to actively protect a viewpoint, majority or otherwise. Yes, there is a citation of the comment, but not to what it's referring. By concealing that information, you prevent the addition of other commentary and details from the source. The facts must support themselves and the readers and editors need to be provided with enough information to verify that. Any personal thoughts you have on whether the change is necessary are not under consideration, but just to be polite, I'll share one simple and valid reason I need the change: I want to know the exact figure. I can't do that with vague commentary. I also feel the sentence should be written in a way that is not subject to cultural bias or data rot. Did you know that the Fisher & Daigle report was US only? Because this article doesn't. I can't correct it until the text reflects what's being cited. By all means, don't repeat yourself, but if you have a reason I have not yet heard, please let me know; although we should probably break line as it's getting cramped over here. Scoundr3l (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

With regard to your "IF your stance is that there is an academic consensus, by all means, find a source other than a Google search to support that there is a consensus.", statement, WP:Due weight is about what the preponderance of sources state; I linked to two Google Books links showing that "the majority of rapes and other sexual assaults go unreported" aspect is widely supported. That wide support is also why the lead of the Rape by gender article currently states, "Since only a small percentage of acts of sexual violence are brought to the attention of the authorities, it is difficult to compile accurate rape statistics.", with two sources supporting it. Unless you can show that the preponderance of sources state otherwise on that, I've satisfied my WP:Due weight argument in that regard. And the "the majority of rapes and other sexual assaults go unreported" aspect is not at all limited to the United States. You stated, "I want to know the exact figure." There is no one figure, but the figure is generally that "the majority of rapes and other sexual assaults go unreported." I know how WP:Due weight works and how WP:In-text attribution is supposed to work, and that's what I've been arguing above. I'll only accept additional information for further context if done right. You can assume my thought processes (such as the incorrect assumption of "concealing information"), but unless those thought processes are made perfectly clear, it's better not to assume. My discussion with you on this has pretty much ended. I've now turned it into a WP:RfC for further input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be merging two of my points, so I apologize if I was unclear. I've made no argument that it's not a majority viewpoint. As such, your Google search results are not germane, nor admissible as evidence of a anything related to my position. 5 million search results is not the same thing as 5 million sources, as I'm sure you know, but it's irrelevant to the conversation. Above, you directly claimed there was a consensus (which I don't quite equate with a majority viewpoint) to which I assume you meant an academic consensus as defined by Wikipedia policy. You'll find your statement above and in bold. Since you seemed quite sure of it, I asked you to find a source since proof of a consensus would be a happy resolution for both of us. It seems by consensus you meant your Google results, which you may consider proof of consensus, but unfortunately Wikipedia does not. Otherwise, it appears you're not pursuing the consensus argument any more, so we'll table it. It was a secondary point, anyway. That leaves us with majority viewpoint, to which I've made no argument, nor do I have opinion, so I have no reason to pursue that counter argument. For this discussion, let's go ahead and agree that it's a majority viewpoint. So instead, when I'm asking is how my changes are promoting a minority viewpoint. My proposed changes are only to bring more information in from the existing citation, which supports this majority viewpoint. Since you are sticking with Due Weight, I invited you to explain how providing additional information from these sources promotes a minority viewpoint. You've not yet answered that question and it's the initial reason you've provided for contesting my changes. Due weight is not a license to prevent any changes you deem may be harmful to a position, so please explain what part of that policy warrants the prevention of an in-text attribution. As you've hopefully re-read WP:INTEXT during the course of this discussion, you'll remember that it takes no explicit stance on when you must or must not include an in-text attribution, so your opinion on how that policy is supposed to work is hearsay. And since you're the one who initially took issue with my edits, there is generally a greater onus on you to explain your reverts than I to explain my bold edits. You've linked policies which don't seem to support your revert and been challenged to support them. This is why we have talk pages. Your declarations that you're done with the conversation are understandable but not to be confused with a conclusion. Nobody can make you engage in this discussion, but neither are your insights necessary to finding a resolution. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

My Google Books argument was germane, per what I initially stated at the beginning of this section. You added tags, then wording, to the sentence at hand in a way that was inappropriate; why they were inappropriate were noted above.

Anyway, like I noted, unless I am discussing proposed wording with you below, I don't have anything more to state to you about this, especially since you keep assuming what I meant in instances when it's not what I meant. In my opinion, I can't be any clearer than I've been. You and I have different understandings of how Wikipedia works in this case. For example, your assertion that WP:INTEXT "takes no explicit stance on when you must or must not include an in-text attribution [and so my] opinion on how that policy is supposed to work is hearsay" is incorrect; that guideline (not policy) is very clear that the type of in-text attribution you were initially asking for would have been misleading. If anyone not familiar with the literature had answered your tag, it would have resulted in a clear-cut WP:INTEXT violation. You even added "some" in place of "majority," which clearly undermined the literature. You and I also have a different definition of WP:ONUS. The onus is on you to convince others why we should not report the "majority of rapes and other sexual assaults go unreported" aspect as the fact that it is. WP:ONUS states, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." And if I were stating that this discussion is done because I am about done talking with you about this matter, I would not have started a WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I was using the traditional, dictionary definition of onus, from Latin meaning "responsibility". As in, "its the responsibility of the reverter to show and prove the consensus in question" as taken from the WP:DRNC page, in the context of words as they may sometimes be used outside of Wikipedia articles. This onus would logically precede your above onus, despite both being irrelevant to a discussion on policy, not consensus. Still, while you were able to quote that article, what we really need are your quotes from WP:INTEXT or WP:Due weight which support your position to exclude this information. If we focused more on that, I think the discussion would have moved along a lot faster. Scoundr3l (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

*Please note We are current discussing the formatting of this template on Flyer22's talk page. You may wish to hold your comments until the resolution of that discussion.Scoundr3l (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Strike-through mine. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll respond to the RfC as phrased about the line stated, but feel I should offer the view that the wording of the line creates an self-defeating impression of unsupported soapboxing or an internet-exaggeration, and the mentioned 'numerous studies' might at least have avoided that impression and the whole in-text RfC. Markbassett (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't use in-text attribution

Note: There is no obligation to !vote in each section. Feel free to only !vote where you feel it is needed. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support, per my and Nblund's comments above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Flyer22 Reborn and Nblund. Kaldari (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Flyer22 Reborn and Nblund. Neljack (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - why not disclose the sources in text? So the reader cannot as easily understand where it's coming from. That does a disservice to the reader. Mattnad (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Objection - The framing of this RtC is unusual. I don't see the need for two opposing areas of comment to answer one question. To prevent redundancy and over-complication, I will post my comment to the simplified question Should this statement include in-text attribution? only in the section immediately below. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page to Scoundr3l, noting that the framing is not unusual. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the discussion was slow and fruitless, so I've noted my objections here in order to proceed. There is nothing usual about this framing of an RfC, hence it is unusual, and also wholly unnecessary. That you can find other examples of unusual framing do not explain why it was done this way or explain why this framing is necessary. The redundancy and over-complexity should be self-evident. Rather than a simple list of yays and nays, we now have a partial list of yays and nays to the affirmative and a partial list of yays and nays to the negative, some who've commented on both. If you would like further information on how to RfCs are usually framed, there are examples on that page. Since it's too late to be corrected, I only hope you'll consider this in your future attempts at framing RfC. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this matter with you too. I was clear that I disagree with you and why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that I also considered redundancy, but felt that the setup would be fine. My voting twice doesn't mean others have to as well. I also considered voting once. I voted twice because it is common to do so in RfCs. From what I see, this RfC is largely fine, along with the "Proposed wording" and "Further commentary" sections developing in the way were designed to develop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Your disagreement has been noted, but the collaborative efforts of Wikipedia do not rest for whether or not Flyer22 agrees with them. If you're not inclined to debate, perhaps you should take less stock in what you personally agree with and focus on things everybody can agree with. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And there you go again presuming what I think or don't think. On Wikipedia, despite its collaborative nature, no one is obligated to debate something they don't want to debate, just like they are not obligated to do so in real life. Even so, I indulged you on the heading matter. Then it was over because the matter is no big deal. It would be wise for you take your own advice when it comes to disagreement, since it is your disagreement with two editors who are clearly more familiar with the literature on rape and sexual assault than you are that led to all of this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

But since I don't want to keep arguing with you about this, I struck my "03:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Presuming my level of knowledge with the literature and whether or not you're more qualified to discuss is not only absurd, it flies in the face of the yet unswayed consensus. I don't presume to know your thoughts, but speaking for myself: I'm not here to prove you or anyone else wrong, I'm here to improve the article. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You noted on this talk page your lack of familiarity with the literature on this particular aspect we are debating. And when you make comments about me like "the collaborative efforts of Wikipedia do not rest for whether or not Flyer22 agrees with them," you are categorizing my mindset based on your own assumptions; stop it. Stop taking disagreement and/or an editor's right to not want to debate you on something, especially when that editor is trying to avoid arguing in circles, so personally. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And when you make the kind of edits you made to the text in question, such as adding "some" in place of "majority," coming to the conclusion that you are not as familiar with the literature is understandable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I never said I was unfamiliar with the literature, I said that I don't have access to the source in order to find what it's quoting. Furthermore, knowledge of the subject has little to do with this discussion. Whether or not a statement is subjective enough to be attributed is a matter of a priori logic and my argument in this case is Socratic. Replacing "some" with "majority" was an attempt to compromise your refusal to attribute the claim. This was also based on simple logic: a less sensational claim requires less sensational support. If you equate this with unfamiliarity with the literature, that's your own bias. Likewise, that the discussion does not rest pending your agreement is simply an objective fact in response to your repeated declarations that you are done with a discussion. I'm not asking you to engage in the conversation or debate me, I'm simply informing you that a refusal to compromise will not be seen as an obstacle to resolving the issue.Scoundr3l (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge of the literature has much to do with this discussion, and that is displayed in spades across this talk page. Replacing "some" with "majority" was undermining the literature, pure and simple. No one familiar with the literature would have added "some" in place of "majority." The claim was already attributed. You were asking for inappropriate in-text attribution with your Template:According to whom tag. I've been clear above that such tagging would have resulted in inappropriate in-text attribution had someone unfamiliar with the literature answered that tag's request. It would have made that sentence seem like the matter is only according to that person or group of people. I never stated that I was done with the discussion; I stated that I was about done discussing things with you. You know, to avoid the type of circular argument we are having right now (I easily recognize when a discussion with a certain editor is going to be circular; I'd rather not continue to discuss matters with those type of editors). I then expanded the discussion to a WP:RfC, which clearly was not me stating that the discussion is over. If I or someone else does not want to discuss things with you any further, you should learn to accept it instead of resorting to all sorts of "you aren't playing fair" or "you are being difficult" claims, or other misguided assumptions. You love to debate, everything apparently. You couldn't even drop this debate after I struck through my above comment; removing my comment probably would not have even stopped you. An editor does not have to compromise on something they feel needs no compromising on. I tried compromising with you; that is clear from the very beginning of this thread; that was not enough for you. And now we are here. Below, I was clear about the only compromise I will accept on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That you continue to share your opinions on other matters, most of which are impertinent to the conversation, is the only reason we're still in discussion. I have every right to reply to your comments, especially when they've devolved into petty personal remarks, but the only person who can make you continue the discussion is you. Since you've not yet established a concrete case for exclusion, perhaps you've over-estimated your level of expertise on the matter or your ability to read other editors. It may be more constructive to contribute some additional rationale to the discussion, as merit alone has done little to impress support. Also, I think you may be quoting somebody else. I never made either of those claims. If you're still unwilling to further compromise, that's your choice, but ultimately the decision isn't up to you, so whether or not you're 'playing fair' or being difficult are not of concern to me. As for your refusal to compromise on the framing of an RfC, I've never seen that before, so I can only express bewilderment. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong about all of that, with the exception that you have the right to reply. Now we'll see if you will debate "Wrong about all of that." too. The petty, personal remarks initially came from you, which is why I made my "05:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)" and "21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)" comments above. The "you aren't playing fair" or "you are being difficult" claims are the type of claims you've made in this discussion (and do spare me any "well, if you are seeing that, it must be true of your behavior" remarks), but nowhere did I state you made those exact comments. As for "little to impress support," that's your opinion. WP:RfCs commonly go slow these days, and the participation in this one is small so far. I'm not the one leaving notes in the WP:RfC in an attempt to influence it, and I'm not the one contacting an editor to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that leaving notes in an RfC is, by definition, the purpose of an RfC. Of the two of us, only one of us has challenged another commentator's comment. You're also the only one who keeps bringing up right and wrong, when it's clearly a difference of perspective. Your personal editing style and definition of civility is your business, but as you are a clearly a non-expert in the field of my opinion, your attempts at interpreting and paraphrasing my claims are to be treated as hearsay at best and petty stone-throwing at worst. I have indeed contacted many users, including those who support your claims, in order to improve participation in this page. Nblund has as well. Kudos on the detective work. If you've got comments that are related to the discussion, though, perhaps we should focus on those. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You stated, "I think you'll find that leaving notes in an RfC is, by definition, the purpose of an RfC." Not your kind of notes. And you've made more incorrect characterizations of me in your "20:01, 22 January 2016" post, as expected, I see. As for expertise, I've been quite clear about which of us is more familiar with the literature; my reputation on these topics (sexual topics, including sex offenses) speaks for itself; there is no need for me to justify myself to you. That you take my lack of interest in indulging you as a sign of lack of knowledge is silly, but it's clearly your right to think what you want. Yes, I saw that you contacted others; the others were contacted about the proposed wording section, and they are editors who already weighed in. They were contacted after you contacted that one editor to weigh in. You stated, "[my] attempts at interpreting and paraphrasing [your] claims are to be treated as hearsay at best and petty stone-throwing at worst." Yes, that is exactly how I feel about your claims toward me. Now if you are done with this particular debate, I will be WP:Hatting this bickering. Or is it that you want the WP:Last word, as you clearly seem to always do? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's Friday, both of our objections have been noted, and this thread has officially derailed. You misunderstood my comment about your expertise, I wasn't saying "in my opinion, you are not an expert" I meant "you are not an expert in matters relating to my opinion". But rather than continue to fight over semantics and baseless interpretations of character, can we agree to call it quits and work on the relevant discussion? Scoundr3l (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like we're in agreement, though in the interest of your 'last word' comment, I'll point out that we wrote our above comments semi-simultaneously. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Hatted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Because of this and this, I have unhatted the discussion. I do not have the time or patience to debate every single thing with you. So fine; leave all the bickering on open display. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but not every issue has to be all or nothing. Middle ground is the key to compromise. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You just don't stop, do you? This mess is another example. And you wonder why I don't want to discuss anything with you. I tried middle ground by compromising with you. I tried middle ground with the hatting; you acted like your reply to my rebuttal needed to be unhidden, as though editors can't click on my talk page and the template for further detail. This is exactly what I mean about you wanting to debate every little thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: For the record, I was going for a setup like this one, seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example formatting. The difference, in addition to my extra headings, is that I added "Don't use" and "Use" headings instead of "Oppose" and "Support" headings, since "Don't use in-text attribution" and "Use in-text attribution" made more sense for the section. While the formatting for this RfC obviously could have been better, adding a "Proposals" heading or other additional heading in RfCs is common. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Water under the bridge, at this point. I do see what you were going for, but please keep this in consideration for future. Thanks. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I already have, going by RfCs I've created since this one. I just hope that if I ever create a RfC with "Support" and "Oppose" headings (those exact headings) in the future, people don't feel that they have to vote twice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment below. More information is better here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Nblund (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose meaning 'show the cite(s)'. The RfC is asking about the line shown, which currently shows no reason to give it credence and for WP does not convey the factual phrase origin. Just follow the cites, convey with fidelity what is out there and show where it is from. A desire to avoid citing because it is from a single source indicates to me a problem with being honest about that, and also that the phrasing is generally NOT said in a relevant community consensus statement nor common among reputable sources. What is shown also conveys the impression of soapboxing, so seems pointless anyway, as well as bing one view above due WP:WEIGHT. Markbassett (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support This is a well known, often demonstrated and generally accepted fact, in-text attribution would be misleading.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Explicitly stating all the mainstream, expert, reliable authorities that hold this to be true would take up far too much space. However, if adding an extra ref and tag or two would put Scoundr3l et al.'s minds at ease, it should be done. Using sources that people with different attitudes find convincing makes the article stronger. I suggested some possible sources in my other post, and that was a very cursory search. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support (a lack of use of in-text attribution; yeah, Flyer, while I support your position regarding the content here, this is an abysmally formatted discussion that will probably only muddy the waters and lead to further acrimony unnecesarily as a result of how this discussion has been approached). I absolutely agree that utilizing in-text attribution in this case would tend to minimize this statement. This is a profoundly pervasive trend with regard to sexual assault that is immensely well-documented by many thousands (indeed, probably hundreds of thousands) of sources originating from the psychological science, law-enforcement and other governmental agencies, policy groups and many other areas provided mountains and mountains of WP:RS sourcing for this statement. Trying to leverage in just one or two of these does a HUGE disservice to the impression of WP:WEIGHT that would be given to this statement as a result. We do not, as a general rule, include in-text attribution except as necessary to clarify highly controversial or nuanced claims, such as they don't mislead. This is about as clear a WP:SNOW content issue as I've seen in a good long while. This is a view broadly supported by virtually all legitimate authority in the area and policy clearly directs us to use normal reference citation in this instance, attached to a general statement. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's a controversial statement no matter how you look at it. There are no fool-proof studies of this but just vague questionnaires and we all know how easily those are wrong and manipulated.--BurtReynoldsy (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Use in-text attribution

