Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:55, 24 December 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Campus sexual assault article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 28 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Higher education This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

RfC on recent AAU campus climate survey

There is a debate on how we should include a widely reported statistic relating to the percentage of victims, who when asked why they didn't report the incident, answered they didn't think it was "serious enough" per the study and news reports.

The section leads with a high level statistic for the rates of all types of sexual assault and misconduct, "The 2015 Association of American Universities (AAU) Campus Survey on Sexual Assault, one of the largest studies ever of college sexual violence, drew responses from 150,000 students at 27 schools, including most of the Ivy League. It found that more than 20 percent of female and 5 percent of male undergraduates said that they were victims of sexual assault and misconduct".

The AAU study, Table 6-1, page 110 contains the following:

Several news reports that covered the high level findings in AAU survey also included the following details from page 110. I have provided a few samples (with direct quotes provided):

• Washington Post, "the vast majorities of poll respondents who said they had not reported to campus authorities the events that the AAU classified as sexual assaults — 'the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough,'
• Chicago Tribune, "More than half of those who didn't report a rape said they didn't think it was serious enough to report."
• NJ.com "The most common reason cited by students for not reporting an incident was that they didn't consider it serious enough"
• CNN "More than 50 percent of the women who reported some of the most serious incidents, including forced penetration, didn’t report it because they didn’t think it was “serious enough,” according to the survey."
• The Daily Toreodor "More than 50 percent of the victims of even the most serious incidents, such as forced penetration, said they did not report the event because they do not consider it “serious enough,” according to the survey."
• Campus Safety Magazine, "When students were asked why they did not report incidents of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, the most common reason was that it was not considered serious enough."
• My Fox 8 "More than 50 percent of the women who reported some of the most serious incidents, including forced penetration, didn’t report it because they didn’t think it was “serious enough,” "

Looking for input on two approaches discussed in this talk page to handle this:

1. In the 2015 Campus Climate Survey section, add language with some of the multiple cites including the AAU study along the lines of, "The survey also reported that the majority of students whose responses were classified as sexual assault did not think their experience was "serious enough to report"."
2. Only include this finding in the 2015 Campus Climate Survey if it includes criticisms/counterpoints to these kinds of finding about surveys in general, making points like, "First, a salient research issue is what students mean when they define incidents as not serious enough to report. For conservatives, the phrase "not serious" is taken in a strictly literal sense as meaning that the incidents were unimportant. For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable." (a partial quote from an academic source provided by Nblund).Mattnad (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• CommentMattnad, this seems to mis-characterize my perspective. I did not say we should leave this statistic out. What I said was that we should mention it alongside the previous research on this topic. Importantly, we should explain how social scientists generally interpret that result, and explain that researchers doubt that this finding indicates that these are not serious sexual attacks. I would appreciate it if you would edit this down for brevity (maybe put the citations and other commentary in the section below) and clarify the wording of option #2 to more accurately reflect what I proposed. Nblund (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think editors can sort it out with the citations since you several times argued that it was WP:Undue because there was only one source and you insisted that the Survey authors didn't highlight this, so it was not relevant to use it either. I think it's important to demonstrate how common this detail is given your past statements so other editors can see what's been going on here. I don't think option 2 misrepresent your position at all.Mattnad (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but yes, it does misrepresent my position. I don't think we need to exclude this detail. I do think we need to contextualize the detail along with past research. I think it would waste people's time to request an RfC in which an option is offered that neither one of us supports. Change it please. Nblund (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Change has been been made.Mattnad (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC comments

