Talk:Rape/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

minor discrepancy?

Nothing to start a war over (I hope) but just curious about this reported statistic under 6.1-

"There were 194,270 white and 17,920 black victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2006. Out of the 194,270 cases involving white victims, 50.6% had white offenders and 16.7% had black offenders, while the 36,620 black victims had a figure of 43% black offenders, the remaining being of other or unreported race, with a negligible number of white offenders."

Just wondering if the 36,620 was possibly including victims of 'other' or 'unreported' race, since the original number of black victims is previously stated as 17,920. Must have been looking in the wrong location of the cited pdf document, could not find the information there. 66.108.56.90 (talk) 03:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We had a discussion about that bit previously, it in the archives somewhere now. I just checked the source and it says under the state chart listing the quoted figures "estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases". There is no way possible that could be considered accurate. Also, why mention the race of criminals or victims at all in just one nation? I'm removing that. Dream Focus 17:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all of it should have been removed. But the same information is currently in the Rape in the United States article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Added in the relevant part. [1] Dream Focus 18:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. And it's good that you took care of the related article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Celdaz, 18 April 2011

I would like to add this fact to the stats of false rape accusations. There is concrete evidence that suggests false rape reports are in the double digit percentages (at least 10%), since "commencing in 1989 in cases of rape and rape-murder where there has already been either an arrest or an indictment, the FBI has conducted large numbers of DNA tests “to confirm or exclude the person. In 25 percent of the cases where they can get a result, they excluded the primary suspect."

http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf

Celdaz (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please state exactly what you would like changed. – AJL^talk 06:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that a false conviction is not equivalent to a false report. Danger (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

i Would like to enquire why this article has semi protection status Hipeople1231 (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a highly vandalized article without it. Flyer22 (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• I dont think it would be Hipeople1231 (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It would be. This has been proved time and time again, which is why it is on permanent lockdown. This is one of those articles that has to deal with constant IP vandalism if unlocked. Flyer22 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I also see and understand the reason you want it unlocked. But, in my opinion, new users wanting to edit is not a good enough reason. It won't be long before you can edit. Just make sure you are somewhat familiarized with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies before you do, such as WP:Sourcing. Flyer22 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• itwouldn't be Hipeople1231 (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, you can keep on playing the "it wouldn't be" game, though I don't see how you are qualified to make such a statement when you haven't been here for years to see how it has been a major problem every time this article has been unlocked. I have stated just about all I have to state on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• They only did it after repeat problems, proving it was necessary. Dream Focus 21:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Exactly, Dream Focus. Thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Evidence? Hipeople1231 (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So now we're lying? The evidence is that this article is on permanent lockdown! As seen in that link above, Sonia already explained to you why articles are usually semi-locked -- ongoing vandalism. At the moment, I can't think of any other reason that they would be semi-locked. Can you? Of course...you could also spend mindless hours looking through the edit history, trying to find all the times this article was unlocked and how often it was vandalized when it was. But it was recently locked on January 27, 2011 at 05:30 by SlimVirgin because problems continue per RfPP (which can be seen at the top of this article when you click Edit).

Now, I just feel you're either WP:Trolling or are trying to get enough edits so that you can finally edit this article (though you already have enough edits). Your insistence that you are right and we are wrong doesn't make any sense otherwise. Flyer22 (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

• all right all right all right im not intending to roll, troll toilet roll or kitchen roll OK? Hipeople1231 (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2011 (GMT)
  • Laughing out loud! "roll, troll toilet roll or kitchen roll"... Thanks for the laugh. I needed that. And I hear you. I understand that you are new, and are just curious about some things. Sorry that I jumped the gun on you there. Flyer22 (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• As long as we understand each other! (my parents troll on the shopping list as an abbreviation of toilet roll hence the joke!) Hipeople1231 (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Causes and motivation section

At present this section only contains this:

Further information: Causes of sexual violence

Main article: Motivation for rape

There is no single theory that conclusively explains the motivation for rape; the motives of rapists can be multi-factorial and are subject to debate. Several factors have been proposed: anger, a desire for power, sadism, sexual gratification, and evolutionary pressures.