Note: There is no obligation to vote twice. Feel free to ignore voting in this section if you have already voted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, per my and Nblund's comments above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support since it provides context to the reader.Mattnad (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I would just like to clarify a few points on my position:
  • This is not a position on whether or not the statement is true.
  • This is not a position on whether or not the statement is cited and verifiable.
  • This is not a position on whether in-text attribution is required
  • This is only a position that there is a strong case for in-text attribution and a weak case against. -Scoundr3l (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support My reasons for supporting in-text attribution are as follows:
  • The current wording is prohibitive to further improvement of the article

The figure is being drawn from a specific source or sources of data. By not including the data source in the text, additional commentary related to those data sources is impossible. In this way, the quoted source is given artificial sanctity over any commentary related to the data source, when it is surely not the only source of commentary.

• The current wording is based on survey data

There are a number of conflicting estimates for this data, but they are all estimates. Uncertain facts should not be written in Wikipedia's voice.

• The current wording is time-sensitive

As time goes on and things change (in this case, the sooner the better), this statement may be found to be objectively false. An attributed statement would always be objectively true.

• The current wording is limited to the availability of data

If even one source emerges which contradicts this conclusion, the statement will be contentious. An attributed statement will never be a matter of contention.

• The current wording does not conform with the rest of the article text

The entire structure of this article is about providing a study and then balanced commentary on that study. In my opinion, this article is a monument to balanced commentary on a controversial subject. My by count, there are 82 statistical claims in this article's body text, of which 63 (76.8%) are directly attributed to their data source in the text. 13 (15.8%) are attributed generically to a "study" or "survey" which is then cited. 5 (6%) are not attributed but provide specific data. Only 1 other sentence in this article body is not attributed to a source, provides no specific data, and provides no further information (i.e. 'a study') as to where it came from. Perhaps coincidentally, that other sentence shares a source with this sentence.

• Attributing a statement can not unduly take weight away from the statement

The statement must stand on its own. The source of a statement is a verifiable fact. If revealing where the data comes from has any negative impact on the statement, it is solely the failing of the source and not undue reporting by Wikipedia. Contrarily, concealing the source of data can unduly lend weight to a statement that it may otherwise not have. The source is the source, for better or worse.

Given those points, and the lack of good points for exclusion, I see no reason this statement should not be attributed to its data source. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Even thought the statement is indeed widely agreed-upon, it is helpful to the reader to have the context provided by the attribution, due to the wide divergence in operational definitions used in this subject. Better still would be a note showing that this statement is supported by multiple studies that used different operational definitions and methodology. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, per Scoundr3l's reasons throughout. Stating survey results as fact is intentional misrepresentation and misleads readers. Statement should clearly be attributed to its source(s), and its origins and methodology discussed. This isn't scientific fact, as we're all aware human surveys elicit very specific behaviour responses, and cannot be treated as generalisations, no matter how many surveys are cited. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN (FoCuS), how is it misleading the readers when the "majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement" aspect is widely supported in the literature and there is no indication whatsoever that it is false? How does it make sense to attribute that statement to one or more sources, as though it's only according to those sources that "the majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement", when it's actually supported throughout the literature, in scholarly books, legal documents, etc.? How is providing in-text attribution for this not a WP:INTEXT violation? Sammy1339's support vote above does not even seem to be support for in-text attribution, which would be misleading, but rather for more context. Appropriate context. We include the "most sexual assaults go unreported" or "most sexual violence is unreported" aspect in rape articles and related articles here at Wikipedia, including in the lead of the Rape by gender article. Are you suggesting that we give in-text attribution in all of these cases, or further context even in the lead, when the statement is not at all contentious in the literature or validly disputed in the literature? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not judging the veracity of the literature, nor did I ever imply doing so. I'm saying it is undue to present it as a fact when in reality it's a poor statistic (exactly why surveys are rarely used as basis for policy), and as such it must be indicated. Surveys aren't scientific fact; they're sociological instruments subject to human behaviour and circumstance, reflecting opinion in response to often poorly-formulated questionnaires. I was summoned by the RfC bot, and provided my !vote after reading the above discussion. By the look of things, your attitude leaves much to wish for. Respect other people's views and let the RfC progress. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN (FoCuS), asking you to explain your rationale for your vote is not disrespecting your vote or you. Since you've been involved in a number of RfCs, you should know that. Needless to state, I disagree with your rationale, and have given ample reason why I do. As for attitudes, I feel the same regarding you judging by your "19:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)" response. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I provided my rationale the first time around. Deal with it. Your reputation precedes you. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN (FoCuS), indeed it does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's try to stay focused, guys. So far, this has been pretty productive, but there is already a lengthy discussion above which addressed these questions and came to no resolution, hence the "per <user>" commentary. Beginning the discussion again is a step in the wrong direction. Obviously, there is disagreement over whether this statement stands on its own or needs additional information. All the talk-page evidence in the world has no effect on the body text, nor does it aid the reader, which is what we're here to discuss. Let's please keep our opinions of other editors and interpretation of their comments out of the discussion for now. Scoundr3l (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support -- weakly, because I think the line should show sources but the discussion is saying the bigger issue is it's a bad line. Markbassett (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Kaldari (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, it's a controversial statement no matter how you look at it. There are no fool-proof studies of this but just vague questionnaires and we all know how easily those are wrong and manipulated.--BurtReynoldsy (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Provide additional information for further context

Note: There is no obligation to !vote in each section. Feel free to only !vote where you feel it is needed. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil Einne, your note in this section is misplaced because voting "use in-text attribution" or "don't use in-text attribution" is not the same thing as supporting "additional information for further context," as is clear by editors' comments in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. There's never any requirement to !vote in any specific section in any RFC. Frankly as I said before, it shouldn't really be necessary to note it and if it is, it would be better at the beginning of the RFC. Except that wouldn't work here given the beginning in such a mess. But if you are going to note it, it's quite wrong to only note it one specific section as if one section only is unimportant. Editors are free to participate in whatever part of the RFC they wish to. The fact that for some reason it was felt better to list two mutually contradictory options rather than simply give a neutrally worded single option to choose between them doesn't change how we should handle stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

And I disagree. I never stated that there is any requirement to !vote in any specific section in any RFC. My "19:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)" comment is clear. And, as you know, further reasoning was stated at WP:ANI. And as for there being "two mutually contradictory options," that depends on how you look at it; I don't see two mutually contradictory options. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2016‎ (UTC)

• Could support...if done right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Question Have you got any specific examples of alternatives you could support? Scoundr3l (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support This would no doubt be a happy compromise for all of us. I would like to at least see a range of figures. Such figures do exist, and the oft-quoted range is 68-90%, but this is from data compiled from several surveys. I am able to provide additional sources on figures if needed. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Due to the complexity and wide divergence in methodology of the different sources, claims such as this one (which, as far as I can tell, is 100% true) should be clarified in maximum detail. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Conditional Support I think the additional context is sort of provided by subsequent sections, and I think my own proposed edit is a little unwieldy because it introduces a survey-based measure of sexual assault before explaining why survey-based measures of sexual assault are necessary. Still, I think this is fine if we think it's a necessity to include more in-text information. Nblund (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Yes YES !!!! It seems that the text is from one source and showing that is not liked so consensus to work on the wording ('numerous studies' or whatever) to something that does not draw these concerns seems more indicated than talking about whether or not to continue with what presents an appearance of a bad-WP soapboxing exaggeration. Markbassett (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Could support: The best solution to most edit wars is to cite something. Needed or not, WP:POPE or not, it probably will help. Won't de-escalate the trolls from trolling, but at least they will be more obviously exposed as trolls. Montanabw^(talk) 22:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Not necessary but wouldn't hurt What seems to be going on here is that Flyer and others think that in-text attribution is not necessary because an inline citation is already used and that it might make the fact cited look less mainstream and accepted than it really is and Scoundr3l and others think that the in-text citation is needed to prevent the text from looking more mainstream and accepted than it really is. The sources that are already there certainly look reliable, but adding one or two more (preferably from the most mainstream source possible), probably would disrupt the flow of the article less than adding extra words. Here are some that might suit (some of these are used elsewhere in the article): U.S. National Institute of Justice Time Magazine UMD A Canadian newspaper Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording

The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement. From 1995 to 2013, 67% of the sexual attacks against non-students and 80% of the sexual attacks against college students reported in the National Crime Victimization surveys were not reported to police. (citing this, already in the refs) Nblund (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would support that, Nblund. Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I like the second sentence and appreciate the attempt at compromise. However, my concern is that the cited survey is only related to college-aged females in the United States, specifically 18-24. This would be approximately 15 million people in a very specific cultural demographic represented by this survey data. I'm not trying to tear down the house before it's built, but it doesn't seem like a fair representation of the initial statement. Scoundr3l (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is one possibility which borrows terminology from the citation (thank you, Nblund, for providing): "Research has consistently shown that the majority of sexual assault victims do not report their attack to law enforcement."

This would then go on to cite specifics, as necessary. Notice it is not a direct attribution, so as not to immediately favor any of the 11 some-odd surveys which support the claim in the citation, but at least provides context as to where the data comes. It also plainly acknowledges the majority of the viewpoint. This is also quite open to modification, so feel free. Scoundr3l (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think "research has consistently shown" works, especially if subsequent statements bolster that point. Regarding the overall average: we could use the most recent NCVS available: 34% of rapes/sexual assaults reported on the 2014 NCVS were reported to police. Or we could use this report that aggregates over four years: this source "between 2006 and 2010, 65% of rapes or sexual assaults reported on the National Crime Victimization surveys were not reported to the police". I might add a couple of additional sources specific to college students after that. Nblund (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Nblund - rewording seems the right area but what the second line shows is only that there is disagreement among reports, not a support for the first line. I'm now twigging on the topic is supposed to be campus sexual assault, so the whole first line and ensuing discussion about statistics accuracy seems a bit WP:OFFTOPIC or at least the context by title of this section "Campus sexual assault", "Prevalence and incidence of rape and other sexual assault" subsection would need to convey why is Prevalence all about how the statistics do not agree ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not what you mean by disagreements. The second line in the wording I proposed says that there are differences between two different populations (college vs. non-college), but I don't think that really reflects a disagreement so much as an actual difference between the two populations. Can you clarify what you're saying here? Nblund (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Like Nblund, I would prefer you clarify what you mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no issue with Nblund's material, there is a statement, with two examples that are included. We can add more citations, we can add 20, 30, 50 studies. There is no disagreement that most attacks go unreported, it's as obvious as the nose on your face, the only question are specific numbers for specific populations; 8 in 10 is commonly cited, the range above probably represent the outliers. (this reminds me of the climate change disputes, where they decided, basically, who cares if it's 80% 90% or 97%, the point is that the consensus is overwhelming) Montanabw^(talk) 22:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Montanabw. There is no disagreement, just different levels of non-reporting. Scoundr3l's objection that the cited example is limited to college-age women in the U.S. doesn't make sense to me. College-age women in the U.S. are probably the most likely people in the world to actually report sexual assault. If anyone is aware of any study showing that most sexual assaults are reported (anywhere in the world), that would be a valid reason to object to the wording. Kaldari (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The demographics of a study are specifically linked to its conclusions. If a study in the US concludes that 95% of households own a car, this is not indicative that "most people own a car", nor would a reliable source make that claim, nor can Wikipedia make that claim. The car study wasn't representative of all people and a worldwide study would find a number closer to 15%, making the conclusion likely false. Whether or not this is the case with unreported sexual assault is not our place to conjecture, our place is only to accurately report the information and where it's coming from. If there is a consensus, we should be able to find a source of that consensus. Otherwise, an absence of evidence to the contrary should not be treated as evidence of absence. Well supported information (which I know this is) should have no fear of attribution. What are your thoughts on the proposed "Research has consistently shown that the majority of sexual assault victims..."? Scoundr3l (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nblund to respond with further explanation then: Your proposed words are not about the prevalence of Campus sexual assault, so they seem astray from the section title. The words proposed are to the topic of underreporting rather than the prevalence of assault, such as given in the end of the section: "The 2013 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimated that 0.43% of women were victims of some form of sexual assault, with attempted or completed rape at approximately 0.35%.[11] Other research estimates anywhere from 10%[1] to as many as 29%[12] of women have been victims of rape or attempted rape since starting college." But what you're talking is where the article has a mismatch to the section title. There would at least need to be some content to say why Prevalence is going into how statistics disagree and how things are not reported instead of talking just to the title how often assault happens.