• Approach #1 is neutral, reflects both the study and multiple reliable sources that covered this particular survey. Approach #2 comes from academic sources that do not specifically discuss this survey, and are grounded in POV that's WP:Fringe. Not a single news source I could find on the AAU survey addressed this counterpoint and to create a separate discussion would be WP:Undue. I will add that Nblund's reasons for objecting to this detail as part of the AAU study is that "I'm concerned that it makes the findings appear less impactful by misleading people". This concern was not considered material by professional news services covering the survey, or a plain reading of the survey itself. My take is Nblund would like to avoid reducing the perceived impact of the numbers by discounting or eliminating what survey respondents themselves stated.Mattnad (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Approach #1 I agree with Mattnad in his thorough analysis of the different approaches. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Approach #2 provides greater context by explaining different interpretations of the finding. It does so in an even-handed manner, presenting the perspectives of both sides. I am mystified by the suggestion that it includes a fringe POV - how can a substantial body of academic sources (which are recognised as top-quality sources by policy) can be regarded as fringe? Neljack (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: For context, its important to note that this particular finding is not unique to this survey. This exact question has been asked on previous studies of sexual assaults, and the result is consistent with previous findings. Researchers generally attribute the response to minimization on the part of victims, and note that victims of even very serious attacks sometimes decide it isn't worthwhile to report the attack to the police. (see: Fisher, Daigle, Cullen & Turner 2003) Some critics of these studies (such as Christina Hoff Sommers) have suggested that the "not serious enough to report" response indicates that the concerns about sexual assault on college campuses is overblown, but that view is not supported by the empirical evidence, and experts like Bonnie Fisher are generally skeptical of this interpretation (see the quote below)

Again, I'm not saying we should exclude this finding, I'm saying we should cite it alongside the previous findings and alongside previous research on the topic. If this particular detail is important enough to mention, why isn't it important enough to mention the views of experts on the topic? Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper, or a random collection of events. The goal here is to inform people, and the notion that we should suppress obviously relevant, reliably sourced, information strikes me as fundamentally anathema to that project. Nblund (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

While critics may point to this, Approach 1 makes no statement about the whether or not the survey was overblown. And CNN, NJ.com, Campus Safety that include it do not either. It's a neutral presentation ideally using the survey itself as the source. I think your concerns are political rather than encyclopedic.Mattnad (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: What a shame this study's question was worded so poorly. "Not serious" could have been taken by respondents as meaning "not something that bothers me" or as "not something anyone else would take seriously if I reported it" (or more narrowly as "not something authorities would take seriously if I reported it") or any number of other interpretations. And it's impossible for anyone to know what the women who took part in the study thought that vague phrase meant. If previous studies used the same poor wording, that wasn't sufficient reason to repeat their mistakes... but that's outside our purview here. Coverage of the study in reliable sources should of course be included, but effort should perhaps be taken to find an examination of the study's methodology in a reliable source or sources so that this issue can be included in the text of the article as well. —GrammarFascist _contribs 18:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of these kinds of studies. This isn't the only example of ambiguous questions. In regard to this particular study, there are direct criticisms of the questions used to capture sexual assault as well. In the interest of parsimony, we haven't included those either.Mattnad (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: 1. The long list of news articles demonstrates the notability of the study, but Misplaced Pages shouldn't be summarizing the news article, but the published researchers' published findings. ("For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." WP:NEWSORG) The researchers' summary is on page iv:

A relatively small percentage (e.g., 28% or less) of even the most serious incidents are reported to an organization or agency (e.g., Title IX office; law enforcement); More than 50 percent of the victims of even the most serious incidents (e.g., forced penetration) say they do not report the event because they do not consider it “serious enough.”

2. As a side point, the percentages reported here are fractions of those who "Did not contact any programs." They do not represent fractions of the number reporting assaults. (see p. 112)

3. The researchers publishing this report observe, "When asked why the student did not report an incident, the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough. This is also consistent with prior research (e.g., Fisher et al., 2003)." (p. 36) So I think that Fisher 2003's explanation for this reporting (as quoted above) should be summarized and cited first. It can probably stand on its own, but following up with point-counterpoint a la version 2 isn't unreasonable either.

4. In my opinion, provinding greater detail about the other survey findings (as highlighted on page iv) is more encyclopedic, and a higher priority than a deep dive on this unclear "not serious enough" qualifier.--Carwil (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I re-posted the RfC tag for this discussion, since there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus still. Carwil correctly notes that the AAU authors note that these findings are consistent with Fisher et. al 2003 -- which is the source of the quote mentioned in the original RfC post above. I think this should resolve Mattnad's stated concern that adding this material would constitute original research. Given that the authors directly contextualize their findings in light of previous work, it seems fairly clear-cut that the additional context and critique from Fisher ought to be included. Nblund (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Fisher (1999) is not the same as Fisher (2003), p. 36. So whatever they are referring to in the study (Fisher 2003), it's not the quote provided by NBlund (Fisher 2009). Perhaps there's a linkage, but two different books are not the same book.Mattnad (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've cited two different Fisher quotes. The quote you paraphrase at the top of this RfC is from Fisher et. al 2003. That 2003 paper is the same one cited by the authors of the AAU study. The other quote comes from Fisher's 2009 book, Unsafe in the Ivory Tower. That book is not cited in this paper, but it's a discussion of the same topic by the same (highly respected) author cited in the AAU report. It's really tough for me to see how it would be undue to cite the research that the authors themselves discuss. Nblund (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I feel a little silly for not noticing this earlier, but I just saw this: Bonnie Fisher is actually on of the lead authors of the AAU report (left column, second row). So it really seems like her views are pretty clearly relevant here. Nblund (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that on its own justifies bringing in her other, and very separate, opinions on the topic.Mattnad (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Kentucky finding