Shouldn't more information from "Causes of sexual violence" and "Motivation for rape" be placed in this section? Hipeople1231 (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There was more, but it was taken to the main articles instead. Some people were trying to keep the size of this article down. There is a lot for it to cover, which is why sub-articles are needed/and help. I'm open to more being added to the Causes and motivation section, but we don't need a lot added there...since there are two articles dealing with this material already and we point the readers there. Flyer22 (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

merge Rape of college women to here

It seems to me that Rape of college women covers a lot of the same material that could more effectively be covered in Rape. I don't think we need separate articles on Rape of graduate school women or Rape of high school women, etc. (and we don't have them).

Rape of college women has the distinct feel of a school assignment as well. Toddst1 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Rape of college women is a more distinctive category and should stand on its own, so of the materials my slightly overlap, but they can have a link to connect it to the rape page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clmclm1234chma (talk • contribs) 00:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

How is Rape of college women a distinctive category? Toddst1 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Against merge. The article is new, let it have some time to develop. Anything overlapping can be eliminated. Focusing on how colleges respond to this, notable lawsuits, laws, protests, things that led to changes in policy, etc. can be a good article. The article should list what country the statistics are from. This seems to be dealing with Rape in American colleges, which I think it should be renamed to. Or did you want to include notable cases such as the "Super Free" rape club in Japan [2] and other such things? Different sections for different nations would work well. Dream Focus 00:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say that anything that overlaps should be eliminated. Overlapping is normal and perfectly acceptable when dealing with spin-off articles, as long as the spin-off article is not a complete repeat of what is already in the main article. The subject can be, and should be, touched on here a bit, while pointing readers to the larger article on it for more in-depth information. That's what we do with spin-offs. Or we just add it as a See also link. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Against Per above. After the article has matured on its own and there are no longer substantial edits taking place then we can discuss merging the article if it cant stand on its own. For now however, implementing ideas such as those proposed by Dream Focus seems to be a better course of action. -Nem1yan (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Dream Focus and Nem1yan above. Give the article time to develop, and after it is substantially finished, it will be appropriate to evaluate whether it should stand alone or be merged. Also, even if it is a school assignment, there is nothing wrong with that; in fact, we've gotten good and featured articles from school projects. (See WP:MMM for a specific set of examples and WP:SUP for the general scenario.) LadyofShalott 02:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • By "school assignment," I believe Toddst1 means that the text even gives off that vibe. Wikipedia articles certainly should not seem like an essay or school assignment-ish. As for my thoughts on this matter, I replied above to Dream Focus, though I agree to give that article some time to develop. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Merge - really just a coatrack to present some statistics that aren't even consistently about rape at college. There's easily enough for it's own section in the main article, but not for a standalone article. Kuguar03 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, campus rape is a distinct phenomenon as attested by more than enough reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If its rape its rape it should be merged here Hipeople1231 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2011 (BST)

There are dozens of rape articles. They don't all fit in one place. See category:rape for a list of all of them. Dream Focus 21:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• In that case then every rape article should have a section on the rape page (explaining why that form of sex is illegal)) and a link to its own page!!!! Hipeople1231 (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a See also section already for that. No need having a section for it, since then it'd be insanely long. If we needed a summary then perhaps a list of rape articles would be appropriate. Dream Focus 10:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Its all only rape if the statistics and effects sections where moved to there own page with see also lnks to the main page then this would shorten the article allowing my earlier proposal to be adopted Hipeople1231 (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Those sections should have some detail in them before pointing readers to the main articles. Flyer22 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Anti-rape device

