This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The sentence that said that the US justice department estimates 2% of rapes to be false is not cited in the overview or in the body of the article. In fact, quite the contrary, the article cites a source where the Justice department cites the FBI figure of 8%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.129.113.158 ( talk) 06:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Shearonink: - looking at your edit, I think that given the low number of studies per most geographical distributions, we'd want to avoid implying that the rate is different in these countries, as opposed to these countries happening to be the location of some of the studies. Perhaps "Other studies" rather than "Other countries"? I think we could also foreground the definitional issue if you're going to invoke it in the first statistic you cite (the previous lead had the range of "unfounded, unproven, or false", but I think keeping the IP troll's conflation of "unfounded" with "false" is unhelpful even if the clarifying statement is added afterwards). Something like, after the first sentence, "While it is difficult to assess the prevalence of false accusations due to such accusations being conflated with non-prosecuted cases as 'unfounded', the FBI..."
Do you have full access to Rumney's paper? I'm not sure I do, but that could be useful in summarizing the statistics (relatedly, it seems like our citation to Forensic Victimology is only nominal at this point). – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Personally I believe that 8% is MUCH smaller than the true number... and there I think is the motive behind these edits. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is the DiCanio citation being removed? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 03:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
... quote one police officer thus: "If rape was treated as any other crime you would probably no-crime a lot more. But because rape is treated as something special, and indeed it is a serious crime, it is much more difficult to no-crime it".
Smith notes that it was not possible to tell whether reports that were not recorded because of insufficient evidence, may in fact, have been false.
Stewart examined 18 allegations of rape and concluded that 16 were false. Of these 16, it was claimed that the complainant admitted to making a false complaint in 14 cases.
Unfortunately, it is common for even seasoned investigators to accept an alleged victim’s statement or story without question or suspicion. This uncritical aspect may arise out of a fear of disturbing the alleged victim, being viewed as politically incorrect by victim advocates and colleagues, or a lack of knowledge about the investigation of potential false reports.
... an overall political environment that sanctions such identifications and investigations can promulgate a fearful investigative mindset. This fear of political reprisal routinely provides for the failure to correctly identify and investigate false reports to their fullest conclusion. As discussed in Palmer and Thornhill (2000, p. 160), “To some feminists, the concept of false rape allegation itself constitutes discriminatory harassment.” It is not unreasonable in such an environment for investigators and forensic examiners to be concerned that the investigation of a false report, and even the consideration of false reporting as a viable case theory, will result in negative consequences from colleagues, superiors, the media, victim advocates, and the general public.
There have been some serious POV changes in the last few days. User:EllieTea wrote that it's "misleading" to describe what RS say about false accusations. Instead, he adds and re-adds content about withdrawn accusations, thus implying that they're the same. Please follow the WP:BRDC cycle instead of just reverting, especially as a "new" editor. -- SonicY (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
the contested claim by psychologist David Lisak that only 2%-10% of sexual-assault reports are false. This statistic is misleading. Mr. Lisak’s 2010 study (like others often cited by anti-rape activists) treat as presumptively true all sexual-assault complaints that authorities have not formally labeled either true or false (the vast majority), including most of those dropped for insufficient evidence.
In fact, only a small percentage [of rape accusations] is known to be true.It's a good thing that you expressed your POV so openly just in case anyone should doubt why you need to refrain from editing this article and others like it. -- SonicY (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The term "withdrawn" is used in the original source. If you find the term problematic though (I do not), then replace it with something else. For example, maybe change the current "the remainder of the accusations were withdrawn (15.1%) or concluded with no further police action or were still be investigated at the time of the study" to "for the remainders of the accusations, no final determination on truth or falsity was made". That would still deal with the issue and does not mention "withdrawn". EllieTea ( talk) 18:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The section contains a quote from the study. The quote was brief, and omitted sentences that I think are important. Hence, I have expanded the quote.
The study is based on this data: 2643 sexual assault cases, of which 2284 were reported to the police (with the remainder reported to Sexual Assault Referral Centres only); of those, 216 were classified as false. The study includes the following statement.
There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as a proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 per cent; as a proportion of the 1,817 cases not proceeding beyond the police stage it is 12 per cent (see Table 4.2).
The WP article previously cited the 8% but not the 12%. The police can only classify something as false if they have received a report about it: thus, the relevant percentage is neither 8% nor 12%, but rather is 216/2284 = 9.5%. The source Cybulska (2007) states that the relevant percentage is "about 9%"; so I have changed the article to cite that, as well as to give the actual data.