Regarding this series of edits:

This presentation is highly misleading -- it gives the impression that Kentucky found a lower level of sexual assault than the AAU survey. As we discussed previously, the Kentucky Survey asked about oral, anal, or vaginal sex that occurred as a result of force, coercion or incapacitation (bottom of page 5). They found a low rate because they simply didn't ask about far more frequent forms of sexual assault (such as groping). If we make an apples to apples comparison, the 5% finding is higher than the comparable finding on the AAU survey (page 82).

Regarding the claim that it is OR to call this "rape": forced/incapacitated penetration is essentially synonymous with rape. The AAU authors note this in the study (page V). Further, paraphrasing or contextualizing sources by using commonly accepted terminology is not original research. I changed the wording to be slightly more specific, and I'm open to a discussion about the precise wording of that section, but, claiming that Kentucky measured "all forms of sexual assault" is flatly dishonest. The goal of Misplaced Pages is to inform people, and this seems inconsistent with that goal. Nblund (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"Commonly known as rape" was not in any of the sources. You seem to want it both ways in this article. You've argued at times in favor of presenting sexual assault more broadly but now insist on a narrow term it when it wasn't described that way by the source. This is classic WP:SYN to pick one source, and apply it another. Source A describes "rape" as X, source B describes "sexual assault" as Y, ergo X=Y. These studies often purposefully stay away from the term, and use "sexual assault" broadly. Either we rely on the sources, or we don't. Misplaced Pages favors the latter. I'll add that the deliberate sloppiness of these kinds of studies leads to this challenge. Mattnad (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Again: the study authors make this connection on page V of the study. "One type focused on nonconsensual sexual contact involving two behaviors: sexual penetration and sexual touching. Respondents were asked whether one or more of these contacts occurred as a result of four tactics: ... The first two tactics generally meet legal definitions of rape (penetration) and sexual battery (sexual touching)."

I'm not quite sure I see the connection: I think I've repeatedly said that we should be clear in our use of terminology, and that we shouldn't conflate rape and sexual assault. I think you have shared that view in the past as well. Nblund (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of advocacy orgs as sources

Per WP:RS, biased sources are not to be used except when attributed by name. Recent large scale additions have been presented without such attribution, and there's an undue weight issue. I've opened up a discussion on WP:RSN here.Mattnad (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The policy doesn't quite say that. To quote:

However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective... Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

So editors should consider whether to use in-text attribution, but it is not a necessary a hard requirement. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No attribution, AND overweight in the article. But really, it's an option on the definitions which differs from the studies that are cited in the article, criminal definitions etc. Anyway, let's see how RSN rules on this.Mattnad (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If you think the RSN "rules" on anything, ever, then you misunderstand the purpose of the noticeboard. As I implied above and as I noted at the RSN, this is an editorial decision not a WP:RS issue. VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms in the lead section

I'm open to a brief, neutral mention of the controversy over the measurement of sexual assault being included in the lead paragraph -- something modeled on the stuff presented at the start of the Prevalence and Incidence discussion. That said, I don't think this edit really works for several reasons.

• The critique that the 20% finding comes from a study of two colleges is misleading. The results of the CSA come from two colleges, but those results have been supported by multiple subsequent (and previous) studies. It seems like an oversight that these other studies weren't incorporated in the the lead paragraph already. I can't see an argument for mentioning only the CSA in that section.