And that led me to twig to the bigger problem that the article is supposed to be about campus sexual assault but it mostly isn't. The whole first part -- almost half of the article -- seems just about how incidence statistics argue. I'd think that due WEIGHT would have the article mostly for the prominent court cases and the prevention or enforcement programs and surveys a minor note. Surveys disagreeing seems more suited to a summary table of about 8 lines in a section title about range of studies outcomes or information unclear. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(p.s. If actual coverage of the topic is really 40% coverage in studies disagreements then OK, just follow the cites and convey the actual weight. My impression that isn't the case, but say what the body of works looks like, whatever that may be) Markbassett (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the reason under-reporting is mentioned in the first sentence is so that readers understand why we usually rely on surveys to measure sexual assault to measure its prevalence. For most crimes, we would probably rely on police reports or statistics reported by universities themselves, but the problem of under-reporting means that these sources aren't very reliable.

I think the issue you raise is probably beyond the scope of this RfC, but I do agree that the prevalence and incidence section is too long and too involved, and I think that it covers too many specific studies and overemphasizes criticisms and disagreements while downplaying the general consensus among experts. I would support shortening it as long as the general confines of the debate were still given due weight, but that would be a potentially contentious undertaking. Nblund (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: So I'm not actually clear on this: is anyone opposed the approach of stating "Research has consistently shown that the majority of sexual assaults are not reported to police; between 2006 and 2010, 65% of rapes or sexual assaults reported on the National Crime Victimization surveys were not reported [add more examples if needed]". Nblund (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's controversial (to me anyway) to make that kind of a statement, particularly if we provide the intext attribution which was the genesis of this discussion.Mattnad (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I am, of course, in favor of this. If we need additional statistics, Darkfrog provided a great resource below: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/653101?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents which found, upon review of a number of studies, that as little as 14% are reported. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nblund -- just to point out, there may be objections to the "or" in "rape or sexual assault" since that means either, as opposed to "rape and sexual assault" which means both the specifically that rape is mostly not and that the overall topic is not. I think the line would be clearer if that was expanded a bit, to 'rape is mostly not reported and sexual assaults as a class are mostly not reported'. Markbassett (talk)

Shall we call that a compromise? There's a near-unanimous support for providing additional information and most users have either weighed in on proposed wording or been directly asked to weigh in. I'm not sure we're going to squeeze much more participation out of this. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think using "and" is fine here, and I agree that it seems like there is a general consensus on the major points here. Maybe we can park this conversation for a day just to be totally sure, but I'm okay with closing this one. Nblund (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors not strongly opposing additional information is not the same thing as supporting a qualification like "Research has consistently shown"; a number of editors in this RfC have been clear that we should simply state the matter as fact because all evidence points to it being fact. I'm certainly not going to tolerate editors going around adding "Research has consistently shown" type of wording (WP:Weasel wording) to all of our articles that report this aspect as the fact that it is. But it's a compromise I can go along with for this article; I'd already suggested something similar (my "The literature indicates that" wording) at the start of this big dispute. I'd prefer that "rapes or sexual assaults" be changed to "rapes or other sexual assaults" since rape is a form of sexual assault. This is why I usually change "sexual assaults" to "other sexual assaults" in cases like these. I'd also rather this RfC officially close before we make changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point that several editors see this as a reasonable compromise for this case rather than an ideal solution, so this probably isn't a precedent that applies elsewhere. "Rapes or other sexual assaults" also works. Nblund (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Call it what you like so long as we can call it. Assuming we can agree on a resolution, we can certainly agree to close the RfC in proper time. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Any objection to closing this RfC at this time? Scoundr3l (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's currently listed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Further commentary

I think there are valid concerns being expressed by both sides here, but I also think there are a couple of important points to keep in mind.

• 1."It's not necessary" or "it's unhelpful for readers" is actually a perfectly valid reason to oppose including something in an entry. I think there are additional concerns that are more central here, but I don't think we should dismiss that consideration out of hand. The section on WP:INTEXT specifically discourages using in-text attribution when a footnote would suffice.
• 2. Not including an in-text citation is not the same as not including a citation at all, and it doesn't prevent readers from checking facts or forming their own opinions. For the vast majority of cases, a footnote citation (like the one we use) is considered sufficient.
• 3. Most importantly: survey research is science. There's no precedent for handling surveys any differently than any other form of scientific evidence on Wikipedia, and I think the argument "surveys can't be factual" would require us to rewrite vast sections of not only this entry, but of a vast swath of Wikipedia entries. Virtually every piece of demographic data cited in the entry for Demography of the United States, for instance, comes from a survey, and most of those statements do not include in-text attribution. Even if you think this should be the standard, it clearly isn't the standard right now, and imposing it would require more than an RfC. Nblund (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe we have common ground on these points, but I have a few additional perspectives:

• 1. Those comments ("it's not necessary", "it's unhelpful") are indeed valid considerations. Their weight must be carefully considered, however. To an article with a stable status quo, any change at all is generally more unnecessary than necessary. Yet, in the interest of collaboration, Wikipedia encourages bold edits and discourages reversion. Only in cases where an edit clearly makes the article worse should reversion be considered, so perhaps the better question is whether or not it's necessary to exclude the change.
• 2. Indeed, there is no argument that the statement is cited. However, relating to my first bullet point above, the statement is commentary related to some sort of data. By not including the source of data in the text, it makes it all but impossible for other editors to include additional commentary on that data (which certainly exists) and thus inadvertently gives the sources sole authority over the conclusion. This does not seem to be in the best interest of the reader or the other editors.
• 3. Agreed. Sociology (forgive me if this is not the accurate term for this type of survey) is a science and it follows a method. Like all sciences, this method is generally an ongoing process of examining previous data, drawing conclusions, adjusting methodologies, and further testing hypotheses. The cited survey in particular put a great deal of effort into ensuring the accuracy and objectivity of their data. I think it's important that we give the conclusions all the respect they deserve: they are not guesses, their methods are sound, and we have every reason to believe the conclusions are accurate. However, there are still a great many debates ongoing in this area of study, notably among sociologists themselves. Even if all surveys show a greater than 50% incidence of non-reporting, it is unlikely that there is consensus on the methodologies nor is it likely that others surveys will replicate the results, making the conclusion potentially contentious. At least uncertain enough that it should be written in the commentator's voice, not Wikipedia's, or at least attribute where the data is coming from. But I'm not asking you to take my word for it, I'm only asking that we improve the wording of this statement enough that additional commentary can be easily added. If the results of the US Demographics statistics were a matter of serious contention, I have no doubt Wikipedia would accurately report on that. This subject, as it stands, is a bit more controversial. Scoundr3l (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying that the subject of under-reporting is controversial, but without offering any evidence. There are countless sources stating that most rape goes unreported.[1][2][3][4][5] Many sources cite estimates of 90% unreported. 2/3rds unreported is also a common estimate. If you have any sources stating that (1) most rape cases are reported, or (2) that the claim that most cases are unreported is controversial, please present them. Wikipedia does not allow original research, however. Kaldari (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In all fairness, the burden of proof is not on me, or any other source really, to provide evidence that a statement is uncertain. Rather the burden is on the statement to prove itself. Until the exact claim is attributed, it is not possible to provide such commentary on those claims. However, as this represents a perfect example of the problem, I'd be happy to indulge the exercise for the sake of this discussion. Let us bear in mind, however, that no additional sources or rationale worked out in this discussion are benefiting the article text or the readers. I do not have access to the reference section of any of these links, but if you can provide me with their primary source, I will attempt to provide evidence of controversy. Without the reference, as far as I can tell, it's possible that all 5 of these links are referencing the same survey. I don't think "Sexual Decisions: The Ultimate Teen Guide", for example, will show up in many professional commentaries, but its data source certainly will. This is exactly the same problem the article text has, at the moment, and the questions presented in this discussion are the questions the article should be answering for the readers. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Scoundr3l, what kind of sources do you find convincing? Government? Professional scientific studies? Newspapers? Most of the books Kaldari supplied are reliable but they cover the matter of rape in passing. A book that is specifically about sexual violence, perhaps? I'm confident we could find something that would put your mind at ease regarding this matter. Whom do you consider a reliable authority? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Scoundr3l:, there actually is a word for the thing you're talking about: "meta-analysis." That's when a group of scientists gather all the surveys and studies of a particular issue and evaluate them to identify overall trends. Here is one comparative analysis.[6] Even in most regular studies, a single fact can be supported by multiple surveys. This one covers a single national sample [7] Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the primary issue has more to do with the wording than the source, although it certainly doesn't help that the article's listed source may be poorly worded. As you say, many sources mention the statistic only in passing and so the phrasing is less important to their overall point. However, most academic sources (and, I hope we'll conclude, encyclopedias) prefer the more precise wording. So perhaps the issue is in replacing the source. The meta-analysis you've provided is a great resource and, if not included already, I hope it'll be added to the article. The wording I'm seeing in that source is "In the past 15 years in Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Scotland, and the United States, victimization surveys show that 14 percent of sexual violence victims report the offense to the police." To rephrase that statement as simply "The majority of rape goes unreported" would misrepresent the statement in terms of voice, conclusion, date range, and demographics. Granted the former statement would support the latter statement, if we assume the initial point, but it would be fallacy to do so. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Kaldari - actually it's not hard to find mentions of dispute on the whole topic of 'under-reporting' as something out there. See here , here, [8], Dana Goldstein, “The Dueling Data on Campus Rape,” and so forth. I'm thinking more that the topic is supposed to be assault itself, and the issues of dueling statistics just isn't an actual sexual assault and just isn't due this amount of coverage. Markbassett (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

None of the 3 sources you cite say anything about under-reporting of rape or sexual assault to law enforcement. Those articles just argue that sexual assault rates are lower then what is commonly reported in the media or by surveys. Even if sexual assault rates are actually very low (as those articles argue), it's still possible (and very likely) that the majority of incidents are not reported to law enforcement. Kaldari (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] - There is controversy. It seemed silly to ask Scoundr3l for it "You keep saying that the subject of under-reporting is controversial, but without offering any evidence" when such was easily google findable, but I gave a few of the first ones I found to show there is some 'over-inflated' versus 'under-reported'. This is to show there is partisan dispute here, not that partisans use the term of their opponents or talk seriously and fairly about the alternate views. I additionally offer that this all seems a bit WP:OFFTOPIC and not proper for the article to lead with as it's focusing instead into whether partisans exist or that claims are hyped or understated and leaving assault prevalence down at the third para and things other than surveys in the bottom half of the article. If the article topic was 'Survey disputes about Sexual Assault' or 'Partisan sides in sexual assault topic' would be one thing but for 'Campus sexual assault' it looks to me as a poor match to the titles. So again: there is dispute, here are a few examples.

• here Media matters slamming right-wing as having differing info 'New Study Once Again Debunks Right-Wing Media's Favorite Myths About Campus Sexual Assault Statistics ';
• here Weekly Standard flaming left-wing for wild definitions and false underreporting 'More College Rape Hype — This Time from the Washington Post';
• here National review article on also saying Washington Post made bogus claims;
• here Dana Goldstein, “The Dueling Data on Campus Rape"

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Only 2 of those 4 sources mention reporting rates (as opposed to assault rates) and they both support the statement that the majority of sexual assaults are unreported:

• "Among female sexual assault victims, only 12.5 percent of rapes and 4.3 percent of sexual battery incidents were reported to any official."
• "Virtually none of these students went to the police, nor did most report any incident to their colleges."

I'm still not seeing any controversy about reporting rates. I firmly agree with you that there is controversy about sexual assault rates, but that's not the rate we are talking about here. We're talking about the reporting rate, not the assault rate. Specifically we're talking about the claim that "The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement." Do you have any sources that dispute that claim or even state that it is controversial? So far, I haven't seen any. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This may be an issue of seeing the forest for the trees. Each of these sources seems to show controversy over the research methodology, specifically with the definition of sexual assault. This definition is certainly central to a statement on underreporting, whether or not the sources specifically mention that datum. At the very least it should be enough to support my original statement, "there are still a great many debates ongoing in this area of study, notably among sociologists themselves. Even if all surveys show a greater than 50% incidence of non-reporting, it is unlikely that there is consensus on the methodologies nor is it likely that others surveys will replicate the results, making the conclusion potentially contentious." It's not our place as Wikipedia editors to put the statistic on trial, so finding a source which specifically contradicts this statement is neither our burden nor is it necessary to resolving the discussion. Instead, as we can demonstrate that this statistic is derived from estimates (and that there is disagreement on the source of these estimates) we need only determine if it should then be written in Wikipedia's voice or the voice of the data source. Scoundr3l (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed deletion of this article

Sexual assault that takes happens to take place on a campus is not fundamentally different from sexual assault that does not take place on a campus. Much of the information in the article is not about campus sexual assault; it is about sexual assault in general, and would be better located in the general sexual assault article.

For other types of offenses, major or minor, there is no "campus" counterpart to the main article:

• Murder exists, Campus murder does not
• Theft exists, Campus theft does not
• Assault exists, Campus assault does not
• Menacing exists, Campus menacing does not
• Jaywalking exists, Campus jaywalking does not

Why should sexual assault differ from the above pattern?

Furthermore, here are three Justice Department studies consistently showing that women students experience a lower rate of sexual assault than their non-student peers:

• from 1995 to 2000, the rape and sexual assault rate among female college students was 6.2 per 1,000 women. The rape and sexual assault rate among female non-students was 7.9 per 1,000.
• from 1995 to 2002, the rate of rape and sexual assault was 6.0 per 1,000 women students compared to 7.9 per 1,000 for female non-students.
• from 1995 to 2013, the rate of rape and sexual assault for students was 6.1 per 1,000 compared to 7.6 per 1,000 for non-students.

So it would make more sense to create an article named "Off-campus sexual assault," than to retain this article, because off-campus is where the larger problem is found.

Wikipedia is not a place to indulge those who have an interest in pretending that there is something special about "campus sexual assault" that cannot be covered by the more general sexual assault article. The only notable thing about campus sexual assault is that it happens at a lower rate than off-campus sexual assault. Delete this article. 50.198.139.201 (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You are right that there has been some research that suggests the rate of SA is lower among college aged women who are not attending college than among college attendees, but this is a fairly new finding that is still being explored -- and it doesn't really change the unique policy issues that arise for schools attempting to deal with sexual violence. There are decades of research, substantial press coverage, and several laws that deal specifically with sexual assault among people attending an institute of higher education.

We do have articles on sexual assault in the military, sexual assault in the Catholic church, and sexual violence in marriage, and sexual assault in prisons among many others. So this article doesn't seem particular unique in that sense. Nblund (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you are going for in principle, but it so happens that Campus Sexual Assault specifically is a hot button issue separate from SA in general. A number of studies have been done specifically on sexual assault as it pertains to college campuses as have various movements, outcries, and debates. In principle, you have a point, but I think you'll find that the content of this article is evidence enough of the notability of this specific area of sexual assault discussion. At best,the sheer number of studies and articles relating only to 'campus' sexual assault would make it a very large subsection of that parent article. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Criticism subsection

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is an ongoing dispute regarding the criticisms subsection. Specifically, editors have objected to the bulleted list section that details several lawsuits filed by men who were expelled from universities after being accused of sexual assault. The most recent discussion is here. Generally, the suggested changes are to either:

• 1. Leave the bulleted list unchanged, and add a roughly equal amount of detail on cases filed against universities by accusers.

or

• 2. Offer a couple of short summary statements that address the recent increase in lawsuits filed by students accused of sexual assault without focusing on specific cases.