Dream Focus removed this link (Anti-rape device) for the reasons shown in that edit summary. But how does it have nothing to do with rape? And if it doesn't exist, would there be an article for it? It's not as though it's a theory or straight-up fiction. It appears to be popular in South Africa, and the BBC News has reported on it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you look at category:rape you'll find not every single rape related thing is in the see also section. And have you read the article for the Anti-rape device or the talk page for it? As I said in my edit summary "nothing to do with rape. Just a product that doesn't exist, and perhaps was always a hoax, plus no legal way to use it)". It sounded interesting so got news coverage, but years go by and no one is actually manufacturing them. Dream Focus 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dream Focus, there is no need for the attitude (which, yes, it does feel as though you are giving me one). I am not some newbie on Wikipedia, twiddling my thumbs. Of course I know that not everything associated with a topic is going to be in the See also section. But my point? My point was that "Anti-rape device" has to do with rape. I wondered why you stated that it didn't. I also wondered why you stated that it doesn't exist, when it clearly does (whether legally being manufactured or not). It even includes chastity belts, which most certainly existed. Of course I looked at the Anti-rape device article before starting this section. I didn't have to read the entire article to see that the device indeed has to do with rape. The title is sufficient enough to see that. It is a device to prevent women from being raped. Thus, it has to do with rape. The South African ones may not be legal and may not be legally sold (though I am sure that similar devices are still being used there), but that was not my point. I did not state that the link should remain. I questioned your reasons for removing it. And the statement "It sounded interesting so got news coverage, but years go by and no one is actually manufacturing them" is more convincing of a reason for removing the link than your previous statement. If I were arguing for inclusion of the link, however, I would counter with the fact that it still existed and likely still exists. Devices of the past are not validly excluded from articles because they are outdated/stopped selling/never took off. But whatever. I don't care much that you removed that link. I had simple questions, that's all. Flyer22 (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Chasity belt is one sentence. Most of the article is for two products that don't exist. Those coming here to learn about rape, won't want to bother reading about imaginary products. If anyone ever starts to use these items, and not just the occasional gimmick but something thousands of people actually use, then it'd make sense to mention them in the rape article, and have a wikilink from that spot to any article covering them. Dream Focus 17:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that the chastity belt mention is one sentence. It's also obvious that the article is meant to cover any anti-rape device. Just because the device isn't being legally manufactured...doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm pretty sure that some type of anti-rape devices are being used by women in South Africa, even though most likely not the two products discussed in that article. But this is not the place to discuss whether we believe they exist or not, so I'll just state that the fact that these two products don't seem to have ever been on the market is a good enough reason for you to have removed the link. Flyer22 (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Examples in the lead

I don't feel that we need all the examples of rape in the lead. The lead is for summarizing, per WP:LEAD. And the line "The act may be carried out by force, under threat, or with a person who is incapable of valid consent" covers every possible form of rape, which is why I reverted to it.[3][4] Notice that "valid consent" covers underage persons and mentally-disabled persons, as well as other forms of rape (such as rape against slumbering or intoxicated victims). I also feel that it and the wording "under threat" covers coercion too, but if someone feels that the above quoted line should have "coercion" in it, I'm all for that. My main point is that all the specific forms of rape are not needed in the lead. It's covered with that simple sentence, and is covered in great detail in the Consent section. If the Consent section is felt to be insufficient for any reason, more can be added there. Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll explain my motivation for changing the lede. The fact is, I feel that the way it stands now "The act may be carried out by force, under threat, or with a person who is incapable of valid consent" is quite problematic, in that it is not sufficiently inclusive. So we have 'force', 'threat' and 'with a person who is incapable of valid consent'. In my view, the 'force' itself can be very misleading to the reader, in that many people associate 'force' with violent attacks. This is not the case, for instance, take the case of Canadian law, it states, among others, that one commits the crime by engaging in sex with another person when:[...] (d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or (e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity. There is no requirement of violence/force, saying 'no' is sufficient, the victim need not offer physical resistance, fight back, struggle etc. By stating 'force' in the lede we can mislead the reader to believe that unless there is a struggle, violence, an attack etc, the act is not rape, which is not the case. The same problem with 'threat', I feel it may not be understood to include things such as abuse of power, taking advantage of critical situations etc (those situations are explained very well in the Amnesty report). Then, there's also rape by deception, for instance. I guess 'with a person who is incapable of valid consent' is quite OK. I don't insist on having all those situations explained in detail in the lede. But I feel something different must be found. Maybe something more general such as "the act may be committed through physical or psychological coercion or with a person who is incapable of valid consent'? I think using the word coercion is very good, it's used in both The World Health Organization definition and by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and also by Amnesty International. Skydeepblue (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Skydeepblue, I don't see how that simple line is problematic at all. "Force," while usually referring to physical acts, covers a range of things (as you showcased above). And since we have the words "under threat" and "with a person who is incapable of valid consent" in that line as well, I don't understand how having "force" in the lead can mislead the reader to believe that unless there is a struggle, violence, or something of that nature, the act is not rape. "Force," "threat," and "valid consent" covers all the forms of rape. It's also clearer to me. And as I stated above, exactly what we mean by them is gone over a little later...in the Consent section. Anyone who says, "Hmm. I wonder what they mean by 'consent,' 'force', etc." can find the answers just a little lower. All leads are advised to be formatted as a summary, while the lower body of the article goes into the in-depth detail. And while your version could be seen as a summary as well, it was pretty specific in detail. Details already covered lower. To me, it made the Consent section, which isn't even that big, more redundant than it needed to be.