• The response rate critique is something that seems like it warrants mention in the body of the entry, but survey methodology is a science and Christina Hoff Sommers has no background in any relevant field. I certainly see a case for including a discussion of prominent controversies in the lead section, but it gives undue weight to present the critiques of a columnist as a counter-point to scientific research. The questions about response rates are valid, but whether or not they cause a sampling bias is an empirical question that ought to be addressed by experts.

• Last: As we've discussed many times in the past, there are ample criticism of the BJS findings, and BJS itself has acknowledged deep problems with the methodology they use for measuring rape and sexual assault on the National Crime Victimization Surveys. Presenting only criticisms of the surveys with higher prevalence findings paints a misleading picture. Nblund (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Mary Koss, whose study is prominently presented in this article, is quoted by Politifact regarding the CSA as follows, "Mary Koss, a professor of public health at the University of Arizona, agreed that the Campus Sexual Assault Study 'is not the soundest data (the White House) could use'" when citing prevalence rates. Nblund, stop pushing this. You are going so far off what even noted experts in the field say about the CSA.Mattnad (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

As for the BJS, the only people complaining about come from a specific POV. Whereas Mary Koss, someone who agrees that sexual assault is a problem on campus, disagrees with your position.Mattnad (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, I understand that you disagree with me, but it seems like you're not really reading me: I didn't say that criticism of the CSA was invalid, I just pointed out that other studies have found the same result using different methods. I cited those studies in the lead paragraph. The Politifact article you link to also notes this:

Other surveys asked the question in different ways, and some focused on different definitions of sexual assault. Overall, though, the general trends were relatively consistent with the Campus Sexual Assault Study.

I'm not sure what you're referencing in terms of POV critiques of the BJS. The criticisms that I cite in the body of this entry come from an extensive report published commissioned by the BJS itself and conducted by the National Research Council. Are you really suggesting that it isn't a reliable source?

I'm curious about the wording of this edit: it seems like you want to imply that the BJS stat is a superior measure. You changed "multiple" to "some" and described the studies as "smaller". I'm curious as to why you think these changes are necessary. They seem to imply that these measures are inferior to the BJS stat. Nblund (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to surveys sample size and period matter. Smaller, non-random short-term surveys are not considered as reliable as random, larger, long-term studies as a matter of statistical science. As for the critiques of the BJS that you refer to the presentation is making a mountain out of molehill. But I come back to Mary Koss - she doesn't thing the CSA is representative, and even its author doesn't think it should be used for a national sample. Those are pretty valid reasons to provide that context. "General trends" by the way, does not mean the numbers are correct. It's that there are other studies that generally trend that way. Mattnad (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, “Smaller, non-random short-term surveys are not considered as reliable as random, larger, long-term studies as a matter of statistical science” sounds like you’re admitting to pushing your own POV rather than citing what the surveys say and leaving it at that. Those who disagree with the study should be placed into the criticism section, especially if their criticism hasn't been enough to invalidate the research they criticize. All studies and surveys have their critics, but putting undue weight on those criticisms seems agenda-pushing. Especially when quoting biased opinions from non-experts like CHS and Emily Yoffe. These women are not experts, they’re giving their opinions and nothing else. I’m surprised to see their names added to this article, as if their opinions are considered as important as the studies they're critiquing. Saying some surveys are not as reliable because of their scope or methodology is a POV statement which should be backed up by solid non-editorial sources if it's to influence this article. Your edits and their focus on doubting the information given by multiple reliable sources are coming extremely close to making this article non-neutral, if it can be considered neutral at this point.Ongepotchket (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It still doesn't really seem like you're reading me: I'm not discussing whether or not the CSA is nationally representative. I'm pointing out that criticisms of the CSA don't apply to all surveys of sexual assault, and so it doesn't make sense to cite a specific criticism

Okay, so it sounds like you want to imply that the BJS study is more reliable than other surveys. I don't think you don't have reliable sources for that. In fact, smaller surveys can be more reliable than large ones, and non-random designs are sometimes more accurate than random designs. The BJS survey, for what its worth, also suffers from fairly well-documented issues with response biases. These are discussed at length in the NRC report I referenced earlier. Here it is again. This is, again, just sort of your view that you're inserting. Nblund (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing sourced content that adds dimension.

Nblund, your recent revert seems excessive (and the RFC is inconclusive, dormant, and months old). However the whole section seems balanced, and captures reasons you've supported for non-reporting as follows, with the new, well supported material in italics.