The WP article rightly cites the study as saying that the relevant percentage is reduced to 3% after applying the Home Office counting rules for establishing a false allegation. That 3% figure is calculated via a basis of 2284 (not 2643). Thus, the 9% rate is directly comparable to the 3% rate (unlike the 8% and 12% rates). EllieTea ( talk) 08:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 percent( p. 47). It's obvious that 216/2,643≈8.17. The source repeats this in the sumary:
Eight per cent of reported cases in the sample were designated false by the police( p. 52). What's also obvious is that the 355 cases (2,288+355=2,643) in the comparison areas were also reported to the police:
In the Comparison areas all cases were (n 355), by definition, reported to the police, making a total of 2,643 reported cases from all sites( p. 41). So not only did you misrepresent the percentage of cases classified as "false" by police but you actually misrepresented the number of cases that were reported to the police. And it's not the first time that you blatantly misrepresent sources. -- SonicY (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 percent) and what you say (
That figure is clearly based on 2284, not 2643). Notice anything? Yes, the figure 216 is given on page 41. But the total number of cases reported to the police is also given on that page: 2,643. And 216 or 2643 is 8%, not 9%. I suggest that you stop misrepresenting this and other sources now. As you know this article is subject to both the men's rights article probation and discretionary sanctions. -- SonicY (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
In the Comparison areas all cases were (n 355), by definition, reported to the police, making a total of 2,643 reported cases from all sites( p. 41). Yet you misrepresent the source and claim that only 2288 cases were reported and that 9% were designated as false. Now that is misleading! I think that the quote is overlong as is and that it already expresses that police officers and prosecutors over-estimate false reports and are suspicious of rape victims. Feel free to restore the longer quote but do not restore your misrepresentation of the sample and findings of the study. -- SonicY (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The edit at 17:08 by User:Sonicyouth86 changed "The reference work Forensic Victimology (second edition, 2014), reviews several studies on false rape accusations" to "Brent Turvey and Michael McGrath". The Edit Summary gives this reason: they did not review "several studies", they extolled kanin and mcdowell (shows the quality of research here) and dismissed brownmiller
I have some questions/issues about this. First, who is Michael McGrath?
Second, they did indeed review several studies: MacDonald (1973), Haws (1997), Brownmiller (1975), Gregory & Lees (1999), Anderson (2004), McDowell (1985), Kanin (1994), as well as the FBI reports. I suppose that not all of those are full studies, but they are relevant works that are cited.
Third, the work of Kanin was reviewed in a single paragraph. Here is the paragraph.
That does not fit with "extol".
Fourth, the work of McDowell was similarly reviewed in a single paragraph. Also, what is wrong with McDowell?
Fifth, Brownmiller is also strongly criticized by Rumney (2006), and I know of no good reason to support Brownmiller.
Would you further explain the reason for the edit? EllieTea ( talk) 18:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
As those of us who work cases know from experience, the numbers [of false rape accusations] can be very highare a dead giveaway. 100% opinion, 0% evidence. I actually think it's best to remove the quote altogether and then let you try to convince others of its merits. -- SonicY (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Roscelese is again making false accusations against me and refusing to read the sources. Here is what the FBI report states (page 7).
The 1996 violent crime clearance rate was 47 percent, up from 45 percent in 1995. Among the violent offenses, the 1996 clearance rates ranged from 67 percent for murder to 27 percent for robbery. Over half of all forcible rapes (52 percent) and aggravated assaults (58 percent) were cleared.
If someone disagrees with the way that I presented that in the article, then fine: revert the edit and explain why. EllieTea ( talk) 13:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The lede said the following.
... in the United States, the FBI Uniform Crime Report in 1996 and the United States Department of Justice in 1997 stated 8% of rape accusations in the United States were regarded as unfounded or false Studies in other countries have reported their own rates at anywhere from 1.5% (Denmark) to 10% (Canada).
The statistic for the FBI/DoJ is highly misleading, for reasons discussed in the section "FBI statistics".
The statistic from Denmark is taken from Rumney (2006). Here is what Rumney actually says.
... use of the 10% figure is part of a study of false complaints by the Institute of Medicine in Copenhagen. As noted earlier, the 10% figure is the highest given during the five year period covered by this study, the lowest number ... was 1.5%.
Thus, the figure for Denmark that is quoted in the lede is also misleading.
The statistic for Canada is also taken from Rumney. The statistic is for a single city (Toronto) in 1970; moreover, the statistic was disputed by the Toronto police. Thus this statistic, too, is misleading.
Considering the above, I have removed all the statistics from the lede. EllieTea ( talk) 12:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
theguardian.com#Comment is free: it is unneeded and violates WP:RS#Statements of opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllieTea ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is the first sentence from theguardian.com#Comment is free.
Here is the first paragraph from WP:RS#Statements of opinion.
EllieTea ( talk) 14:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
User:EllieTea believes against all evidence that an article in the Guardian "violates WP policy for facts". I assume that EllieTea believes this because the source contradicts his personal stated POV that In fact, only a small percentage of rape accusations) is known to be true."] Please also note that the Guardian article is used a source for a quote by Keir Starmer whose opinion is based on recent CPS research. EllieTea seems to have no problem adding opinions when those opinions are more in line with his own opinion such as the quote by Turvey and McGrath who claim that "As those of us who work cases know from experience, the numbers [of false rape accusations] can be very high", based on nothing other than personal opinion. EllieTea, please stop your disruptive editing. -- SonicY (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Links to websites under Further reading are subject to the same guidelines as external links. The links that editor EllieTea added give undue weight to a particular POV (e.g., Cathy Young as an expert on false accusations of rape anyone?) or do not provide more detailed coverage of the subject. For example, what's a 7-setence article about an Italian Supreme Court decision that women in jeans can't be raped doing in the Further reading section? I'll remove both for now. -- SonicY (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Stewart, in one instance, considered a case disproved, stating that "it was totally impossible to have removed her extremely tight undergarments from her extremely large body against her will".