That said, I am mostly okay with your alternative suggestion. My only objection is how the word "coercion" is used. "Physical coercion" implies that the victim participates in the act due to some kind of force. But, as we know, participation in rape does not always happen. A lot of the times, the victim just lies there, screaming/crying/etc. So I suggest the line read this way: "the act may be committed through physical force, coercion, or with a person who is incapable of valid consent." Does that work for you? Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the definition in lede should be expanded a little. How about "the act may be carried out by force, threat, intimidation, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent". The reason I want to add these is because "threat" is something very vague.Skydeepblue (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'm okay with that. I do feel that "threat" covers "intimidation," though. And that "incapable of valid consent" covers "abuse of authority." But I'm willing to compromise. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I'll change the lede. The fact is, it's better to err on the side of being "too inclusive" than to be not sufficiently inclusive. Skydeepblue (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The word coercion should be used. [5] To pressure someone into something, doesn't just mean by intimation. They can badger their victim, and keep wearing them down. New York is the only state in America that I'm aware of that has laws against cooercion without any physical force being used. For a definition and example of this see [6]. That might work well in the article. Dream Focus 22:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we were both for "coercion," since it covers "threat" and similar means. But if we keep "threat," do you guys feel it's better to have the words "threat" and "intimidation" worded together as a slash -- you know, threat/intimidation -- since they are close enough in meaning when it comes to rape? I can't think of anything else "intimidation" might mean (in regards to rape) if not in reference to the person feeling threatened. Also, I've been thinking about rape by deception. Should we include "deception" in the lead. Or is "rape by deception" something so few laws deal with...it should be excluded? Flyer22 (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the word "coercion" is very good. In regard to rape laws, well, they vary tremendously by jurisdiction. Some are more inclusive than others. For example take the law in Philippines, it says:

Article 266-A. http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno8353.htm

Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed:

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

The problem with all these terms "threat", "intimidation" etc is that they are very subjective, they can mean different things to different people.Skydeepblue (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

True. But I've seen people think of "coercion" differently too. Since we all agree on "coercion," however, we should go ahead and trade out "threat" and "intimidation" with "coercion"...and link it for anyone wondering what we mean by it. I also feel that "force" should be changed to "physical force," since "coercion" and "abuse of authority" are about force as well (just different kinds). Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Rape by deception is a crime. If someone is impersonating a blind woman's husband and tricks her into having sex, that is a crime. So is switching places with your identical twin to trick their wife. In Israel, you can be convicted of that if you pretend to be Jewish and have consensual sex with a woman, who later finds out that you are not Jewish. [7] So deception should be included as well. Dream Focus 23:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I know that rape by deception is a crime. It's a crime because the consent is viewed as invalid. But the Rape by deception article currently says it is "only recognised in some jurisdictions" (though an unsourced statement). And indeed, I haven't often seen "rape by deception" cited in rape laws. That is why I asked should we include it in the lead. Not whether or not it is a crime/rape. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I should've worded that better. Rape by deception is a crime, and thus the word "deception" should be included in the lead. Dream Focus 06:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

On a side note, I thought about this topic a lot some years ago; it was during the 2008 Todd Manning and Marty Saybrooke rape storyline. Now, of course, this is a soap opera, but they apparently worked with RAINN on some aspects. It got a lot of people talking about the validity of such a rape, etc., etc... Many viewers researched "rape by deception," making others more aware of it. I tried to research it then, but it didn't seem as prevalent as far as rape definitions go. The main thing I remember is that the show made it seem very difficult to prosecute. And it being "very difficult to prosecute" -- the fact that some people will argue that it's not rape because consent was granted, and others will argue that the consent was invalid -- is perhaps why it's not as widely recognized as some other forms of rape. I'm not sure. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

A lot of rape is difficult to prosecute. CBS news did a bit about a rape victim where they mentioned that the district attorney refusing to prosecute rape crimes if alcohol was involved, because he didn't think he could get a conviction, even in cases with DNA evidence and bruises. Perhaps listing real life examples of various problems, showing why its difficult to get a conviction, would be a good section to add to the article somewhere. Dream Focus 06:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Expanding the section about consent