Please place comments or preferences below, and feel free to suggest alternate wordings of these options or add more as needed. Nblund (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Option 2 The selection raises neutrality, OR, and, potential BLP issues. The cases presented don't appear to be representative of the typical outcomes in these kinds of suits: all five cases are instances where plaintiffs either received settlements or where colleges were overturned, but accused students have generally struggled to win these suits, and most are dismissed in lower courts. Adding a roughly equal amount of detail from suits filed by accusers might lessen some of the neutrality issues, but it poses many of the same issues related to OR, NPOV, and BLP, and it's probably more encyclopedic to summarize the issue rather than focusing on an arbitrarily selected group of cases. At most, it makes sense to highlight maybe one high profile case, and then add some more general statements about the frequency, success rates, and primarily focus on the legal issues covered in these cases rather than delving in to the minute details of specific sexual assault cases. Nblund (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nblund: It sounds like you are actually endorsing option 2, unless I'm very confused. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

...whoops. Fixed it. Nblund (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think summarizing the issue rather than listing specific suits is more encyclopedic, and less likely to run afoul of OR or BLP. If we start listing suits on both sides of the issue, it's just going to become a game of who can list more suits to support their POV. So I think option 2 is the better solution. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

What's the evidence for they "don't appear to be representative of the typical outcomes in these kinds of suits" and "have generally struggled to win these suits, and most are dismissed in lower courts"? FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

From IHE last November: As recently as a few months ago, accused students seemed destined to lose lawsuits challenging their penalties. In May, it was widely believed that there had been just one such case in recent memory -- a lawsuit brought against the University of the South in 2011 -- that made it to court and had a favorable outcome for an accused student.. Most of these cases discussed in these articles are still pending, and this is a developing area, but these recent suits are notable, in large part, because they have gotten more traction than others in the past. Nblund (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion Is an RfC really necessary, in this case? With all respect, they are slow, historically ineffective, and can invite community bias from both sides rather than meaningful discussion. If this is a policy matter, it seems the suggested noticeboard would be a quicker and more resounding alternative for dispute resolution. Anything short of a clear consensus here will likely lead to status quo in a months time, when this is finally closed. Just a thought to break the cycle. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to taking the issue to a noticeboard, but, like I said above: editors have cited multiple policy issues here, and noticeboards are usually for straightforward simple policy questions that need a quick answer. This doesn't seem to fit that description. Nblund (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main accusation is of OR and/or synth. NPOV is cited, but only as a result of the previous. BLP really only comes into play with unsourced or poorly sourced material about living figures; or content focused on un-notable living persons rather than notable events. Neither of which seem to be the case with this material. At the very least, it's reliably sourced and impersonal. The question, however, is whether the information is collected or presented in such a way as to promote a viewpoint not represented by the mainstream. It should have a fairly straightforward answer. The NOR noticeboard seems appropriate for this one, as I believe was suggested previously. If there is a larger concern for the neutrality of the article as a whole, I would suggest the NPOV board, but I don't see that this is the case with only this section. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's the main issue, actually: the conversation that initiated the RfC is headed "undue weight", and multiple editors have cited neutrality concerns with the section. I think there is also a synth issue, but I don't think it's the issue most editors have cited. I think the point might be moot, given that the RfC is already open.

The BLP issues stem from the extraneous details about specific sexual assault cases. Take this statement, for instance: "In June 2015 an Amherst College student who was expelled for forcing a woman to complete an oral sex act sued the college for failing to discover text messages from the accuser that suggested consent and undermined her credibility". The claim that text messages "undermined her credibility" is something that the accused student's attorneys say in the article, but it's clearly not a fact. It's a fairly contentious claim about a living person, it's stated using Wikipedia's voice, and it's completely tangential to the supposed point of the section. I think that's fairly straightforward BLP. Nblund (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The claim is not that contentious and not a BLP violation. 1) it make no mention of the accuser and 2) The source of the claim is not the lawsuit, but what reliable sources say about the text evidence that Amherst refused to consider. Per a source in the article that you don't mention in your comments above, "But text messages sent between the alleged victim and other Amherst students point toward the opposite conclusion: that Doe did nothing wrong."

Nblund, you cite OR where none exists, cite NPOV while ignoring the mass of the article which paints a very POV picture absent of these documented process problems, and you cite BLP where none exists. It's obvious you refuse to take this to neutral board because you know that there's nothing there to your claims.Mattnad (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't the phrase "failing to discover text messages from the accuser that suggested consent and undermined her credibility" refer to the accuser? Who does it reference?

The intent of posting an RfC is to bring in outside voices, you know how they work, right? I also think it makes sense to post notices on those boards that invite outsiders to participate in the discussion. Nblund (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but generally I believe the underlying intent of an RfC is to resolve the dispute. If bringing in more voices doesn't resolve the dispute, the RfC isn't really working. In this case, userMattnad specifically suggested an alternative form of resolution before this was opened and I'm inclined to believe that a noticeboard would be faster and more effective, but that's just my opinion. As the requestor, only you can decide if you want to end this early by withdrawing the question to seek an alternative. You have valid BLP concerns regarding some of the content, but I believe if we correct only the contentious phrasing, the issue would still not be resolved. Additionally, there's nothing inherent in your alternatives that would have prevented the contentious phrasing. As such, I'm inclined to believe that BLP is a secondary issue. In regards to this specific phrasing, I wonder if Mattnad would object to a third opinion that we strike "and undermined her credibility" from the statement for now as it is not supported by the source and contentious. I understand that the RfC is still open, but in the interest of BLP, I see no reason we can't fast track that change if we can all agree.

In regards to undue weight, unless there is a specific fringe theory being promoted, I see no reason this can't also be addressed in the NOR board. Any undue emphasis on criticism seems, again, to be the result of a possible synth. But again, just a suggestion to try to keep things moving. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not just post a notice at those multiple applicable noticeboards to ask for outside input?

Undue weight is usually an NPOV issue, not necessarily OR. The fact that we're having this disagreement is kind of a demonstration of why a noticeboard doesn't make sense. Nblund (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the argument of BLP concerns about "and undermined her credibility", I had originally referred to the text messages as "exculpatory" but Nblund didn't want that. [9]. All exculpatory means is "evidence favorable to the defendant." No BLP issue there, but he didn't want it. I felt it was important to explain in some form the nature of the text message, which goes to root of the lawsuit. Please note that nowhere during the period that Nblund edited this section back then did he even mention BLP. Scoundr3l I agree that BLP is secondary to Nblund's core motivation which I see is to minimize mention of problems with how colleges handle these cases, particularly when it's problematic for the accused (see his proposed statement which emphases failures of these lawsuits and ignores/leaves out some important decisions).Mattnad (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to change your mind, so consider it dropped, but the reason I suggested the alternative rather than an RfC is the reasons listed above: RfCs are slow, often lead to no consensus (at least in regards to this article) and may not always be motivated by improving content. Certainly we may not agree on the nature of the problem, but as their is no general "undue weight" noticeboard and the neutrality noticeboard is generally for article-wide issues, I didn't really feel there was a controversy over which board to use or think any facet of this problem couldn't be handled in a single board. The resolution would likely have been faster, more binding, and both parties could likely have agreed to it, so it seemed the better alternative. RfCs seem to be a go-to resolution measure in this discussion area and thus-far appear to be draining more time and energy than they are saving. Something to consider for future, at least. I hope we find a middle ground here. 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoundr3l (talk • contribs)

• Option 1 - material is well sourced, neutral and topical.Mattnad (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Option 2 I agree with Mattnad that the material is well sourced. It's also neutral as to each individual case discussed, and it is topical. However, I don't think the list of examples is either particularly necessary or particularly helpful to the section. It also detracts from the encyclopedic feel of the page, IMO. I think a summary statement is a better approach, particularly if all or most of the supporting references from the individual bullet points are incorporated into the statement. MikeDunford (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Option 1" - maybe not bulleted. Just saying there are court cases is not enough. Looking at the alternative sample below, you get no sense at all to what the issues are about. Also, that proposed text leaves out some important court findings (Tennessee) or cases (like Oxy).. It could be shortened from where it is now, but there is no OR or weight issues here. Even the BLP argument is weak. Just an idea, but this is not really part of criticism, but part of due process wrangling. There's a whole lot under "criticisms" that could be better organized and directly connected to other article bits. 12.176.89.10 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

IPuser and Mattnad: I'm totally open to negotiations or suggestions regarding the alternative I proposed below. What specific cases do you think are the most important? What points are missing?

Mattnad: Even if you disagree with the specific complaints, surely you don't think the section -- as currently written -- is perfect. Do you really believe it's impossible to adequately discuss these cases without discussing the specific evidence in multiple sexual assault suits? You say the statement "emphasizes the failure" of these suits. That's not my goal. What both sources note, however, is that these recent suits are notable because they have been somewhat more successful recently than they were in the past. In the source below, Samantha Harris at FIRE, who supports these lawsuits, makes exactly that point. I'm open to rewording it, but it seems like useful context that helps establish why these suits are notable. Nblund (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, of course anything can be improved. But the way this started was a litany of complaints that called for mostly eliminating the content rather than improving it. Even the best you can come up with as BLP violation comes from your own efforts to suppress content in the first place. So to make it better I think we do need to step back and reorganize this article with more focus on the colleges and the debates around what they are doing or should be doing. Mattnad (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't support eliminating the content entirely. I (and multiple other editors) have made good faith objections to this content. Since this is the third time someone has brought up this section, I think it makes sense to consider changes even if you believe that everyone who has suggested a problem is motivated entirely by bias. What I'm suggesting seems pretty mild: we summarize the issue, remove some excessive detail about specific cases, and use in-text attribution when repeating claims made by plaintiffs in lawsuits. Can you really not work with that?

I changed "exculpatory text messages" to "messages he alleged would have indicated consent", I'm still not sure why this didn't work for you. It seems silly to say that that constitutes "suppression". The accuser sees these text messages as exculpatory, while Amherst, in it's response to the complaint, sort of denied that the text messages were evidence of anything. This is a contested legal claim, we should avoid stating it in Wikipedia's voice. Alas: this is exactly the sort of debate that we could avoid altogether by just leaving out extraneous information. Nblund (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

While his lawsuit make that allegation, two secondary sources in the article that also draw that conclusion. Your approach doesn't accurately reflect the sources. But in the end, Wikipedia should reflect what's in reliable sources. You cite Amherst's legal filings, but per wikipedia policy, legal filings are not reliable sources. Your position is basically, "I don't like this" and you're raising issues that are not supportable. I again challenge you to test this in OR/NPOV/BLP noticeboards. Let's see whether they agree with your position.Mattnad (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled: the main difference is that I attributed this view in-text to the plaintiff rather than treat it as a fact. I could see a case for changing "he alleged" to "he said", and I don't really have strong preferences against "exculpatory" as long as it isn't stated as a fact. But it sounds like you are arguing that in text attribution is somehow inappropriate and unneeded when discussing a claim made in a lawsuit. Is that your view? This seems a little tangential to the point of the RfC, but if you want to simply ask a question on the BLP or NPOV board regarding whether or not in-text attribution is appropriate in a case like this, I think we could get a quick clarification and move on.

In the mean time: this is a little tangential to the larger point. What would you add to the statement below? You said there was room for improvement, could you suggest something concrete? Nblund (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment I think I most agree with the IP above. I am in favor of removing the bullets and integrating the content into the body text, but I believe most of these sources and cases provide valuable information for the criticism section. I think the article should focus a little less on the specific details of the cases and only on how they represent the controversy, which each source seems to have something to provide. I will contribute below to the proposed wording as soon as I have time, but agree that this does not appear to be an issue of undue weight, just poor and pedantic listing Scoundr3l (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1 - The bullets are representative of that part of the article, Criticisms of Prevention Efforts today has moved into being about Colleges overcorrection and lawsuits are now going the other way, and due WP:WEIGHT of coverage has headline cases like Rolling Stone or Mattress Girl criticising prevention efforts. This RFC is a bit malforming options here, as the article currently has both bullets and a narrative summary on top of them. In any case since the obvious process is KEEP the bullets and edit summary, then I'll say Option 1. The RFC should have at least proposed specific language so folks could actually see if it would suit to replace bullets. Proposing deletion for a someday-promise of pig-in-a-poke is unacceptable as an alternative in principle, so definately loses out. Markbassett (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

So the alternative wording is what is below. I think there was some general agreement (maybe I'm wrong) that the discussion of these cases should be balanced by roughly equal coverage of lawsuits or criticisms by victims. Are you saying that we should leave the bullets and also leave out coverage of cases by accusers? I haven't really found indication that most of the suits and criticisms are coming from people who believe that these adjudication processes are unfair to accused students, is that what you're arguing? Because it doesn't seem like a conclusion that we can reasonably draw from the sourcing currently provided. Nblund (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2 seems to better serve the interests of readers. This is a notable and current trend and any list would tend to be indiscriminate by nature. If there are several notable cases, creating a stand-alone list and linking to it as a "further information" or "see also" link would be appropriate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment Editors who favor keeping the bulleted list with specific discussion: could you propose a way for determining the number of cases, and which are included are which are left out? Here (link1, link2) are two fairly significant recent stories that seem like they are at least as prominent as any of the 6 cases mentioned in the entry. How do we determine whether or not they belong? Nblund (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1 - the article is already biased towards hyping sexual assault statistics and uncritically presenting the OCRs rulings. This little list of factual issues is fine. The section should be expanded.12.206.247.131 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggested alternate wordings

beginning right after the statement about the Harvard faculty letter)

Recently, a number of students have sued Universities alleging that they were unfairly expelled after being accused of sexual assault. In November of last year, Inside Higher Education reported that 50 lawsuits had been filed by men who expelled following a sexual assault accusation, many alleging that the college hearing process amounted to gender discrimination against men, or that their due process rights were violated. While these suits have usually been unsuccessful in the past, a handful of students have recently won cases or received settlements from schools. Most recently, a student at the University of Montana received a $245,000 dollar settlement from the University after he was expelled following a sexual assault accusation by another student.

Nblund (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Nblund - Comments: thank you for proposing specific redo to the RFC and I did like the specific 'more than 50'. However, Option 1 is better overall as this provides different and lesser message. In particular note what's there is working the message and news that now the trend shifted to large increase in men suing and sometimes winning, which is better conveyed by the existing header and bullets.

(a) now it is shown as part of the sequence of events by the "Since the issuance of";

(b) now it covers lawsuits over rights, which is broader than only expulsion, particularly note Columbia lawsuit re 'cleared' men or handling re 'suspended' men

(c) now four bulleted examples and one inline vs one different example inline, a change and lessening

(d) now is more concise and clear

I think it better to make minor tweak of "Since the issuance of the "Dear Colleague" letter, a number of lawsuits have been filed" to "Since the issuance of the "Dear Colleague" letter, more than 50' of lawsuits have been filed" Markbassett (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that 50 have been filed since the Dear Colleague letter. The first letter was in 2011, most of the sources just say 50 are "in the pipeline" or "50 in the last year". Is there any way to convey the additional information you want to see while providing fewer than four six cases and without using bullet points? Nblund (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think existing topics and sequence in events is already there, this would be a reduction in the article. Option 1 - keep the five bullets - still looks like the better way. Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I realize that that is the sequence implied in the entry, my point is that I'm not actually sure it's accurate. Do you have a source for that? Because I haven't been able to find much information on how many have been filed since 2011. Nblund (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement about response bias

Regarding this edit: I'm not seeing how that's a rhetorical point. The authors include citation for the statement that response rates are an indirect measure of data quality, so they clearly intend it to be taken as a meaningful statement of fact. It's a wholly uncontroversial statement among statisticians, and the paper they cite offers a detailed empirical and mathematical analyses that supports that conclusion. They mention it in the executive summary, and also in more detail on page 6 of the full report.