I have just found out that
Cathy Young has written many columns for TIME magazine, including at least two that are related to rape accusations: "
Guilty Until Proven Innocent" and "
It’s Women Who Suffer When We Don’t Ask Questions". Thus, the claim made above—"Her view is popular in the manosphere and that's about it"—is manifestly and seriously false. Young is obviously a very highly respected author on the subject, and citing one piece of her work in the WP article seems reasonable.
I also note that there has been no further discussion on the points that I raised above. Thus, if there are no valid objections, I will restore the two items to the "Further reading" section. EllieTea ( talk) 17:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
In the section False_accusation_of_rape#Police_opinions_on_false_rape I have removed this:
According to a small-scale survey of 20 US law enforcement officers conducted in 2004, officers believe that the typical person making a false accusation is "female (100%), Caucasian (100%), 15–20 years of age (10%), 31–45 years of age (25%), or 21–30 years of age (65%)".[1] A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge, or to cover up behavior deemed "inappropriate" by the accuser's peers.[1]
'Small-scale survey' is an understatement. 20 US law enforcement officers is an absurdly low number of participants for a survey. This sounds more like a survey conducted for a grade-school assignment. Unfortunately, the source is non-free [3] so I can't read more about their methodology. If anyone has access to this, I would appreciate if someone could post information on the methodology (particularly selection methodology) for this specific survey. ― Padenton | ☎ 18:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The section False accusation of rape#Police opinions on false rape accusations is currently a single paragraph, as follows.
Statements by the Finnish Police estimate that false rape accusations have risen in like manner with female alcohol consumption in the country, and that many false rape accusations are made when intoxicated, with many of the people falsely accused of rape being men who are typically immigrants.
The reference for the paragraph/section is the following.
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=
and |2=
(
help).I do not read Finnish, but I used Google Translate to get a rough English version. That version is given below.
EllieTea ( talk) 13:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The WP article might benefit from having an Introduction section. A potential draft of such a section is below.
[The following remarks are adapted from a forthcoming paper by a professor of criminal justice at the University of the West of England, Philip Rumney. Rumney has been researching on criminal justice responses to rape for many years.]
The phenomenon of false rape allegations is a subject of widespread controversy. It is an area littered with misunderstanding, myths, and stereotypes.
Two broad approaches have emerged in response to the subject. The first approach involves an insistence that women reporting rape must be believed by criminal justice professionals, that false allegations are rare and to believe otherwise is evidence of the existence of " rape culture". The second approach involves a fear that an increasing willingness to believe will lead to an institutional failure to distinguish between true and false claims, that due process rights for the accused are under threat, and that false allegations are common.
These two approaches share common characteristics in terms of the way in which false allegations are discussed and analyzed. This shared analytical orthodoxy is empirically flawed, inflexible, and resistant to counter-evidence or dissent. Those who promote this orthodoxy fail to take seriously the data on false allegations and neglect to carefully analyze the existing literature for weaknesses. There is also a failure to acknowledge the differing types of false allegation – from those that are malicious, through to the mistaken, wrongful, and third party allegations. In addition, much of what is written on the subject involves the selective citation of evidence, use of confirmation bias to support claims, and failure to acknowledge that the "other side" has legitimate concerns.
This has created at least three problems. First, both approaches to the question of false allegations promote the widespread dissemination of flawed data in which factual ambiguity is ignored in favor of ideological certainty. Second, this flawed data is used to underpin various legal policy proposals. Third, a growing body of empirical research examining the impact of allegations on the falsely accused, comparative false allegation rates, motivational factors, and social allegations is ignored, because the false allegation orthodoxy is resistant to data that challenges preferred policy positions. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
EllieTea (
talk •
contribs) 09:54, 30 April 2015 UTC
Updated by
EllieTea (
talk)
18:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The percentage rate of false rape reports, as determined by the British Home Office study (2005), has been discussed above. I thought that it might be useful to start the discussion afresh, in a section devoted to the rate alone.
To begin, consider a simple example. Suppose that there were 2000 rape reports. Suppose additionally that we only had records for 100 of those reports—and that all the other records had been lost. Suppose further that among the 100 records of rape reports, the police determined that 5 reports were false.
Here is the key question: what is the rate of false rape reporting? If we have 100 records, and 5 are false, then the rate is 5%. (Think about that, please; it should be clear.)
Suppose that someone were to claim that the rate was 5/2000 = 0.25%. That would be an error. Again, that should be clear.
Unfortunately, the latter error is essentially what the British Home Office study made. The numbers are different, but the error is otherwise the same. The study found that there were 2643 rape reports, but it only had records for 2284—the other records were apparently lost. Among those 2284, there were 216 that the police determined to be false. Thus, the rate of false reports is 216/2284 = 9.5% The study, however, calculated the rate to be 216/2643 = 8%. Thus, the study is in error.
The error seems to have been noticed by at least one other person: Cybulska (2007), cited in the WP article. That is a reliable source, which describes the rate as "about 9%". (There might be other such sources; I have not looked.)
Considering the above, I edited the article to say the following (references omitted). [4]
The study was based on 2643 sexual assault cases, of which 2284 had adequate reports with the police. Of these, the police classified 216 as false reports, i.e. about 9%.