The section 'Consent' needs to be expanded a lot. I've added abuse of power as an example of what may constitute duress. We have to discuss in detail many other things, such as rape by deception, lack of consent deriving from the fact that the victim was in a helpless state etc. But we have to use actual laws, from various jurisdictions around the world, otherwise it will look like WP:OR.Skydeepblue (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with expansion, though I don't see it as needing "a lot" of expansion. I mean, with the exception of rape by deception, every type of rape possible is addressed. Lack of consent deriving from the fact that the victim was in a helpless state is covered by the person being either sleep or intoxicated or mentally-disabled. I don't feel we need to make the section too big, with a lot of details. But I'm not against some more expansion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Rape navbox

Should rape-related topics have their own navbox separate from the existing {{sexual abuse}}? (Draft is here) sonia♫ 06:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Currently, {{Rape}} redirects to {{Sexual abuse}}. I've created a draft navbox at User:Sonia/rape, which specifically covers rape-related topics. It looks like this: User:Sonia/rape

I'm not sure where else to bring this up for discussion, but feel free to cross-post or give your opinion. sonia♫ 10:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind a Rape template. But why do we need one when we already have the Sexual abuse template? If there are any missing rape articles not included in the Sexual abuse template, it could simply be added. Flyer22 (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Or...do you feel that a Rape template would make navigation of rape topics easier? I can definitely see how they are easier to find in their own template. Flyer22 (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The latter, yes, for navigational purposes. sonia♫ 00:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Sexual abuse and rape are two very different topics and should not have a unified navbox, the headings and links are also very appropriate, relevant and important to the topic. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 5:48pm • 07:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per easier navigation. I wouldn't say that sexual abuse and rape are "two very different topics," since sexual abuse covers rape/child sexual abuse. But I understand what Ancient Apparition (James) means (note: I'm stating your full user name because we already have two James' at this talk page, and I'm in the habit of using the actual user name at first) -- sexual abuse is wider in scope. And that is another reason why I support the rape template. Flyer22 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Sub-topics of larger topics which have a number of articles can have templates. It doesn't cause confusion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. There are obviously enough rape related topics to fill a navbox, so might as well be more on topic. People can visit sexual assault (already linked in intro) for details on the full gamet. However, I suggest undoing the abbreviation of the various types of rape, although it may seem verbose/redundant, as there is room and it's clearer. I was briefly confused seeing the shortened forms. Dcoetzee 01:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, and after seeing a version with the types of rape abbreviated and a version with the types unabbreviated, I support keeping the abbreviation. It looks a lot better that way, and the repetition of the word "rape" throughout the template (and not just on that line) is much less visually appealing. (This is based on my highly non-scientific "do my eyes glaze over" test). Kansan (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - I like CarolMooreDC's argument. Seems to be a simple case of notability to me. Without having given it much though, I'd say that Rape is such a large and varied topic it deserves its own nav box. NickCT (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. There are enough topics for a navbox, and it is useful. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Rape by country

In the Rape#Statistics section there are subheadings for some individual countries however we should be avoiding Wikipedia:Systemic bias and to do so with this framework would obviously be unwieldy in terms of size, so I propose splitting the subsections off to a separate list article or something. Now, what to call it? LegrisKe (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

We have a category for rape by country it happens in. category:rape by country I created the article Rape in the United States and some information was moved by various people over there which was specifically about that country. Dream Focus 22:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

LegrisKe, this was discussed before and the country sections were cut down. We now point people to the larger articles for the in-depth information, after providing people with summaries. We still list the countries in this article for example-effect, and because there should be some information on rape statistics per country in this article. People shouldn't have to go to another article just to get basic rape information on, say, rape in the United States. Obviously, though, not all countries can be listed in this article. But that goes for any section that is listing examples of a big topic. Such as Assault. Not all examples are going to be listed, lest we want this article to be extremely big. So I don't view that as systemic bias. That said, I was going to say since we don't have an article that covers rape statistics for each country, it is a good idea to create a Rape by country article. But I remembered that we already have the Rape statistics article. Countries can be built up in that article, redirecting people to the larger articles if there are any. As for this article, though, maybe we don't need as many examples? I would opt to move the Australia, Cambodia and Democratic Republic of the Congo sections to the Rape statistics article. The Democratic Republic of the Congo information is already there, but that article is pretty identical to this one on statistics and just needs expansion. And perhaps the Other section in this article (Rape) could also be used to list examples of rape statistics in other countries, while also keeping the information that is currently there about the less researched/least reported forms of rape. Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• This is the English language Wikipedia, so countries that speak English as their primary language are mentioned in articles. In the Chinese language Wikipedia, they mention statistics for China most likely. Dream Focus 01:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • That's true, but we also have to worry about a world-wide view of subjects...when it comes to most topics here at Wikipedia, which is why we often see the "does not represent a worldwide view" tags. I think it's obvious that this article does a decent job of presenting a worldwide view, however. Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

addition of military strategy category

This edit added Category:Military strategy. While this may belong on War rape, I'm not sure that it's entirely relevant for this umbrella article. sonia♫ 09:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles dealing with false accusations of rape