To the extent that a response bias exists, it's pretty small: the "high response" group reported a rate of sexual violence that was about +.5% to 3% higher than the "low response" group. Meaning that the overall estimate of 20% might be somewhere closer to 17%. For my part, I think the discussion of effect sizes in the report is too technical for this entry, but I think removing the nuance exaggerates the importance of this fact.

Mattnad, we previously agreed that the level of detail here is excessive anyway, so just trimming this discussion along the lines that I previously proposed would also solve this issue. I'm open to that discussion. Nblund (talk) 01:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's what the AAU said, in context (emphasis added):

The overall response rate of 19.3 percent is lower than several other surveys on sexual assault and misconduct. Other surveys that are cited in this report have rates that range from 30 percent to 86 percent. The response rate is only an indirect indicator of data quality. A low response rate does not necessarily mean the survey estimates are biased in a particular direction. The report provides the results of three different assessments of non-response bias. Two of these three analyses provide evidence that non-responders tended to be less likely to report victimization. This implies that the survey estimates related to victimization and selected attitude items may be biased upwards (i.e., somewhat too high).

That's different from simply saying "A low response rate does not necessarily mean the survey estimates are biased in a particular direction" since they go on to conclude, "This implies that the survey estimates related to victimization and selected attitude items may be biased upwards (i.e., somewhat too high)."Mattnad (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Right, but the entry already says the part you emphasize, so I don't really see the argument that it's lacking context. Why not just mirror the structure of the paragraph and say that "while they note that response rates are only an indirect indicator of data quality, they find evidence that the low response rate may have biased the sexual assault measures upward"? Nblund (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That works. I think originally on it's own, it made it seem like their final word.Mattnad (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

BJS definition

Regarding this edit, I think this is something we've discussed. It would be accurate to say that the DOJ approach focuses more directly on counting incidence of crime in a given year, while other studies are more broadly focused on understanding the overall prevalence of sexual violence, and in it's lasting effects on victims.However: it's not consistent with sources to state or imply that the things measured as "rape/sexual assault" are non-criminal acts, and multiple statements here are unsupported by that source.

When examining rates of sexual assault among college students, the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics uses only criminal definitions of assault using including "completed and attempted rape, completed and attempted sexual assault, and threats of rape" with significantly lower rates of assault than other studies. For instance the Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) study is characterized as a health study and uses broader definitions and behaviors including drug or alcohol use and "non-physical pressure" when assessing non-consensual acts

There are three problems here:

1. The source says "The NISVS and CSA collect data on incidents of unwanted sexual contact that may not rise to a level of criminal behavior". It does not say that they count these as sexual assaults. Although they ask questions about things like sexual coercion, harassment, cat-calling etc. neither the CSA nor the NISVS count these as instances of sexual assault.
2. The claim that the CSA counts "non-physical pressure" as sexual assault is directly contradicted by the source: "The CSA definition of rape and sexual assault includes unwanted sexual contact due to force and due to incapacitation, but excludes unwanted sexual contact due to verbal or emotional coercion." (page 2). They do count "verbal threats" as a sexual assault incident, but so does the BJS.
3. The source does not say that differences in conceptual definitions lead to lower rates of sexual assault. In fact there is substantial agreement across multiple academic sources (and from the BJS itself) that the differences in the rate of sexual assaults results from differences in the survey questions.

The statement probably doesn't fit in the intro, but if it is rephrased to be consistent with the sources, it could be useful to place it somewhere in the "prevalence and incidence section".. Nblund (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair observations. What I was trying to do was get at the differences in how studies measure rates and definitions which is a major topic in this space. The original definition was somewhat off topic (i.e., including child molestation) and didn't address the differing definitions and massively different rates. If you want to, come up with a better approach to explain this. Since this is so central to the debate (and is covered over and over again in the article) it deserves some mention in the lede.Mattnad (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

We could more or less repeat the statement in the prevalence and incidence section: "definitions of sexual assault, survey scope, and samples differ significantly between sources, those differences in definitions may account for some of the differences in estimates of sexual assault and rape." Different definitions are one of several differences across the data sources, and so they shouldn't be over-emphasized. I don't find any source that says definitions, in particular, account for a large portion of the differences in estimates, or that any particular definition of sexual assault is narrower or broader or more consistent withe the criminal definition of rape.

There is one key feature of the NCVS definition that sources have highlighted as distinct: the NCVS doesn't explicitly consider the capacity for consent, but most other studies do.

Here it is from the NRC report (page 172):

BJS currently uses a fairly broad definition of rape and sexual assault (see Box 8-1 in Chapter 8). However, the definitions do not include the incapacity to consent to sexual activities. Under most current laws, the capacity to consent is affected by the age of the victim, mental capability of the victim, and intoxication (see Chapter 2).

This is actually inconsistent with the legal definition of rape in most jurisdictions. Technically speaking, the NCVS also wouldn't count non-consensual sexual intercourse with a comatose person as a rape either. I don't think it's really necessary to go in to this, but that's really the only explicit distinction I have seen drawn between the NCVS and CSA. Nblund (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced the definition with the definition used for Clery reporting purposes, since this seems to be the most directly relevant. An explicit comparison of the operational definitions used in different studies is probably more appropriate for a later section, and a discussion of the various legal definitions of rape and sexual assault is probably better suited for another article. Nblund ^talk 16:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Copied from Talk Page

Hi,

You reverted my revert of you on the campus sexual assault article. A back-and-forth would be unhelpful so I'll try to hash this out rather than reverting again. Before we get into the actual substance of this issue, I'd like to ask you to work on a precarious bit of text. Of Harvard, you said,

"87% sexual assaults happened in co-ed college managed dormitories[.]"

The source you used, the Boston Globe, says the following:

"According to the survey results, 87 percent of female victims of sexual assault occurred in dormitories[.]"

Your edit describes the dormitories as "co-ed college managed." The source you used does not. While there are probably no Harvard dormitories that aren't managed by the school, the word "co-ed" either itself needs a source (is every dorm at Harvard co-ed?) or it has to go.

That said, I was hoping for an explanation of your edit summary reverting me, where you said your edit was "Well sourced and extremely topical." The implication here is really confusing. "Because it's true" or "because it's well-sourced" are not standards for inclusion on Wikipedia, and believe it or not, "it's relevant" isn't quite enough either. Furthermore, I never said your edit was false, poorly-sourced, or irrelevant so it's strange that you reacted to my revert like you did. For what it's worth, I believe your edit to be accurate, (mostly) well-sourced, and topical.

As for me, I provided an edit summary explaining myself: "Removed excessively (even suspiciously) defensive material; the claim that 'it should be noted' isn't verified in the sources and seems to be a statement of fact from the editor, not a source."

You replaced the phrase "it should be noted" with "for context". I can't tell exactly how this is an improvement because the phrases are both pretty meaningless and your text gets the same point across if you don't include either (or anything else). That's not to mention that, like your claim that "it should be noted," you have no reliable source indicating that your edit is, in context, an important addition to the article. (I'd say it's impossible for you to get a reliable source that essentially says that "here's information that should be added to Wikipedia for the sake of context.")

And when I said that your edits were "excessively (even suspiciously) defensive," I was talking generally about generally about everything but specifically about "These policies are challenging to students because non-verbal cues are difficult to interpret and the policies are confusing." That sentence has three parts, and if the second and third parts were sourced appropriately, the first wouldn't need to be sourced because it would be obviously true. The second part of that sentence does not appear to be sourced. Your source, an article in the New York Times by Sandy Keehan, says nothing to verify the plain statement that "non-verbal cues are difficult [for students] to interpret" and indeed, if you look at what Keehan said about men, a majority (61%) would claim that they're able to decipher consent via body language. I also couldn't find where in the article you found anything backing up the claim that "the policies are confusing" because at one point it says that the affirmative consent law in New York "standardizes prevention and response policies and procedures relating to sexual assault." I actually think Keehan was trying to get across the opposite point here: she bookends the article with two anecdotes from Tyler Frahme, a college student in Albany, who starts off upset about the new law but a month later is happy it's there.

My guess is that the context you're hoping to provide is a sort of pushback edit against an article that you feel is slanted too far in favor of people, sources, etc. that don't believe the concerns you raise are valid. If you believe that, you're not necessarily wrong; this sort of information could be helpful. But if it's a pushback edit, that means you have an agenda and that's a pretty big issue. Using edit summaries like "Qualifier given this section seems to suggest most assaults happen in fraternities" indicates you're using edits to push your opinions and beliefs on a very contentious topic. RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

User:RunnyAmiga I've copied this over from my talk page because I think other editors should see your points. In the gang rape section, it has read "Eighty-six percent of off-campus attempted rape or sexual assaults are at fraternity houses". The reader benefits from know what overall proportion of assaults happen off vs. on campus. Harvard has no single sex dorms but if you think we should remove coed until we find a source that says that, fine.

As for the affirmative consent section, you've wholesale deleted it over your personal opinions of what another writer intended about a single point about what's confusing. The policies require them to parse consent with little to no guidance on what's affirmative consent. So in addition to the NY Times article, the Washington post writes, "Conflict and confusion about consent pose enormous challenges for colleges scrambling to prevent sexual assault." with poll samples of differing views on what's consent. [10] There's also plenty of editorial opinion that we can cite such as [11], or the LA Times that writes, "Yes, the new standard might help in the adjudication of sexual assault allegations, but its language still seems both vague — what exactly would constitute an unambiguous sign of consent?" [12]

If you think the wording can be better, then edit it. But there's value in both sections edits. Since you're asking for so much support, I'll expand the section to include more material and sources. Oh, and knock off the personal attacks.198.23.5.10 (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Spelling Error

Upon reviewing this article, I found an error in the section "2015 Campus Climate Surveys." In the paragraph explaining the University of Kentucky survey, the article refers to the university as "KU" instead of "UK." Would it be appropriate to correct this mistake? BishopTakesQueen (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Defining Sexual Assault

Throughout this article there is a lot of mention of rape, the different types of rape and cases associated with it. That makes it sound like this article is about campus rape but it is titled campus sexual assault.Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape. I suggest there be a section to define what sexual assault means, and list out the different types of sexual assault. The article could benefit from giving a clear definition of sexual assault and including cases in which the victim was not raped but still assaulted.

“Sexual Assault.” The United States Department of Justice, www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault. Accessed 23 Mar. 2017.

IsolemnlyswearthatIamuptonogood (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)IsolemnlyswearthatIamuptonogood

Definition of Campus Sexual Assault

Wikipedia defines campus sexual assault as the sexual assault of a student attending an institution of higher learning, such as a college or university. This definition seems very broad as if a student that is attacked, no matter where they are, it is classified as campus sexual assault. After doing research, I suggest the definition be changed to the following: Campus sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs on the grounds and buildings of a university, college or school without the explicit consent of the recipient. IsolemnlyswearthatIamuptonogood (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)IsolemnlyswearthatIamuptonogood

You haven't provided any reliable source for this proposition. If you examine the article, it's highly centered on events that happen to enrolled students in and around campuses. So "no matter where they are" is not suppored by any citation you've provided. Also, I noted you put in the "Red Zone" and used an advocacy group as the source. This was discussed previously. Please read WP:RS to get a better understanding of the guidelines.Mattnad (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This was a suggestion to make a change to the definition of Campus Sexual Assault, not the Red Zone. Nowhere in this definition was the red zone mentioned so why wouldn't a clearer, more accurate definition be a valid change? IsolemnlyswearthatIamuptonogood (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I retained your definition. I was commenting in one place about two changes you made. I'm reluctant to limit it to "Campus sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs on the grounds and buildings of a university" because there are adjacent off campus environments that while not formally on campus, are part of campus life. So for instance, town or city bars where students congregate have been included in some studies on campus sexual assault like the CSA. A challenge, I'll admit, with this topic is that some sources take an expansive view, while others are more tightly defined about what constitutes a campus incident, and where it happens. So the article over time has evolved towards a more expansive range of definitions.Mattnad (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's confusing to say "Campus sexual assault is defined as the sexual assault of a student attending an institution of higher learning, such as a college or university." as the page now states. I don't think there's a commonly accepted definition. I don't know wikipedia protocol on this but could we say something like, "For the purposes of this page, . . . "? Beauxlieux (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Another source to consider when discussing boundaries is the Clery Act, which has grappled with this very issue and seems worth mentioning.Beauxlieux (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

NCVS

The NCVS deserves mention in the lede because of its prominence in the reticle. Just removing it while leaving in other stats doesn't make sense. 69.159.16.220 (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Giving the NCVS such prominence in the article is not NPOV so I'd like to at least start with taking it out of the lede. The article cites many questions with its methodology. It is not the statistic that is commonly cited in the field. Citing all the different stats equally is NPOV. Please do not revert.Beauxlieux (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

from what I can tell, the only people criticizing the NCVS are those who come from very POV/advocacy positions. Those critiques are fringe, even if they are in the article. It's the only longitudinal study out there, run by the federal government, and has a consistent annual sample in the hundreds of thousands of respondents. The "field" as you put it is not criminal justice professionals or statisticsl survey experts. Prove your points with mainstream sources.69.159.16.220 (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

one more point.... the bureau of justice statistics bases its analysis on the NCVS. Are they violating NPOV too? How about the CSA whose own author says it's not at all a reliable survey for a national statistic.69.159.16.220 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Finally, one of the critiques of the ncvs in the article is "A recent assessment of the NCVS methodology conducted by the National Research Council pointed to four flaws in the NCSV approach: the use of a sampling methodology that was inefficient in measuring low-incidence events like rape and sexual assault". You seem to want it both ways. The NCVS is bad because it's not good for "low incidence" crimes like sexual assault. Meanwhile the "field" that you agree with says it's 1 in 5 which is anything but low incidence. So which is it?69.159.16.220 (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Trying to AGF here... There are a number of problems with looking at the NCVS for sexual violence (though it did have the benefit of relying of victim self report, unlike UCR or NIBRS). I'm going to assume that the issue is lack of understanding of the numbers and methods, and not intentional misrepresenting. The 1 in 5 statistic is a lifetime prevalence, though 80%+ of assaulted women experience their first sexual assault before age 25 and about half before age 18. NCVS asks about victimizing in the prior 6 months ([13]). So in terms of a given 6 month period, risk is low, especially for folks over 25. Similarly, men are more likely to be assaulted before puberty,, and since NCVS only samples those over 12, it misses a large chunk of male victims. Also NCVS samples households and each households remains in the sample for 3 years. Basically, NCVS is a decent way to try to understand the dark figure of crime but there will be a lot of folks who won't report sexual assaults even in self report surveys like NCVS. Trying to use NCVS numbers to portray risk or prevalence is inappropriate as it only captures events in a limited time frame. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

the article doesn't say 1 in 5 is "lifetime" in the huge sections for AAU, Koss, or CSA. Explain why you thnk a 3 year household sample is worse than a one year college sample like the AAU which is asking students only for their college experience. I looked at your link. In it it says "Each household was interviewed twice during the year." which is not just 6 months as you argue. and then there's bealieux's statement "Giving the NCVS such prominence in the article is not NPOV so I'd like to at least start with taking it out of the lede'" She'd like to further reduce it in the entire article despite it Bejng is the shortest section among the studies that are covered. If there's a good faith question, start with that agenda. 69.159.16.220 (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"The NCVS is a self-report survey in which interviewed persons are asked about the number and characteristics of victimizations experienced during the prior 6 months." It is the prior six months. I honestly don't see why national measures are being mentioned in an article about college. Should be left to articles about rape generally. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