The "about 9%" was referenced to Cybulska (2007).
User:Sonicyouth86 said that I am wrong to do that, and undid my edits. Sonicyouth86 and I have discussed this, but to no avail thus far. In the discussion, Sonicyouth86 repeatedly violated WP:FAITH and also, I believe, WP:CIVIL.
Rather than continue the argument, I decided that the difference between 8% and "about 9%" was too small to be worth fighting for. Hence, I tried to diffuse the situation, and let the issue go. Sonicyouth86 interpreted my attempt at diplomacy as evidence that I actually believed the rate to be 8%. Primarily for that reason, I decided that I should create this section, and explain the situation in more detail.
To conclude, the correct rate is 9.5%, the study is in error but there is a reliable source that is correct, and I do not consider the correction to be worth fighting for. EllieTea ( talk) 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The largest and most rigorous study that is currently available in this area is the third one commissioned by the British Home Office (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005). The analysis was based on the 2,643 sexual assault cases (where the outcome was known) that were reported to British police over a 15-year period of time. Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. Yet the researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators, ...( p. 2). You misrepresented the British Home Office study, your edits were reverted, and now you need to give it a rest. -- SonicY (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Brownmiller (1975) claims that the rate of false reporting is 2%. The claim has been widely cited and discussed. Hence, the WP article should presumably have a section about this. I will write the section, but before I do, there is a question—what secondary sources should the section cite?
The relevant sources that I know of are Rumney (2006), Greer (2000), and Turvey & McGrath (2014). (I have searched with Google Scholar, and not found more.) EllieTea ( talk) 14:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted back to Amaury's version from April 25. EllieTea's conduct in the article and on this talk page gives me little hope that their edits conform to WP:V and WP:NOR, as in the week they've been here, they've blatantly misrepresented sources numerous times. EllieTea, since you are unable to edit the article in accordance with policy, I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page, gain consensus, and let other users implement them if consensus is achieved. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
An efficient way to deal with this is to specify an edit I made that violated
WP:OR and an edit that violated
WP:VERIFY. Please specify the edits via direct links.
EllieTea (
talk)
12:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see the editnotice which was recently added by User:Callanecc per a request at WP:AE: You cannot make any edit (apart from those which are blatantly uncontroversial) to this article without first proposing it on the talk page for at least 24 hours and having a consensus in support of the change. The authority for this restriction is WP:ARBGG, which applies to "any gender-related dispute or controversy". EdJohnston ( talk) 14:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
He is wikilinked in the see also section of this article. I read it, and there is no mention at all of any false rape allegation. I therefore went to delete the content here, and discovered that sanctions apply. So here I am. I want to delete that link totally as being not relevant to this article at all unless some detail is added to the Oberst BLP. Comments? - Roxy the black and white dog™ ( resonate) 10:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"...between 2010 and 2011, Wikipedia users edited and added some of the new studies—as well as Professor Lisak's critique of Eugene J. Kanin—to the site's "False Accusation of Rape" entry. As recorded by the entry's "Talk" page, the article's author, a rape denier, then removed some of the new material. These actions caused the new research, non-Kanin material to be unavailable to Wikipedia readers. The hullabaloo stands as a mini-version of the whole controversy."
The current article is mostly a tedious list of "studies" whose findings shed no light whatsoever on the core issue: did the purported rapes happen in real life or only in the imagination of the person making the accusation?
There's a case to be made of simply excluding these "studies" from the article and instead focusing on the thing we can be sure of: there is a two-sided debate going on here. On the feminist side there is a wave of articles, tweets and interviews demanding that rape accusations "be believed". On the non-feminist side the argument is that belief should come only after persuasive evidence is produced, not on the simple expression of an accusatory statement by a self-described victim.
This article linked below is a part of that discussion, from the point of view of a man who was smeared by Gawker, implying he had engaged in attempted rape with a French film actress as he was interviewing her. A certain strain of dishonest editor will seek to exclude this unflattering example of modern feminism by lawyering about it being an opinion piece. While there is plenty of opinion in the piece, there is also significant reportage of the false accusation made first by Gawker, and then by its army of followers. It is directly relevant to the subject of the article. Nevertheless, let's see what distortion of WP policy the spin-masters come up with to exclude it: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4581782.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.141.133 ( talk) 23:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the 50% estimate for India in the lead. Firstly, it is not a study, like the other estimates: it is meaningless to compare one with the other. Secondly, the number only refers to false accusations of rapes in Delhi, in a specific period, which were made to the Delhi Commission for Women. That is much too narrow and restricted a methodology/geographical area to extrapolate to the larger concept of rapes in India. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Surely this should simply be folded into the rape article? — ajf ( talk) 21:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the second sentence confusing? It says, "It is difficult to assess the prevalence of false reports due to such accusations being conflated with non-prosecuted cases as 'unfounded'." I'm not exactly sure what it's trying to say. I think this wording means the same thing and is hopefully more clear:
I'm going to update it this way, but I've honestly read this sentence so many times that I'm experiencing some semantic satiation and it's definitely possible that my version makes even less sense, so please, feedback is welcome. :) Permstrump ( talk) 15:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The sentence that said that the US justice department estimates 2% of rapes to be false is not cited in the overview or in the body of the article. In fact, quite the contrary, the article cites a source where the Justice department cites the FBI figure of 8%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.129.113.158 ( talk) 06:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Shearonink: - looking at your edit, I think that given the low number of studies per most geographical distributions, we'd want to avoid implying that the rate is different in these countries, as opposed to these countries happening to be the location of some of the studies. Perhaps "Other studies" rather than "Other countries"? I think we could also foreground the definitional issue if you're going to invoke it in the first statistic you cite (the previous lead had the range of "unfounded, unproven, or false", but I think keeping the IP troll's conflation of "unfounded" with "false" is unhelpful even if the clarifying statement is added afterwards). Something like, after the first sentence, "While it is difficult to assess the prevalence of false accusations due to such accusations being conflated with non-prosecuted cases as 'unfounded', the FBI..."