Many victims completely or partially blame themselves for the assault, are embarrassed by the shame, or fear not being believed which may lead to underreporting. As remarked in one study, "Women generally do not report their victimization, in part because of self-blame or embarrassment," but another also found that many "didn't think is was serious enough" to report.

It's well balanced with reasons for not reporting that you've long supported, plus what the AAU study has published, and was picked up by many reliable sources.Mattnad (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right, the RFC is inconclusive. Edits are made by consensus -- not by fiat. I have a hard time believing that you could possibly think that it was consistent with collaborative editing to simply re-insert the material in the lead paragraph.

To clarify: I argued in favor of a detailed discussion of that finding which offered context for why researchers believe that women offer that response. Introducing it in the lead paragraph doesn't quite meet that criteria. The word "but", by the way, is a coordinating conjunction that usually indicates negation or contradiction of the previous statement. E.g.: I thought x, but y turned out to be the case.Nblund (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'll edit it to show separation. We had a detailed discussion already (very detailed). But in the end, even you can agree that some men and women can decide for themselves whether or not something like unwanted touching is serious enough to call the police or report it to a college authority. Some do not, and not all of those are brainwashed into denial. They may very well understand what happened, and didn't care to report it.Mattnad (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

We did have a detailed discussion, which you appear to be ignoring in favor of just putting the content that you wanted in to the article. There are a variety of methods for resolving disputes if an RfC fails to end it, this isn't one of them. We can take it to mediation or dispute resolution, or to a noticeboard, or attempt to hammer out a compromise here. Regardless: if you insist on sticking stuff in the article that clearly violates consensus, I think this probably needs to be taken to a incident noticeboard. Nblund (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, I made an attempt at compromise and moved the discussion in to the body section of the entry where it could be treated with adequate depth and context. Please: either remove it from the lead paragraph, or try to find a method other than edit warring to get what you want. Nblund (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to then remove your preferred content from the lede as well? It seems you want to highlight that which you agree with there, and suppress that which you do not, despite it being well documented. I could have added 10 more sources that restate that finding, except that the don't say "many" but indicate "most" didn't think it was serious enough. I understated the finding as an effort at compromise.Mattnad (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a clear lack on consensus for including this material in the first place, its not a compromise at all, its just edit-warring. I don't know what content you're referring to, and it seems beside the point. If you have issues with other content, you should start a discussion about that content, not engage in hostage-taking. The problem isn't the number of sources, its the adequacy of the coverage -- we discussed this at length in the RfC which you posted. If you're unsatisfied with the progress on that end, then we can take it to another venue or we can discuss an actual compromise here, but what you're doing right now isn't going to fly. Nblund (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You are the only editor who seems to be really against including this information despite it being widely reported and present in a study you have copiously quoted from. Here's the content you are OK with in the Lede "Many victims completely or partially blame themselves for the assault, are embarrassed by the shame, or fear not being believed which may lead to underreporting. As remarked in one study, "Women generally do not report their victimization, in part because of self-blame or embarrassment,". According to other research, "myths, stereotypes, and unfounded beliefs about male sexuality, in particular male homosexuality" contribute to underreporting among males. In addition, "male sexual assault victims have fewer resources and greater stigma than do female sexual assault victims." All I have done is append another reason per the sources. My point is that you have a double standard as it pertains to the lede. And frankly, it's a bit bloated right now anyway. I'm sorry for you the AAU asked the question, and people answered, but "didn't think it was serious enough" is one of the reasons people didn't report. What you seem to want, based on your editing, is to paint the most severe impression of sexual assault on campus. But it's more nuanced than that, and censoring the article is not the way to go.Mattnad (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any attachment one way or another to the other statements you mention, and I agree that the lead is bloated. -- we could remove all of them and include them in a discussion in the body section. Would that work? Nblund (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think this is clearly WP:UNDUE for the lead. It's taking one figure from a very large paper and highlighting it; unlike the other bits cited, this isn't part of the conclusion or a complete or accurate summary of the paper in question -- it's one figure taken out of context. As far as I can tell from the sources, the only person who thinks it's particularly important or telling is Stuart S. Taylor Jr; and I don't think he's a significant enough figure for us to devote text to a random opinion-piece by him in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Aquillion, I didn't bother putting in all of the sources that cite this, but here are a few below. It's pretty widely reported, and far more prominent that the other items in the lede according to reliable sources:

• Washington Post, "the vast majorities of poll respondents who said they had not reported to campus authorities the events that the AAU classified as sexual assaults — 'the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough,'
• Chicago Tribune, "More than half of those who didn't report a rape said they didn't think it was serious enough to report."
• NJ.com "The most common reason cited by students for not reporting an incident was that they didn't consider it serious enough"
• CNN "More than 50 percent of the women who reported some of the most serious incidents, including forced penetration, didn’t report it because they didn’t think it was “serious enough,” according to the survey."
• The Daily Toreodor "More than 50 percent of the victims of even the most serious incidents, such as forced penetration, said they did not report the event because they do not consider it “serious enough,” according to the survey."
• Campus Safety Magazine, "When students were asked why they did not report incidents of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, the most common reason was that it was not considered serious enough."
• My Fox 8 "More than 50 percent of the women who reported some of the most serious incidents, including forced penetration, didn’t report it because they didn’t think it was “serious enough,” "

However, since Nblund is now willing to permit the lede to be trimmed, and even allow this finding in the article, then we can move forward. Mattnad (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mattnad: I just reverted this because it didn't appear supported within the article body (which the lede summarizes). I would take no objection to it being in the body somewhere with two or three citations max (see WP:OVERCITE). VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This material doesn't belong in the lead; it's one figure within a much larger study that is addressed in detail in the main text.

Frankly, the authors of the AAU study (and other reliable sources) interpret "not serious enough" differently than you do. They seem to see it as consistent with the other concerns raised in lead re: shame, disbelief, self-blame, etc. Conversely, your push to include it in the lead is to argue that the assualts weren't a big deal. It's borderline OR to keep pressing this point as if your interpretation overrides the researchers in question.

Mildly annoyed that the RfC comments don't seem to have informed later edits… --Carwil (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, the overciting seemed necessary because Aquillon stated in the edit summary he or she could not find it anywhere else beside the Washington Post and the study. I'd be happy to have it in the body copy, if permitted, but one editor kept on reverting that. Carwill, several other very mainstream reliable sources found this detail important, as did other RFC commenters. It's hardly OR, and you are free to read the citations above. It's not that sexual assaults are not a big deal, but that some of the assaults were not as serious as the high level statistic alone indicates, which is exactly why news reports and opinion pages called it out. I'll volunteer that some of those in the "not serious enough" answer group may have been in denial, not all of them were.Mattnad (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Experts don't share your view that these are actually "not serious" assaults. I think this statement makes it fairly clear here your motivation here is to push a particular interpretation of this stat which is not supported by reliable sources, and which the authors of the study themselves would dispute. That is OR. Nblund (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Not OR. The Washington Post made exactly that point. Or do we only accept sources you agree with?Mattnad (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Just so we're clear: are you saying that you want to include this argument that is attributable to the Washington Post op-ed by Stuart Taylor Jr? Nblund (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope @Nblund:. I was thinking of this, "The dominant reason for why students who didn’t tell authorities: They said it wasn’t serious enough. “That will stimulate a lot of discussion,” said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Westat consultant. “We as researchers don’t know a lot about this — it hasn’t been measured in the past.” . Since we're on the topic of OR, you've often cited Fisher's work from 1999 and 2003 as a reason to downplay this current AAU study. I thought your approach was OR in trying to tie the two together, and Fisher's recent quotes indicate this is a new finding. You've cited Fisher as an expert. Shall we ignore her comments now, in context, in a major reliable source?Mattnad (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so you are attributing the view that "some of these assaults are not as serious at that high-level statistics indicates" to Bonnie Fisher? Nothing in that quote suggests that, and we know from her other work that Bonnie Fisher believes just the opposite. How do you figure that this is Fisher's view? Nblund (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Those links don't support your assertion that it's prominent, no. They mention it as one of the many things in the study, but nothing there supports the way you're pulling it out and drawing attention to it as particularly significant, and certainly not sufficient to put it in the lead itself. What I'm looking for is not offhand mentions; what I'm looking for is multiple reliable, mainstream articles (preferably not opinion pieces) about that aspect specifically. The rough estimations of the frequency of sexual assault clearly belong in the lead (if you feel those studies are being given too much weight, we could consider others and weigh them against each other, but I think it's unequivocal that we need to include some sort of general summary of what the reliable sources say about how common it is, since that's central to the topic), but I don't think you've shown that this part is something that many people consider important enough to put it in the lead. Most of the sources you cited put the frequency figure in the headline; the mention of the data-point you're talking about is always much further down amid a list of numerous other assorted factoids from the study. I stand by what I said above; Stuart S. Taylor Jr seems to be the only source you've cited that thinks that it's particularly telling or important (relative to anything else in the study). Looking at how they weighted relative aspects, the links you've provide only seem to reinforce my position that this is not a significant part of the study and not worth putting in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you OK with it as part of the AAU study section? My plain reading of the many sources do not support your interpretation. Which other sources are you referring to? As for the authors of the AAU study, of course they would downplay anything that diminishes their headline. But it's not an either or situation. We have their headline stat, and several reliable sources also provide a detail on the non-reporting rate. Mattnad (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's in the body of the page, but it doesn't belong in the AAU section because it's not unique to the AAU study. Most victims gave this same response on the CSA (exhibit 5-8, page 87), the National College Women Sexual Violence Study (exhibit 12. page 26), and Kilpatrick et. al's 2007 study exhibit 42, page 48. There is nothing unique about this finding, and it seems misleading to insist that it should be included in one particular section. Nblund (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