I would like to add that articles such as False accusation of rape, Rape_statistics#False_reporting, Men's_rights#False_rape_accusations, or other similar articles need to be watched very closely, in that they are constantly the target of soapboxing and severe misrepresentation of facts. I've gone through these article and fixed them, but I have a feeling that it won't be long until someone else goes through them again. For instance user:Celdaz (talk) (see above on this talk page where he made a request) has added to several articles the 'fact' that "where there has already been either an arrest or an indictment 25% of FBI cases excluded the primary suspect based on DNA" in order to imply that at least 25% of women lie (actually he wrote "The same article suggests that there is good reason to believe false rape allegations may be well into the double digit percentages"), something that I consider akin to vandalism: these claims (I say claims because his 'source'- an opinionated article about the evils of feminism is anything but reliable) not only says nothing about whether the victim has herself accused a specific person, but also refers to cases of rape-murder, that is - where people were arrested by the police in cases where the victim was dead. Actually, the official statistics from FBI classify 8% of allegations as "unfounded" (not the same with "false" as explained in this article), British Home Offic gives a similar figure of 8% (again many of these based only on the opinion of the police), police in Victoria (Australia) has classified 2.1% of allegations as false. DiCanio (1993) had stated that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of false allegations, they generally agree on a range of 2 to 8%. These are the most reliable statistics we have, they should be used primarily, and undue weight should not be given to fringe claims and 'research'; and sources sholud be reliable and sources should not be misrepresented.

I also feel that Kanin's report is given undue weight (WP:UNDUE), in that it's a study which has been repeatedly criticized, which presents the claims of a police department in an obscure small town as facts, without investigating further, a police department which methods have been accused of consisting in intimidation and bullying of the women, and which has threatened to use the polygraph against the women, against official contraindications to use the polygraph in rape cases, and where all the victims who have "lied" were - surprise- severely disadvantaged women. I'm not against this study being presented here, but to proudly parade it in dozens of articles as the rape study, out of any context, without pointing to the majority of the statistics which contradict it, is a serious violation of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE.

Another problem that I have: why do we need a False accusation of rape article? Do we have a False accusation of theft or False accusation of drug dealing article? How come the articles dealing with other crimes don't even have a subsection in the main article talking about false accusations, let alone a special article on "False accusations of..."? (the only exception being... False accusation of child sexual abuse... ). False accusation of rape should be merged here, I think. Skydeepblue (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I will try to keep an eye out for the articles you are concerned with. Maybe others have something to say about your points? I'm not sure what to make of having a False accusation of rape article. But I do know that it is a notable topic and can be expanded, which is likely why it was made. That, and to keep it from becoming too big in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As a former DOJ employee, sadly the false accusations do happen and a little more than we'd like to admit. Unfortunately misogynists have impeded proper discusssion of the issue by turning it into a "mens rights" battering ram against women (and of course when it happens it does have a catastrophic effect on the men). The reality is , it hurts women too, as it contributes to the general disbelief and victim blaming faced by many of the women (and men and of course children) we saw at the DOJ. I do agree the false accusations of theft happen, but this can have catastrophic effects and do deserve reasonable attention, especially from those who wish to rescue this issue from the misoginists. 121.45.233.131 (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Another problem that I have: why do we need a False accusation of rape article? Do we have a False accusation of theft or False accusation of drug dealing article?—If I accused you of falsely claiming that I stole from you, would you immediately associate that with a broad and often discussed social phenomenon? I've never heard the phrase, "false accusation of theft", though I'm sure it's been used. On the other hand, the phenomenon of false rape accusation is discussed broadly and often. You might not like that, and you might feel that it's harmful. I might agree, but it's not Wikipedia's role to censor the more distasteful parts of public discourse.

If this were the mid-to-late 1700s, I would expect us to have an article about the personhood of Africans. It would be a contentious article that would require careful fact-checking, but it would be wrong for Wikipedia to ignore the fact that it was a major topic of debate. -207.172.212.147 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)