Do you have full access to Rumney's paper? I'm not sure I do, but that could be useful in summarizing the statistics (relatedly, it seems like our citation to Forensic Victimology is only nominal at this point). – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Personally I believe that 8% is MUCH smaller than the true number... and there I think is the motive behind these edits. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is the DiCanio citation being removed? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 03:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
... quote one police officer thus: "If rape was treated as any other crime you would probably no-crime a lot more. But because rape is treated as something special, and indeed it is a serious crime, it is much more difficult to no-crime it".
Smith notes that it was not possible to tell whether reports that were not recorded because of insufficient evidence, may in fact, have been false.
Stewart examined 18 allegations of rape and concluded that 16 were false. Of these 16, it was claimed that the complainant admitted to making a false complaint in 14 cases.
Unfortunately, it is common for even seasoned investigators to accept an alleged victim’s statement or story without question or suspicion. This uncritical aspect may arise out of a fear of disturbing the alleged victim, being viewed as politically incorrect by victim advocates and colleagues, or a lack of knowledge about the investigation of potential false reports.
... an overall political environment that sanctions such identifications and investigations can promulgate a fearful investigative mindset. This fear of political reprisal routinely provides for the failure to correctly identify and investigate false reports to their fullest conclusion. As discussed in Palmer and Thornhill (2000, p. 160), “To some feminists, the concept of false rape allegation itself constitutes discriminatory harassment.” It is not unreasonable in such an environment for investigators and forensic examiners to be concerned that the investigation of a false report, and even the consideration of false reporting as a viable case theory, will result in negative consequences from colleagues, superiors, the media, victim advocates, and the general public.
There have been some serious POV changes in the last few days. User:EllieTea wrote that it's "misleading" to describe what RS say about false accusations. Instead, he adds and re-adds content about withdrawn accusations, thus implying that they're the same. Please follow the WP:BRDC cycle instead of just reverting, especially as a "new" editor. -- SonicY (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
the contested claim by psychologist David Lisak that only 2%-10% of sexual-assault reports are false. This statistic is misleading. Mr. Lisak’s 2010 study (like others often cited by anti-rape activists) treat as presumptively true all sexual-assault complaints that authorities have not formally labeled either true or false (the vast majority), including most of those dropped for insufficient evidence.
In fact, only a small percentage [of rape accusations] is known to be true.It's a good thing that you expressed your POV so openly just in case anyone should doubt why you need to refrain from editing this article and others like it. -- SonicY (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The term "withdrawn" is used in the original source. If you find the term problematic though (I do not), then replace it with something else. For example, maybe change the current "the remainder of the accusations were withdrawn (15.1%) or concluded with no further police action or were still be investigated at the time of the study" to "for the remainders of the accusations, no final determination on truth or falsity was made". That would still deal with the issue and does not mention "withdrawn". EllieTea ( talk) 18:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The section contains a quote from the study. The quote was brief, and omitted sentences that I think are important. Hence, I have expanded the quote.
The study is based on this data: 2643 sexual assault cases, of which 2284 were reported to the police (with the remainder reported to Sexual Assault Referral Centres only); of those, 216 were classified as false. The study includes the following statement.
There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as a proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 per cent; as a proportion of the 1,817 cases not proceeding beyond the police stage it is 12 per cent (see Table 4.2).
The WP article previously cited the 8% but not the 12%. The police can only classify something as false if they have received a report about it: thus, the relevant percentage is neither 8% nor 12%, but rather is 216/2284 = 9.5%. The source Cybulska (2007) states that the relevant percentage is "about 9%"; so I have changed the article to cite that, as well as to give the actual data.