A few points:

• The data from the NVCS represents the work done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics to identify sexual assault rates among college students. It's a national view but the BJS reported on a subset of the overall NCVS so it's pertinent to this article.
• I personally have no issue with the changes made by Beaulieux. I like that she removed a statistic from the lede that never appeared in the article as well. I don't however agree that including the NCVS as currently in the article violates NPOV. It's one of the few national surveys out there, an important barometer of crimes in the US, and it's consistent year to year. In the article, the NCVS section is also shorter than the other survey sections, so it seems .... POV .... to target that one specifically.
• I can see in the thread that there's continued confusion between incidence and prevalence. The NCVS measures crimes in a given year (incidence) whereas prevalence tried to capture the percentage of a population impacted in a given period (i.e., lifetime, or the 4-6 years of college). As an editorial point, this confusion is not always accidental in the debate. For instance, when Obama / Biden announced their initiatives in this area, they cited 1 in 5 in college, but the source referred to lifetime risk. There are also definition differences between surveys as to what constitutes sexual assault and even rape.Mattnad (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Mattnad for the support. Given that there is debate on how to measure sexual assault, I think not citing one study over another in the lede makes sense and is NPOV, and I'm glad to see it looks like there's consensus on that. I'd also argue that that logic should apply to the summary at the top as well where the Dept of Justice study is called out by name and the others are not. In addition, the summary starts editorializing on statistics "This conflicts with official college data." which seems not only completely inappropriate for the intro but not NPOV.Beauxlieux (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I recently realized we don't have one major data source in this article - University Clery Act Reports which capture reported incidents. I'll get around to finding a source that summarizes the numbers at a higher level.Mattnad (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

There is one other fundamental concern I do have about lede and how the other studies sections are presented. The BJS study uses the criminal definition of sexual assault. Most of the the other studies cover broader ranges of behaviors, some of which reflect include some incidents that don't meet the criminal definition. In the details of those broader studies they do break things out, but the high level numbers do not. The BJS also looks at incidence, whereas the other studies typically try to work out prevalence. We should probably tackle that in the lede if we are going to quote numbers as high as 29%.Mattnad (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The lede covers that methodologies and definitions vary. I'm wondering whether the table could be moved up to after the lede as it provides an overview, but maybe that's not wikipedia standard. Yes. Clery is another source of reported rapes.Beauxlieux (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this page titled correctly?

Going through this article a few times, I've noticed a heavy emphasis on rape and campus rape cases. Sexual assault entails a lot more than rape so I am wondering if this page is titled appropriately? Would it make more sense to change the title to Campus Rape or to remove the sections that detail different type of rape and collect more cases when the victim was not raped but experienced a different form of sexual assault. I know just about every one of my edits have been removed but I am making them to help better this page. If you take an outsider looking for information, this page is very misleading and being that Wikipedia is self policed it is up to us to make this page better. New ideas should not be constantly shot down because of personal opinions. I've said I am willing to work with the admins on my edits and yet all I've gotten is minimal feedback, my edits remove and a thinly veild threat of being blocked. If someone could actually be of assistance, please reply. I want to help better this page, and it needs to be better. IsolemnlyswearthatIamuptonogood (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)IsolemnlysewarthatIamuptonogood

The title was originally "Campus Rape" but that was change by another editor after some discussion. The conflation of Rape, Sexual Assault, and Sexual Misconduct is rampant in how incidence and prevalence rates are reported. Some activist oriented editors wanted the broaden the article title, but you're correct that it's primarily discussion rape, while simultaneously providing incidence rates that include sexual misconduct. Once the editor had their way with the name change, they basically stopped editing and you're witness to the transient nature of the article.

As for the other thing you mentioned regarding copyright violations, I didn't check your content, but other editors did. If you copy and paste material verbatim, that's a no-no.Mattnad (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at Talk:Campus sexual assault/Archive 1#Page move and Talk:Campus sexual assault/Archive 1#Requested move 8 June 2015. That's two different editors who proposed to move this article, before you did. What does "activist-oriented editors" have to do with the article move? That article was moved because "sexual assault" is more accurate considering that a lot of the article covers sexual assault in general, not just rape. And let's not forget that some editors have considered you to be activist-oriented on the topic of rape. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Those editors basically asked for the move, and then I had to do work to make the article conform. The editors wanted the change in part because they like bigger numbers that come with sexual assault stats. Bigger is better even if there's tons of obfuscation to what the numbers represent. That's activism, not writing or giving a hoot about clarity. So there.Mattnad (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching this article since then. I don't think SlimVirgin has, but maybe VQuakr has. The article is not too much different now than it was back then. Like I stated, it already conformed because parts of the article were already about sexual assault in general. All that changing the article title did was make the title more accurate. As for bigger numbers, you mean like you argued to broaden the title of the Rape of males article title so that it covers all sorts of male sexual victimization, including the "when women make unwanted sexual advances on men, they tend to use tactics like verbal coercion, coercive seduction, or emotional manipulation rather than force" bit? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Well canvassed there. Ping away. Not so reborn I see.Mattnad (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:Pinging editors, and especially those relevant to a discussion, is not a WP:Canvassing violation. This is another rule you need to read up on. If you don't want editors you are talking about alerted to the fact that you are talking about them, then don't talk about them. Editors have a right to defend themselves. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinged here. Mattnad, editing is voluntary, but in this case your claim that the 2015 move drove some big content change isn't any more true now than it was two years ago. "Big numbers in sex assault stats" does not appear to have been a major factor in the discussion of the requested move, which was reasonably well attended and which generated a very clear consensus as to the preferred title. OP, at a glance your edits appear to be being removed because they are copyright violations. VQuakr (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Rape Red Zone

According to a 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study, more than 50 percent of college sexual assaults occur in August, September, October, or November (“Campus Sexual Violence: Statistics RAINN”). This is what many refer to as the “Rape Red Zone.” In this Wikipedia article, I do not see any mention of the Rape Red Zone. Most students in today’s day turn to Wikipedia for information and this is a very key piece of information concerning campus sexual assault. Students should be aware of the time frame in which there is a higher chance of being sexually assaulted. Understanding the inherent risks of your new environment can dramatically reduce the potential for dangerous situations to arise. It is important to be educated, being educated can help prevent harm to yourself or those around you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsolemnlyswearthatIamuptonogood (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Rape Red Zone" is not a common term or concept. That seems like an advocacy group's name for it given the sources and language.  ::Encyclopedia's are supposed to be neutral. However, what could be mentioned (if it's not already) is that new students are more likely to be assaulted which is probably why there's a higher incidence in the fall semester. Reasons for that include binge drinking and lack of risk awareness according to a few sources.Mattnad (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It may not be a common term or concept but it is one recognized amongst college campuses, and many different professors. Just because it is not common does not mean it should not be introduced. Including a section on it would not make this article bias, it is factual. Knowing about the Rape Red Zone could assist students who are looking for tips on staying safe. Brining in that student's are more likely to be assaulted in the fall semester due to binge drinking and lack of risk awareness is not keeping it neutral. Binge drinking could possibly be a reason a student is attacked but that is not the sole reasoning. There are many factors and it would help the article if there were many examples and cases backing it.IsolemnlyswearthatIamuptonogood (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There are other sources that validate the Red Zone, if I can give you a list and make the change, will that stop you from thinking this is just something advocacy groups discuss? Also, please tell me how adding this would not keep the article neutral? It's not pushing an agenda, it is simply helping students to be aware of the time frame in which it is more likely for a sexual assault to occur.IsolemnlyswearthatIamuptonogood (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

So what we would need is something like a newspaper, magazine, or other "reliable source" saying it that you can cite. Professors mentioning it in your personal experience is not "verifiable." Another important consideration is WP:Weight even if there's mention of it in a few reliable sources. How important and central to the topic is it, and accordingly how much do we include as a matter of editorial balance. From an editorial perspective, if you have data / commentary as to why the fall semester is riskier, that's far more relevant than what seems like a sensational name. It makes sense to me to bring in that perspective per my comments above and put it where it belongs in the sections addressing prevalence. If supported by verifiable, reliable sources, we could then say something like "The increased risk is sometimes called the "Red Zone" by advocates and academics".Mattnad (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I just googled Rape Red Zone since it is a term that I have heard as well, and it yielded almost 2 million results, including a NYTimes article referring to "what is commonly known as the Red Zone, a period of vulnerability for sexual assaults, beginning when freshmen first walk onto campus until Thanksgiving break." So I would say it is a common term and adding it under risk factors would be appropriate. This is a very good point, IsolemnlyswearthatIamuptonogood Thank you for bringing it up and please do it.Beauxlieux (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I once again have edited the page to include the Rape Red Zone, I cited a university website, a media news source and to show that it is something of common knowledge, I included a tweets. If this is still not sufficient, please work with me so we can include this.IsolemnlyswearthatIamuptonogood (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)IsolemnlyswearthatIamuptonogood

The NY Times is a good reliable source. A university web page is probably not and twitter definitely not. However you created a separate section rather than consider the recommendation to incorporate it into the appropriate section. Another editor reverted your edits probably because of WP:Weight and WP:RS issues. Even if this is "common knowledge", that's not good enough without appropriate sources. See my suggestion above regarding how to bring it into the article and you can use the NY Times article as a source.Mattnad (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I am putting it back in New York Times is a credible source and it's now become a common term with that source. SonicThanatos (talk) 05:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I did a little re-working of that section and added some of the recent evidence. I think we should avoid using "red zone" in the section header, because it might confuse readers who are unfamiliar with the term. One thing worth noting: there's some broad agreement that freshmen are at a higher risk, but the evidence for the timing (spring vs. fall semester) is mixed, and there's very little empirical research on the causes of the difference, although there is some reasonably well-informed speculation that seems worth citing. Nblund ^talk 01:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Campus sexual assault. 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://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060116034450/http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/prevalert/v5/11.aspx to http://ncadi.samhsa.gov/govpubs/prevalert/v5/11.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Measures of Campus Sexual Assault

I created a spinout article for specific measures of campus sexual assault here. There may be a case for including some discussion of the more widely cited measures of CSA on this page, but I think some of the more in-the-weeds notes about single surveys should mostly go there and we should just focus on the big points on this page. Nblund ^talk 14:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Criticism Subsection and DOJ stats

Regarding this: including the criticisms alongside individual studies is misleading and redundant.

1. The methodology used in the Koss study is essentially the same methodology used in every major academic study of sexual assault published in the last 40 years. When we say things like "Sommers criticized the Koss for her measures of sexual assault", it gives the impression that Sommers' problem is limited to the Koss study. It isn't. "Behaviorally specific questions" are the consensus methodology. We can include criticisms of these methods, but we shouldn't pretend that this is a unique aspect of Koss's study. It makes more sense to include a criticism subsection here.
2. Sommers, KC Johnson, Emily Yoffe, et. al. are not experts on survey methodology, statistics, or sexual violence. They do not submit their claims to peer review. They do not conduct surveys. Including them alongside well-respected researchers is WP:FALSEBALANCE. If you can find published academic work that contains these claims, then they should be given parity, but we shouldn't give WP:UNDUE weight to non-expert opinions.
3. No one, anywhere, in any published research, is still claiming that the DOJ represents a valid estimate of campus sexual assault. It is a weird statistical outlier.

You can read the 2017 review article (ungated) here. I don't think that there's much space for debating where the scientific consensus stands here, and it's probably appropriate to start treating Sommers' et. al. as a minority viewpoint. @Mattnad: I think you've previously agreed that it makes sense to trim back some of the coverage here, so an indiscriminate reversion seems pretty unwarranted. Surely you don't think everything here is essential. Nblund ^talk 21:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC) Note I posted a note about this at WP:NPOVN

The article link you provided is not valid, but it doesn't matter. You've systematically eliminated any studies, reliable sources, and context that does not support a view that sexual assault prevalence is high. You've also removed a lot of criticism of studies that you've left in. POV is a problem here.Mattnad (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The link should work now. I won't reiterate the stuff at WP:NPOVN except to say that it's pretty clear that giving equal weight to the view that SA prevalence is far lower than 1 in 5 is not neutral. I'm open to working with you here, but just stonewalling everything is not going to work.