The WP article rightly cites the study as saying that the relevant percentage is reduced to 3% after applying the Home Office counting rules for establishing a false allegation. That 3% figure is calculated via a basis of 2284 (not 2643). Thus, the 9% rate is directly comparable to the 3% rate (unlike the 8% and 12% rates). EllieTea ( talk) 08:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 percent( p. 47). It's obvious that 216/2,643≈8.17. The source repeats this in the sumary:
Eight per cent of reported cases in the sample were designated false by the police( p. 52). What's also obvious is that the 355 cases (2,288+355=2,643) in the comparison areas were also reported to the police:
In the Comparison areas all cases were (n 355), by definition, reported to the police, making a total of 2,643 reported cases from all sites( p. 41). So not only did you misrepresent the percentage of cases classified as "false" by police but you actually misrepresented the number of cases that were reported to the police. And it's not the first time that you blatantly misrepresent sources. -- SonicY (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 percent) and what you say (
That figure is clearly based on 2284, not 2643). Notice anything? Yes, the figure 216 is given on page 41. But the total number of cases reported to the police is also given on that page: 2,643. And 216 or 2643 is 8%, not 9%. I suggest that you stop misrepresenting this and other sources now. As you know this article is subject to both the men's rights article probation and discretionary sanctions. -- SonicY (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
In the Comparison areas all cases were (n 355), by definition, reported to the police, making a total of 2,643 reported cases from all sites( p. 41). Yet you misrepresent the source and claim that only 2288 cases were reported and that 9% were designated as false. Now that is misleading! I think that the quote is overlong as is and that it already expresses that police officers and prosecutors over-estimate false reports and are suspicious of rape victims. Feel free to restore the longer quote but do not restore your misrepresentation of the sample and findings of the study. -- SonicY (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The edit at 17:08 by User:Sonicyouth86 changed "The reference work Forensic Victimology (second edition, 2014), reviews several studies on false rape accusations" to "Brent Turvey and Michael McGrath". The Edit Summary gives this reason: they did not review "several studies", they extolled kanin and mcdowell (shows the quality of research here) and dismissed brownmiller
I have some questions/issues about this. First, who is Michael McGrath?
Second, they did indeed review several studies: MacDonald (1973), Haws (1997), Brownmiller (1975), Gregory & Lees (1999), Anderson (2004), McDowell (1985), Kanin (1994), as well as the FBI reports. I suppose that not all of those are full studies, but they are relevant works that are cited.
Third, the work of Kanin was reviewed in a single paragraph. Here is the paragraph.
That does not fit with "extol".
Fourth, the work of McDowell was similarly reviewed in a single paragraph. Also, what is wrong with McDowell?
Fifth, Brownmiller is also strongly criticized by Rumney (2006), and I know of no good reason to support Brownmiller.
Would you further explain the reason for the edit? EllieTea ( talk) 18:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
As those of us who work cases know from experience, the numbers [of false rape accusations] can be very highare a dead giveaway. 100% opinion, 0% evidence. I actually think it's best to remove the quote altogether and then let you try to convince others of its merits. -- SonicY (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Roscelese is again making false accusations against me and refusing to read the sources. Here is what the FBI report states (page 7).
The 1996 violent crime clearance rate was 47 percent, up from 45 percent in 1995. Among the violent offenses, the 1996 clearance rates ranged from 67 percent for murder to 27 percent for robbery. Over half of all forcible rapes (52 percent) and aggravated assaults (58 percent) were cleared.
If someone disagrees with the way that I presented that in the article, then fine: revert the edit and explain why. EllieTea ( talk) 13:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The lede said the following.
... in the United States, the FBI Uniform Crime Report in 1996 and the United States Department of Justice in 1997 stated 8% of rape accusations in the United States were regarded as unfounded or false Studies in other countries have reported their own rates at anywhere from 1.5% (Denmark) to 10% (Canada).
The statistic for the FBI/DoJ is highly misleading, for reasons discussed in the section "FBI statistics".
The statistic from Denmark is taken from Rumney (2006). Here is what Rumney actually says.
... use of the 10% figure is part of a study of false complaints by the Institute of Medicine in Copenhagen. As noted earlier, the 10% figure is the highest given during the five year period covered by this study, the lowest number ... was 1.5%.
Thus, the figure for Denmark that is quoted in the lede is also misleading.
The statistic for Canada is also taken from Rumney. The statistic is for a single city (Toronto) in 1970; moreover, the statistic was disputed by the Toronto police. Thus this statistic, too, is misleading.
Considering the above, I have removed all the statistics from the lede. EllieTea ( talk) 12:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
theguardian.com#Comment is free: it is unneeded and violates WP:RS#Statements of opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllieTea ( talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is the first sentence from theguardian.com#Comment is free.
Here is the first paragraph from WP:RS#Statements of opinion.
EllieTea ( talk) 14:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
User:EllieTea believes against all evidence that an article in the Guardian "violates WP policy for facts". I assume that EllieTea believes this because the source contradicts his personal stated POV that In fact, only a small percentage of rape accusations) is known to be true."] Please also note that the Guardian article is used a source for a quote by Keir Starmer whose opinion is based on recent CPS research. EllieTea seems to have no problem adding opinions when those opinions are more in line with his own opinion such as the quote by Turvey and McGrath who claim that "As those of us who work cases know from experience, the numbers [of false rape accusations] can be very high", based on nothing other than personal opinion. EllieTea, please stop your disruptive editing. -- SonicY (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Links to websites under Further reading are subject to the same guidelines as external links. The links that editor EllieTea added give undue weight to a particular POV (e.g., Cathy Young as an expert on false accusations of rape anyone?) or do not provide more detailed coverage of the subject. For example, what's a 7-setence article about an Italian Supreme Court decision that women in jeans can't be raped doing in the Further reading section? I'll remove both for now. -- SonicY (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Stewart, in one instance, considered a case disproved, stating that "it was totally impossible to have removed her extremely tight undergarments from her extremely large body against her will".
I have just found out that
Cathy Young has written many columns for TIME magazine, including at least two that are related to rape accusations: "
Guilty Until Proven Innocent" and "
It’s Women Who Suffer When We Don’t Ask Questions". Thus, the claim made above—"Her view is popular in the manosphere and that's about it"—is manifestly and seriously false. Young is obviously a very highly respected author on the subject, and citing one piece of her work in the WP article seems reasonable.
I also note that there has been no further discussion on the points that I raised above. Thus, if there are no valid objections, I will restore the two items to the "Further reading" section. EllieTea ( talk) 17:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
In the section False_accusation_of_rape#Police_opinions_on_false_rape I have removed this:
According to a small-scale survey of 20 US law enforcement officers conducted in 2004, officers believe that the typical person making a false accusation is "female (100%), Caucasian (100%), 15–20 years of age (10%), 31–45 years of age (25%), or 21–30 years of age (65%)".[1] A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge, or to cover up behavior deemed "inappropriate" by the accuser's peers.[1]
'Small-scale survey' is an understatement. 20 US law enforcement officers is an absurdly low number of participants for a survey. This sounds more like a survey conducted for a grade-school assignment. Unfortunately, the source is non-free [3] so I can't read more about their methodology. If anyone has access to this, I would appreciate if someone could post information on the methodology (particularly selection methodology) for this specific survey. ― Padenton | ☎ 18:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The section False accusation of rape#Police opinions on false rape accusations is currently a single paragraph, as follows.
Statements by the Finnish Police estimate that false rape accusations have risen in like manner with female alcohol consumption in the country, and that many false rape accusations are made when intoxicated, with many of the people falsely accused of rape being men who are typically immigrants.
The reference for the paragraph/section is the following.
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=
and |2=
(
help).I do not read Finnish, but I used Google Translate to get a rough English version. That version is given below.
EllieTea ( talk) 13:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
The WP article might benefit from having an Introduction section. A potential draft of such a section is below.
[The following remarks are adapted from a forthcoming paper by a professor of criminal justice at the University of the West of England, Philip Rumney. Rumney has been researching on criminal justice responses to rape for many years.]
The phenomenon of false rape allegations is a subject of widespread controversy. It is an area littered with misunderstanding, myths, and stereotypes.
Two broad approaches have emerged in response to the subject. The first approach involves an insistence that women reporting rape must be believed by criminal justice professionals, that false allegations are rare and to believe otherwise is evidence of the existence of " rape culture". The second approach involves a fear that an increasing willingness to believe will lead to an institutional failure to distinguish between true and false claims, that due process rights for the accused are under threat, and that false allegations are common.
These two approaches share common characteristics in terms of the way in which false allegations are discussed and analyzed. This shared analytical orthodoxy is empirically flawed, inflexible, and resistant to counter-evidence or dissent. Those who promote this orthodoxy fail to take seriously the data on false allegations and neglect to carefully analyze the existing literature for weaknesses. There is also a failure to acknowledge the differing types of false allegation – from those that are malicious, through to the mistaken, wrongful, and third party allegations. In addition, much of what is written on the subject involves the selective citation of evidence, use of confirmation bias to support claims, and failure to acknowledge that the "other side" has legitimate concerns.
This has created at least three problems. First, both approaches to the question of false allegations promote the widespread dissemination of flawed data in which factual ambiguity is ignored in favor of ideological certainty. Second, this flawed data is used to underpin various legal policy proposals. Third, a growing body of empirical research examining the impact of allegations on the falsely accused, comparative false allegation rates, motivational factors, and social allegations is ignored, because the false allegation orthodoxy is resistant to data that challenges preferred policy positions. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
EllieTea (
talk •
contribs) 09:54, 30 April 2015 UTC
Updated by
EllieTea (
talk)
18:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The percentage rate of false rape reports, as determined by the British Home Office study (2005), has been discussed above. I thought that it might be useful to start the discussion afresh, in a section devoted to the rate alone.
To begin, consider a simple example. Suppose that there were 2000 rape reports. Suppose additionally that we only had records for 100 of those reports—and that all the other records had been lost. Suppose further that among the 100 records of rape reports, the police determined that 5 reports were false.
Here is the key question: what is the rate of false rape reporting? If we have 100 records, and 5 are false, then the rate is 5%. (Think about that, please; it should be clear.)
Suppose that someone were to claim that the rate was 5/2000 = 0.25%. That would be an error. Again, that should be clear.
Unfortunately, the latter error is essentially what the British Home Office study made. The numbers are different, but the error is otherwise the same. The study found that there were 2643 rape reports, but it only had records for 2284—the other records were apparently lost. Among those 2284, there were 216 that the police determined to be false. Thus, the rate of false reports is 216/2284 = 9.5% The study, however, calculated the rate to be 216/2643 = 8%. Thus, the study is in error.
The error seems to have been noticed by at least one other person: Cybulska (2007), cited in the WP article. That is a reliable source, which describes the rate as "about 9%". (There might be other such sources; I have not looked.)
Considering the above, I edited the article to say the following (references omitted). [4]
The study was based on 2643 sexual assault cases, of which 2284 had adequate reports with the police. Of these, the police classified 216 as false reports, i.e. about 9%.