Regarding the other surveys: most of the specific surveys here could probably be trimmed, I'm open to suggestion regarding how we might do that. Nblund ^talk 18:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a weak argument. The methodologies are different. Just because there are studies that have broader definition of assault and include women who didn't think they were assaulted doesn't mean they are better. It means they are different. The article covers that. Adding the dubious tag goes beyond using counterpoint reliable sources in prose. The reader is entitled to know about the BJS/NCVIS finding without POV parenthetical judgements by you. You are doing good work here, but try to keep your personal views out of this.Mattnad (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The "dubious" tag reflects the fact that there is an ongoing discussion about how these results are being used. I'm not citing a personal view. I'm citing a view that has been supported by decades of research, including a National Research Council study, and a review article from a top tier field journal. Can you cite recent research that contradicts the conclusions reached by experts? Nblund ^talk 15:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I doubt this is going to be resolved by the two of us, so I think an RFC is the way to go unless you have some other proposal. Just to clarify: would it be fair to characterize your position as saying that the NCVS should be given equal weight to the findings of other campus sexual assault studies? Nblund ^talk 15:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

In terms of weight, it's given a small portion of the article and the new sub article. The article was most honest when it addressed differences in methodology - something that benefits the reader. As for weight, the section on NCVIS has more text from you criticizing it than the actual survey discussion. If there's a weight issue, its that we give too much space for surveys that use the same methodology. You want to create a POV tag for a survey that's perhaps less sensitive to all forms of assault, but doesn't suffer from other issues. If that's there for the NCVIS, then it applies to all.Mattnad (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Is that a "yes" or a "no" to my question? The article introduction presents the BJS stat alongside other estimates that are considered more accurate. That's a problem. Nblund ^talk 16:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Source I'm surprised is missed: analysis of USA colleges with most reports

When I came here earlier I was actually hoping that there was an updated version of this article [14] given that it's a 2016 analysis of 2014 data, but I think the Wikipedia coverage has actually missed it entirely. It seems like it may be relevant. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I've done my best to add the information in the page here. The one thing I can't seem to figure out how to do is make it display the columns side by side. And of course if anyone can find more recent data that would probably be preferable to 2014 data, but that's what I found that led me to looking here for something more up to date. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Article scope and short description

The short description was recently changed to Sexual assault of a student attending an institution of higher learning. If a teaching assistant, a tennis coach, a kitchen worker, or anyone else who was not a student became the victim of a sexual assault on campus, is that not within the scope of the this article? Mathglot (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most of the studies we talk about here deal with students, and includes on campus and off-campus assaults. I think that's partly a US bias because of Title IX concerns, but it seems like the non-US studies have also focused on students rather than campuses. Nblund ^talk 20:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I have wondered about this as well, however, every source I have seen so far discusses students, mostly within the context of fraternities and athletic teams and events and in all-male dorms where it is believed the risk to be higher. If new research becomes available I think (tentatively) that it would be within scope. Dartslilly (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Tables of statistics

I have some concerns about the recently added tables of assault statistics. User:6YearsTillRetirement, you recently added a couple of tables of statistics purporting to show the universities with the highest number or percentage of campus assault. But I'm concerned that including these as tables gives a skewed impression and may be misleading, primarily for what is not there, rather than what is there. I don't believe the survey the tables are based on included every university in the US (let alone other countries), did it? For one thing: there are a dozen universities in the US that have over 50,000 students. I have a hard time believing that a university with 65,000 students like Texas A&M did not have more reported rapes than, say, Brown, with its 8,000 students. So, I suspect that the study was limited in the population it examined. If that is the case, then I feel that having those tables there are too misleading, and they should be removed. I'm not opposed to mentioning the study and its results in running text, as long as its clear about what was, and wasn't, included. But the tables are too eye-catching, and to me, too misleading, to remain as they are. Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, it lacks context at the least. Removing for now. Arkon (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree. There's also a decent chance that the schools with higher rates are just the ones that are actually complying with the Clery Act's reporting requirements. I don't know of any source that has presented these as a good measure of SA across campuses. Nblund ^talk 19:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Post article source includes a sortable, searchable list of the full results and an explanation of the methods. Are you ok with the section without the tables themselves? @Arkon: it seems sort of excessive for you to remove the entire thing rather than just the tables, which were what I perceive @Mathglot: objecting to. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

6YearsTillRetirement, I see that you are still a new editor; welcome! (I left you a welcome message on your Talk page with some useful links in it.) In response to removing your content, it may or may not be excessive, but look again: Arkon merely said, "removing for now", which I read as a reflection of Wikipedia's BRD guideline. That is, you made a bold edit, some objections were raised, so your edit was reverted, and now we are discussing it. You were the 'B', Arkon was the 'R', and we are all collectively the 'D'. This is okay, and how it's supposed to work. It doesn't mean that the article will never, ever, end up with anything like you want; it just means that we editors, including anybody else who is interested, should now talk it out, just as we are doing, in an attempt to reach some consensus on the wording through discussion.

I had also considered Nblund's objection regarding differing compliance rates, as well, but didn't know what to say about it. It wouldn't surprise me, if the northeastern and coastal universities were in the vanguard nationwide in being up-front and self-critical about the extent of the problem on their own campuses, but that's only a supposition on my part, and wouldn't be a good reason to exclude that information. But it is a concern. A bigger concern, is, if we do include something about this, that it be very carefully worded so as not to give the impression that these universities are higher in assaults, than the other 5,200 American universities that were not included in the survey. For example: isn't it possible, that the universities listed in the table, are among the lowest rate of campus assault of all American universities? Do you see my problem?

You can discuss here any which way you like, but one thing I find useful, is when an editor provides a concrete example of what they would like to see. I.e., go ahead and propose some specific wording that you'd like to see in the article, that you think might meet the objections you've seen so far, and add it below. Please see MOS:BLOCKQUOTE for some suggestions on how to style your proposed wording, so it stands out, and isn't mixed up with your argumentation. If you proposed wording is very brief, you can use {{xt}} instead; that causes a different font with green letters in-line, you can see an example of it above, where I quoted Arkon. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and WaPo appears to be fee-based, or for some reason they block me, so I can't see it. Can you name the exact source the WaPo uses for that study, and I will look it up elsewhere? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Struck comments by indef-blocked sock. Mathglot (talk) 08:51, September 21, 2019‎   (Comment added retrospectively at 04:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC).

RFC on weighting sexual assault research

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RfC asks in what ways NCVS data and in what ways non-academic critics of survey data should be included. While some issues of what makes for a reliable source were discussed by participants, the bulk of the discussion concerns what amount coverage, if any, is due to NCVS and non-academic critics.

In the case of non-academic critics, even after reading multiple times the discussion I can find no consensus with some of this being because of how the question was phrased. In this context if a consensus finds that they have a minority opinion this would merit some amount of coverage while fringe would merit no coverage. While a clear consensus of editors who weighed in landed in one of these two camps (some editors only gave thoughts about Q1) it is impossible to tell from the conversation here whether there was a consensus for minority or for fringe, owing to participants who listed both, and thus what coverage, if any, these critics are due.

For question 1, editors arguing for equal (or in one case more) weight to NCVS suggested that equal weight is due owing to its long track record and other factors suggesting sound methodological design in ways that other survey data may not be. Those arguing for less weight suggest that its results are an outlier and point to reasons to suggest why this might be. Those suggesting equal weight did not address these concerns while those suggesting less weight did attempt to respond to concerns with the other survey data. As such, in weighing these positions against policy there is a consensus that NCVS data should be given less weight in this article. Less weight does not mean no coverage and there is consensus that NCVS data merits some weight as a minority view, but less than academic sources as a whole - editors are advised to consult WP:DUE about how to strike this balance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

---

This RFC concerns a dispute over how to frame the research on campus sexual assault.

1. Academic surveys of sexual assault generally report a far higher rate of sexual assault than the rate reported by the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Should the article give more weight to the NCVS, equal weight to the NCVS, or less weight to the NCVS, relative to the higher estimate found in academic sources as a whole.
2. A number of non-academic critics (such as Christina Hoff Sommers, or Stuart Taylor Jr.) have argued the research on campus sexual assault is methodologically flawed. Should the views of these non-academic critics be given equal weight to the academic views, or should non-academic criticisms be treated as a minority or fringe viewpoint? Nblund ^talk 16:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Less weight / Minority or Fringe: the NCVS statistic is an extreme outlier and it is generally agreed that it significantly undercounts sexual assault (see comment below). Surveys that use better methods generally find much higher rates of SA. The NCVS (inappropriately) cited by non-academic commentators as a survey that "debunks" the mainstream findings on sexual assault, but it is WP:UNDUE to afford them equal weight here. Nblund ^talk 16:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Less weight to NCVS and Minority/fringe - To clarify, I think the NCVS should generally have equal weight as each academic source, but less weight when compared to the general consensus of academic sources (rather than equal weight between one government source and all academic sources). If that is what is meant by "less weight" in the context of this discussion, then I can change my wording. For non-academic sources, especially political commentary and opinion sources, they should be treated as fringe views if they are not supported by other sources. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Equal Weight: The NCVS is not a fringe view. It uses differing methodology and relies on criminal definitions rather the broader behavioral questions of the academic works alluded to by Nblund. See my comment below. The wikipdia article would suffer if only like minded and designed studies were there. As for critiques, Nblund hasn't established that these are not experts, and they are far from overweight. There's far far more weight given to the studies that Nblund prefers. Even the section describing the NCVS finding has more criticism (written by Nblund) than explaining what it is.Mattnad (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Less weight The NCVS should certainly be mentioned, but criticism of its methods should also be included. The review published in the National Academies Press [15] is a very high quality source, and it lays out in detail the failings of the NCVS. As for Sommers and Taylor, unless they get their views published in peer-reviewed journals, then they're nothing more than popular critics. There's a ton of research on this subject, and there's no reason for the article to give much weight to anything other than high quality social science literature. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Less weight and fringe. While the US Government is certainly usable as a source, caveats exist; by definition its position has to be seen as political in nature, especially in situations, like this, where it contradicts the vast majority of independent scientific studies. Its viewpoint here can only be viewed as a minority position - it would be absurd to weigh its position equally to all of academia. The other critics mentioned are essentially political pundits whose job is argue on behalf of a particular set of ideological goals. The weight of such "hired guns" is almost zero on their own (effectively they establish nothing but that some people dislike the implications of the academic consensus); without backing by mainstream science they can only be viewed as WP:FRINGE. --Aquillion (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  There are important caveats to your answer: -1) not a single "scientific study" is quoted in this article, but mostly studies based on surveys (none of which can claim "scientific finding" status) some are even observational studies -a methodology so unrigorous that major organizations like the FDA & CDC usually treat with the utmost skepticism (i.e.: won't allow it in clinical trial studies); -2) the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics (aka the authors of the National Crime Victimization Survey) are not "political" in nature, their data is longitudinal (longitudinal data is typically a much better alternative to individual surveys, especially when the surveys are anonymous) and it covers decades (i.e. the Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama administrations) --ColumbiaXY (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@ColumbiaXY: surveys can be used to conduct scientific studies, including hypothesis testing. "Scientific findings" are based on methodology and study design, not just experimental design. Qualitative methods are completely appropriate for social science research (but not medicine efficacy, which the FDA and CDC are concerned with). The NCVS is a great source of data on dark figures of crime, especially when used in comparison with NIBRS/UCR. But, because of its sampling methods and design (quasi-panel, quasi-trend design) for it is inappropriate for certain populations and crime types. College students should be one such population. I disagree with Aquillion that we should consider it political. Politics plays a bit of a role, but not an overt one. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I (like many Statisticians who have criticized its uses) am skeptical about the efficacy of "qualitative" methods and the assumption that using hypothesis testing -especially in "social sciences" - leads to scientific findings (most often it doesn't or it's not clear it does). Cheers! --ColumbiaXY (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Just clicked on your user page... appears you have an ax to grind here. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice deflection, but OK! That being said, let's not leave other readers with the wrong impressions about: -1) surveys and scientific studies: even though surveys are all too common and "can be used to conduct scientific studies" they only lead to actual scientific findings in extremely rare cases. -2) hypothesis testing (which, in the "social sciences", has a disastrous track) -3) "Qualitative methods" (which, although used in "social sciences", don't count as valid scientific method and have not lead to scientific findings). Cheers! --ColumbiaXY (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Less weight and fringe per the above arguments to that effect. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Less weight per above reasons, particularly the criticisms of the methodology used. To the point from [User:Wallyfromdilbert|– Wallyfromdilbert]], I interpret this to mean less weight than the combined consensus rather than individual academic sources, which is why I'm comfortable calling for less weight. GeauxDevils (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is my understanding. I had changed by vote from "equal weight" (between each academic source and the NCVS) to "less weight" (between NCVS and the general academic consensus), based on the discussion with Nblund about the RFC language and the additions made to the RFC questions. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying, that is helpful. Then I feel strongly that less weight is the appropriate response. GeauxDevils (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• Less weight / Minority or Fringe - NCVS significantly undercounts per criticism already discussed. It should however, still be mentioned and briefly discussed in the article. The opinions of political pundits like Christina Hoff Sommers should be viewed as minority opinions (if they are even included at all). Kaldari (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
• equal weight - no survey is perfect. But I find it worth mentioning that the world health organization doesn’t give any weight or mention to surveys that have high prevalence rates used by these academic sources [16]. Their rates are much lower for the US which seems to encompass the bulk of these studies argued as the best and only way to measure sexual violence. 66.244.247.194 (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@IP user: that's not true. On page 151 they cite the higher estimate (14.8% for completed rape) by Tjaden & Thoennes (2000). This review appears to have been published in 2002, so it predates most of the research we're discussing here, and it doesn't focus on college populations. More recent work by the WHO, such as this 2014 report on sexual violence, notes that the use of behaviorally specific questions (the key distinguishing feature of the academic studies of sexual assault) is the "Gold standard" in research on the prevalence of violence (pg. 9), so this is clearly not an endorsement of the NCVS methodology. Nblund ^talk 16:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

• Hoff Sommers, etc. are a minority but should not be excluded. Per WP:FRINGE/PS, their use of NCVS clearly puts them into "alternative theoretical formulation", not into pseudoscience. The NCVS should not be treated as "more" or "less" correct than the academic formulations. Rather, it is measuring something different, by different methodology, and should be treated as such. Treating the NCVS as "wrong" would be WP:RECENTISM. A helpful analogy may be to consider a location in Southern China and another in Northern India, directly across the Himalayas. One shouldn't debate whether they are 200 miles apart or 2000. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Equal Weight -1) the NCVS study has a more statistically robust methodology -e.g.: it is a longitudinal study covering 2 decades as opposed to one-time surveys. -2) it has a large sample (145,000 respondents per year, averaged over 18 years; by comparison, the National College Women Sexual Violence Study (1997) has only 4446 respondents and the Campus Sexual Assault Study (2007) has only 5466 respondents - making them more likely to be spurious ) -3) it has a very high response rate relative to its sample size (74%) - etc. It seems strange the NCVS study is being singled out by this rfc, when most other surveys quoted in this article are of much weaker Statistical value. --ColumbiaXY (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
• Less weight / Minority viewpoint - Long post warning - This is complicated issue that requires a good knowledge of the topic and how we measure it. I am happy to answer questions about it as someone who claims some expertise in this topic (or at least has a PhD related to it).

The main issue is that NCVS is not the best data source for this topic. Nor is the UCR/NIBRS due to the significant under-reporting of sexual violence in general. The NCVS is a researcher-administered questionnaire asking participants about their experiences with victimization in the past 6 months ([17]). Participants are typically followed up 7 times (3 years, 7 data points). The sampling frame is housing units, not individuals. The first data collection is typically done in person by a field researcher, and the follow up ones are done over the phone. (Also see ICPSR). Given this design, it should be easy to see some of the pitfalls vis-a-vis sexual violence. The NCVS itself acknowledges this (see p. 15) by saying

The measurement of rape and sexual assault presents many challenges. Victims may not be willing to reveal or share their experiences with an interviewer. The level and type of sexual violence reported by victims is sensitive to a variety of factors related to the interview process, including how items are worded, what definitions are used, and the data collection mode. In addition, the legal definitions of rape and sexual assault vary across jurisdictions.

It goes on to specifically address college-aged women by saying (my emphasis)

Over the past several decades, a number of other surveys have also been used to study rape and sexual assault. However, challenges exist in the collection of self-report data on rape and sexual assault from the general population. BJS estimates of rape and sexual assault from the NCVS have typically been lower than estimates derived from other federal and private surveys. Some of the differences in these estimates result from varying definitions of rape and sexual assault. The NCVS definition is shaped from a criminal justice perspective and includes threatened, attempted, and completed rape and sexual assault against males and females. In addition to differences in defining rape and sexual assault victimization, the methodology used to elicit reports of these events can differ dramatically and produce very different estimates of the incidence of these crimes. For further information, see Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995–2013 (NCJ 248471, BJS web, December 2014).

See page 3 of the Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995–2013 for a discussion of methodological differences between the NCVS, NISVS, and CSA. The RSAVACAF (previous link, p.2 ) found that

Based on 2011 NISVS data, 2% of all females experienced unwanted sexual contact during the prior 12 months.1 The 2007 CSA findings suggested that 14% of females ages 18 to 25 who were enrolled in two colleges and surveyed in the United States had experienced a completed sexual assault since entering college.2 In comparison, in 2010 the NCVS showed that 1% of females age 12 or older experienced one or more rape or sexual assaults in the prior year.3 For the period 2007–13, the NCVS victimization rate was 4.7 per 1,000 for females ages 18 to 24 who were enrolled in post-secondary schools (not shown).

However, the more rigorous Campus Climate Survey Validation Study (CCSVS), 2015 done by the BJS found (p. ES-6) that

The CCSVS achieved its goal of obtaining prevalence estimates of sexual assaults experienced by females with the desired level of precision at eight of nine schools using a representative sample of students. The prevalence rate for completed sexual assault experienced by undergraduate females during the 2014–2015 academic year, averaged across the nine schools, was 10.3%, and ranged from 4.2% at School 2 to 20.0% at School 1 (Figure ES-2). The average prevalence rate for completed sexual battery during the 2014–2015 academic year was 5.6%, and ranged from 1.7% at School 2 to 13.2% at School 1. The average prevalence rate for completed rape during the 2014–2015 academic year was 4.1%, and ranged from 2.2% at School 9 to 7.9% at School 5.

The CCSVS concludes that (p. 188)

Specifically, by analyzing data collected from NCVS respondents who are similar demographically to the CCSVS Pilot Test respondents (e.g., college students who are mostly 18 to 24 years of age), differences between sexual victimization rates can be attributed, at least in part, to the different approaches used to measuring rape and sexual assault.

TL;DR - The BJS basically says you shouldn't give more weight to the NCVS because the NCVS has problems measuring sexual assault on campuses and they have data to show it. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• Less weight/fringe for reasons several other editors have already gone into. Loki (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• Less weight on question 1, certainly. We should give more weight to mainstream academic surveys; if NCVS is an outlier from that, then we should mention that while summarising why academics think it is an outlier. On question 2, minority. I don't know enough about these authors to say whether they are altogether far-out fringe, but their views should not be given the same weight as academic work on the subject which has been subjected to peer review. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
• More weight, not fringe - The NCVS seems DUE the most weight -- about half of all hits involve NCVS, and although there are other surveys, none of them seem to have nearly the same prominence. Criticisms of the other methods seems not at all unusual nor limited to Christina Hoff Sommers. I see no reason to mention her specifically and criticisms should not be declared fringe, but logically criticisms of the surveys should be less weight than the general topic of the surveys. Similarly, I see mentions that NCVS is flawed, e.g. here and here, but I also see mentions of the campus surveys being overstated, e.g. here and here Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Less weight in line with foregoing reasons JonRichfield (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
• Equal Weight (1) and Minority (2) for aforementioned reasons. Gwenhope (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Equal Weight. There is no scientific consensus on the numbers. A set of poll/survey based studies agreeing with each other while not confirming the findings of other studies (because they follow different methodologies) are not a "scientific consensus"; if they were we could say the polls/surveys/studies which were showing Clinton as extremely likely to win the US 2016 presidential elections were a "scientific consensus" (they were not, they were just a majority view and they turned out wrong), and we could say the same about the polls/surveys/studies giving the "remain" camp during Brexit referendum the edge (those were also a "view" of a majority of pollsters/surveyors/analysts which turned out to be wrong) and many other consensuses which turned flat out wrong or were later contradicted. A survey consensus is not the same with a scientific consensus!. A consensus among studies following the same or similar methodologies is not the same with a scientific consensus either. The studies contradicting the NCVS findings, usually have very serious shortcomings, like small samples sizes (making the samples more likely to be biased) and very low response rates (which can lead to biased estimators). All the studies linked in this article have serious limitations too, which are acknowledged in the studies themselves but are not really discussed in the Wikipedia article even though they should be. We've also had discussions on what is and what is not considered reliable source on many other articles on Wikipedia (e.g.: from the talks on which comments to include with the "On the Science" section for the Wikipedia article on Google's Damore manifesto, to definitions of terrorism, concentration camps and many other subjects). In nearly all cases, in addition to opinions from academic experts, we have included information quoted in articles from reliable sources even when the journalists writing about them did not have formal training on the subject matter and when they were at odds with the opinions expressed by academics. In that light I don't see a problem with including references to Sommers' critique or even the Slate article. Mcrt007 (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Less Weight there is plenty of analysis on the fact that it is an outlier and plenty of scholarly analysis on why problems with the methodology make it undercount. I wouldn't throw it out entirely but those problems should be included when discussing it, sourced of course. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Hmm, the above user seems to have stalked me here after a debate on a different Wikipedia talk page. He has been making edits on other talk pages at "14:43, 18 September 2019‎", "14:44, 18 September 2019‎" and at "15:08, 18 September 2019‎" here. Doubtfull he even read the materials being discussed or much of the discussion. Also he seems to have no previous involvement with this page and this Rfc is not exactly new and at the top of any page currently hosting Rfc lists.Mcrt007 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

As explained here[18], you're wrong. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Note: !vote should not count per WP:SOCK. Buffs (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

• Equal Weight (1) and Minority (2) per the numerous reasons listed by others above. Buffs (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Additional Commentary

Question 1, as currently worded, is ambiguous: "Or should it give less weight to those findings." Which findings would get lesser weight? There are three possible options: social science findings more than NCVS; equal weight; NCVS more than social science findings. Could we please have a clearer RFC before it starts?--Carwil (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Carwil: good point, I've tried to clarify above. Does that help? Nblund ^talk 17:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: Does "relative to academic sources" mean in relation to each academic source or to the academic sources as a whole? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"Relative to academic sources as a whole". The academic literature generally finds a rate around 20%, the NCVS is really the only outlier. I think the intro to False accusation of rape article is a useful guide. We only report the range found in high quality sources in the lead, even though there are some questionable studies that report something else. Nblund ^talk 19:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Could "as a whole" be added to the end of second question? I think that would help clarify the question. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the revision!--Carwil (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Without getting too in the weeds: the NCVS stat is an extreme (low) outlier, it is frequently cited by non-experts like Christina Hoff Sommers as evidence that the concerns about campus sexual assault are "overblown", but experts generally believe it is just a significant underestimate. The National Research Council concluded in 2014 that it is likely that the NCVS is undercounting rape and sexual assault. A 2007 quasi-experiment found that the NCVS approach led to estimates that were 10.4 times smaller for completed rape, 6.1 times smaller for attempted rape, and 4.4 times smaller for threatened rape when compared to the approach generally used by academic surveys of SA. Secondary sources, most recently this this 2017 review, do not rely on the NCVS estimate because of these flaws. The authors of that review conclude that the far more common finding of "1 in 5" is a reasonably accurate average across women and campuses. Giving the NCVS stat equal weight is adopting a crackpot talking-point in Wikipedia's voice. Nblund ^talk 17:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Being an academic source is good, but if it's roundly criticized as inaccurate by other academics, it becomes a WP:FRINGE source and should be treated as such. ApLundell (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: this RFC starts from a position of bias. The NCVS is not an outlier, or fringe view. It's the largest and longest running victimization survey in the US, managed by the federal government and covers a wide range of topics. Nblund has just stated it's extreme without foundation or explanation. The NVCS methodology uses a random sample, conducts the interview on the phone or in person (thereby permitting clarifying questions) and most importantly uses criminal definitions of sexual assault. The other surveys use a different approach. They are not random (self-selection bias), Tend to have low response rates, are done online or with paper. Most importantly, have much broader definitions which capture more behaviors that are not criminal (like having sex while intoxicated). Below is rext recently removed by nblund from the article that covered the impact of broadening the definition:

"A survey conducted by Rutgers University found that 12% of men and women had experienced some form of sexual assault, while at the University of Michigan, 22% of female students said they had been assaulted in the last year. Rutgers researcher Sarah McMahon explained why they used a broader definition: "We think the one-in-five statistic is important. We know sexual violence means different things to different individuals, so we used a broad definition." McMahon noted that the phrase “unwanted sexual contact” made it “nearly impossible” for researchers to distinguish among types of sexual violence that differ in severity."

Regarding some of the critiques coming from Hoff Summers et al, once again we have Nblund arguing that they're not experts in these areas. He has not offered any evidence of this, except that they are not academics dedicated to this topic. As it happens, they are academics who happen to have dissenting views. Even so, when used, they have supported other facts, and have been identified as the source.Mattnad (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Mattnad, you may want to review the comments left by Nblund, as they have provided several explanations of their position to you, including on this talk page and on the BLPN. If you disagree, you should provide your own reasoning in your responses. Repeating the NCVS methodology has not helped me understand your argument for giving it more weight than other surveys. Also, I do not think it helps your argument to present selectively chosen quotes, such as the McMahon quote above, which read in full: "We think the one-in-five statistic is important. We know sexual violence means different things to different individuals, so we used a broad definition. We know all forms of sexual violence are problematic and have serious repercussions." – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert I think the full quote explains why we need both kinds of surveys. The NCVS results inform the reader of the prevalence of criminal sexual assault. The other surveys use broader definitions the include many non-criminal events. That academia prefers a broader definition doesn't negate the criminal statistics. But the quote is important in that it shows how survey design and implementation can get you to a result you want - in this cases they "think the one-in-five statistic is important" so they built a survey to get that result - nearly double the rates of another school. So they increase sensitivity but lose precision. It's worthwhile to read page 2 of the BJS study (based on NCVS dats) that explains the differences between it's analysis and other studies.Mattnad (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This is false. Campus sexual assault surveys ask about non-criminal sexual misconduct in addition to asking about sexual assault and rape, but they don't conflate these two things. The 1 in 5 stat is based on forced or incapacitated sexual assault/rape only. Stuart Taylor Jr makes this same mistake, which I assume is where you got that idea, but he's being dishonest. Nblund ^talk

Mattnad, the broader definition was used because "all forms of sexual violence are problematic and have serious repercussions". Please stop purposely trying to distort that quote. You have given no evidence to support your implication that academic studies are conspiring to purposely inflate a statistic, while numerous studies explain why the broader definition is the most appropriate methodology. Also, no one has argued to exclude the NCVS, but you are trying to give that one study more weight than other individual studies, and you have given no reason to ignore the Wikipedia policy on due weight: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. How are the results of the NCVS not a minority view? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not giving the NCVS more weight than other studies. It's one of many discussed in the article. Here's the issue. Campus sexual assault has different definitions. If you want a clear read on the prevalence of criminal sexual assault, the NCVS is best. If you want a broader measure of all possible sexual misconduct, the behavior oriented methodologies are better. But it's at the expense of clarity on criminal conduct which is why are they considered "health studies" by the Bureau of justice statistics. And so the majority of women these 1 in 5 studies say were victims of forceable rape didn't think what happened to them was serious enough to report (the NCVS doesn't have that paradox). Schools and academics are focusing on the broadest measures which is fine so long as it's understood what they are measuring. But to argue that the NCVS is somehow a fringe or outlier measure because it gives a clear read on the criminal component is disingenuous. It's an important subset measure that's reliable in ways that other studies are not. Nblund also wants to remove critics like Taylor and Yoffe who point out these differences so that this article will offer only the largest possible definition without counterpoint.Mattnad (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I do not know why you are using "scare quotes" or describing a well-understood situation as a paradox. The content in the diff you provided should have definitely been removed. As others have stated, numerous academic studies are available on this topic, and those high quality sources should be given the appropriate weight. NCVS should be given the weight due to a minority viewpoint, and political commentary and similar sources should be treated as fringe and generally excluded. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I should have put my wall-of-text down here. Well, look, the BJS acknowledges that the NCVS has issues. It did a giant study on it. Why don't we just listen to them about their own data. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• ColumbiaXY: you are aware that the NCVS is also a survey, correct? Large samples can reduce random sampling error, but the argument is that the NCVS methodology leads to a biased estimate - and that issue isn't addressed by a larger N. The CDC, for what it's worth, also uses survey methods to gauge sexual violence, and it also finds a far higher rate of sexual violence. If you have some sort of rigorous alternative method for measuring this stuff without surveys, you should publish it and then we can cite it here. In the mean time: you've cited nothing except an idiosyncratic definition of science, and a personal conjecture about longitudinal studies, neither of which carries much weight. Reliable sources use surveys to measure sexual violence, and reliable sources indicate that the NCVS methodology leads to biased measures of sexual assault. Nblund ^talk 23:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear from any of the "less weight for the NCVS" folks how they would address WP:RECENTISM concerns. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Adoring nanny: How does recentism apply here? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The NCVS was accepted for a long time. Recently, it's much less so. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM has nothing to do with evolving standards of scientific inquiry. In addition, your characterization of the NCVS study is not accurate as there is not a long history of studies looking into the methodology of the NCVS survey regarding sexual assault statistics and determining it was the most appropriate way to measure sexual violence. If there were, then there would be no issue about "less weight" because all those other studies would support the NCVS statistics. The basis of this RFC is the fact that the NCVS is an outlier compared to almost all other research on this topic. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: how does your "more weight" !vote jive with the NCVS's own cautions about its data's limitations and their own findings that provide qualified support for the other surveys? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is whatever WP:Weight is .... The conclusions of NCVS would get the most prominence in proportion to that having such large coverage. Internal caveats, like external criticisms, logically should be less than that. Roughly speaking, perhapsmany paragraphs of NCVS then 1 para on caveats and criticisms about. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

The NCVS has lots of coverage in general, but not when looking at the topic of the article. WEIGHT applies to coverage of the topic, not coverage using the source. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused by this as well. Markbassett, when you "about half of all hits involve NCVS" are you talking about google search results or something? The WP:BESTSOURCES here would be studies and peer-reviewed articles from experts on public health, criminology etc. Those source do not rely on the NCVS. Nblund ^talk 18:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mcrt007: no one claims that there is a scientific consensus on the precise number, but there is a clear majority viewpoint on the good data sources and the plausible range of estimates. More importantly: there is a clear scientific consensus that some survey methods are bad, even if there is no consensus on the best method. All statisticians would probably agree that the method used in by Literary Digest in 1936 was a bad approach to predicting the presidential race. There might be differences of opinion on the best alternative, but there are some methodologies that are clearly inferior. We do sometimes cite journalists in scientific articles, but we generally do not give equal weight to polemicists when their views conflict with the views of experts. Nblund ^talk 14:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Note I've requested closure at ANI, and I still haven't gotten a response. I do want to make a note here that I've tried hard not to bludgeon the issue, but the lack of discussion from people voting !equal weight is a bit frustrating. Few of these voters have answered questions posed here, nor have they provided reliably sourced support for the claim that the NCVS is equally credible, or offered a policy based reason for treating pundits as "experts". I do think the quality of the argument should be assessed here, in addition to the counts. Nblund ^talk 15:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bshofar, Junepeacock, Nikwolf344, ZachRaizon.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yumeng Shao.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 20 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carmstrong11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2021 and 2 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Heyitsjami. Peer reviewers: Legaleagle2022, SLW012, If you ain't runnin' game, Say my name.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2022 and 13 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rrdurham5 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Rrdurham5 (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)