The "about 9%" was referenced to Cybulska (2007).
User:Sonicyouth86 said that I am wrong to do that, and undid my edits. Sonicyouth86 and I have discussed this, but to no avail thus far. In the discussion, Sonicyouth86 repeatedly violated WP:FAITH and also, I believe, WP:CIVIL.
Rather than continue the argument, I decided that the difference between 8% and "about 9%" was too small to be worth fighting for. Hence, I tried to diffuse the situation, and let the issue go. Sonicyouth86 interpreted my attempt at diplomacy as evidence that I actually believed the rate to be 8%. Primarily for that reason, I decided that I should create this section, and explain the situation in more detail.
To conclude, the correct rate is 9.5%, the study is in error but there is a reliable source that is correct, and I do not consider the correction to be worth fighting for. EllieTea ( talk) 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
The largest and most rigorous study that is currently available in this area is the third one commissioned by the British Home Office (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005). The analysis was based on the 2,643 sexual assault cases (where the outcome was known) that were reported to British police over a 15-year period of time. Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. Yet the researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators, ...( p. 2). You misrepresented the British Home Office study, your edits were reverted, and now you need to give it a rest. -- SonicY (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Brownmiller (1975) claims that the rate of false reporting is 2%. The claim has been widely cited and discussed. Hence, the WP article should presumably have a section about this. I will write the section, but before I do, there is a question—what secondary sources should the section cite?
The relevant sources that I know of are Rumney (2006), Greer (2000), and Turvey & McGrath (2014). (I have searched with Google Scholar, and not found more.) EllieTea ( talk) 14:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted back to Amaury's version from April 25. EllieTea's conduct in the article and on this talk page gives me little hope that their edits conform to WP:V and WP:NOR, as in the week they've been here, they've blatantly misrepresented sources numerous times. EllieTea, since you are unable to edit the article in accordance with policy, I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page, gain consensus, and let other users implement them if consensus is achieved. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
An efficient way to deal with this is to specify an edit I made that violated
WP:OR and an edit that violated
WP:VERIFY. Please specify the edits via direct links.
EllieTea (
talk)
12:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Please see the editnotice which was recently added by User:Callanecc per a request at WP:AE: You cannot make any edit (apart from those which are blatantly uncontroversial) to this article without first proposing it on the talk page for at least 24 hours and having a consensus in support of the change. The authority for this restriction is WP:ARBGG, which applies to "any gender-related dispute or controversy". EdJohnston ( talk) 14:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
He is wikilinked in the see also section of this article. I read it, and there is no mention at all of any false rape allegation. I therefore went to delete the content here, and discovered that sanctions apply. So here I am. I want to delete that link totally as being not relevant to this article at all unless some detail is added to the Oberst BLP. Comments? - Roxy the black and white dog™ ( resonate) 10:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"...between 2010 and 2011, Wikipedia users edited and added some of the new studies—as well as Professor Lisak's critique of Eugene J. Kanin—to the site's "False Accusation of Rape" entry. As recorded by the entry's "Talk" page, the article's author, a rape denier, then removed some of the new material. These actions caused the new research, non-Kanin material to be unavailable to Wikipedia readers. The hullabaloo stands as a mini-version of the whole controversy."
The current article is mostly a tedious list of "studies" whose findings shed no light whatsoever on the core issue: did the purported rapes happen in real life or only in the imagination of the person making the accusation?
There's a case to be made of simply excluding these "studies" from the article and instead focusing on the thing we can be sure of: there is a two-sided debate going on here. On the feminist side there is a wave of articles, tweets and interviews demanding that rape accusations "be believed". On the non-feminist side the argument is that belief should come only after persuasive evidence is produced, not on the simple expression of an accusatory statement by a self-described victim.
This article linked below is a part of that discussion, from the point of view of a man who was smeared by Gawker, implying he had engaged in attempted rape with a French film actress as he was interviewing her. A certain strain of dishonest editor will seek to exclude this unflattering example of modern feminism by lawyering about it being an opinion piece. While there is plenty of opinion in the piece, there is also significant reportage of the false accusation made first by Gawker, and then by its army of followers. It is directly relevant to the subject of the article. Nevertheless, let's see what distortion of WP policy the spin-masters come up with to exclude it: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4581782.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.141.133 ( talk) 23:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the 50% estimate for India in the lead. Firstly, it is not a study, like the other estimates: it is meaningless to compare one with the other. Secondly, the number only refers to false accusations of rapes in Delhi, in a specific period, which were made to the Delhi Commission for Women. That is much too narrow and restricted a methodology/geographical area to extrapolate to the larger concept of rapes in India. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Surely this should simply be folded into the rape article? — ajf ( talk) 21:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the second sentence confusing? It says, "It is difficult to assess the prevalence of false reports due to such accusations being conflated with non-prosecuted cases as 'unfounded'." I'm not exactly sure what it's trying to say. I think this wording means the same thing and is hopefully more clear:
I'm going to update it this way, but I've honestly read this sentence so many times that I'm experiencing some semantic satiation and it's definitely possible that my version makes even less sense, so please, feedback is welcome. :) Permstrump ( talk) 15:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)