So it's a common finding, that you have tried to keep out or minimize.... So common, but it shouldn't be in the lede. So common, that .... news papers made a point about reporting it. I just can't keep up with you.Mattnad (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't really seem like a response to what I said. I made a point about why this didn't belong in the AAU section. Do you think that it does belong there, and why? Nblund (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages guidelines on reliable sources, news coverage of an academic study does not outweigh the study itself. This is doubly true when they misrepresent study findings. In the list above, only the Washington Post correctly reports that the "not serious enough to report" response was an answer to a question only asked of those who already said the didn't report the issue to law enforcement.

Leaving aside this single polemical issue, we should be asking what other "dimensions" of campus sexual assault might be most encyclopedic: the nature of the assaults (through force or incapacitation, rape or other forms of sexual assault), the perpetrators (acquaintance, partner, stranger), how many women sought help from sources other than law enforcement. All of these questions figure prominently in the executive summaries of these research reports, yet don't make the lead. As an outsider to this page, it seems this is due to this "serious enough" data being taken up by some with a POV to argue that campus sexual assaults are unimportant. But the main job of the article is not to cover that debate but rather to comprehensively describe Campus Sexual Assault.--Carwil (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "most reliable source" but the many news reports do not misquote the survey. They just point it out. And per another Washington Post Article on this, "The dominant reason for why students who didn’t tell authorities: They said it wasn’t serious enough. “That will stimulate a lot of discussion,” said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Westat consultant. “We as researchers don’t know a lot about this — it hasn’t been measured in the past.” . I would seem the Fisher sees this finding as new, important, and worthy of "discussion". Nblund has argued it's old hat, and not worthy of mention in relation to this study and would like it suppressed. Ms. Fisher, an expert according to Nblund, disagrees with that view. This is precisely why it's received so much coverage. The "debate" about how sexual assault is measured, and what the numbers mean is already part of the article. It's particularly central to why and how campuses are reacting to this. I'm fine with it not being in the Lede, but Nblund has worked pretty hard to keep it out of the entire article, and specifically the AAU study area itself. Mattnad (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad: I haven't argued that this should be suppressed, I wrote the finding in to the body of the article, so I think you're fighting for something you already have here. I hadn't seen Fisher's quote previously, but I don't think it changes much: Fisher is speaking off-the-cuff to the press, but here's what the study says: "When asked why the student did not report an incident, the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough. This is also consistent with prior research (e.g., Fisher et al., 2003).", it seems pretty obvious that this isn't a new finding, regardless of the quote, and I think Carwil's point -- that we generally favor studies over press coverage of those studies -- is relevant here.

Since you are okay with this being in the lead, is the main sticking point just the placement of the finding in the AAU section? I'm not opposed to the finding being mentioned in relation to the AAU, but it shouldn't be in the AAU section because that gives the inaccurate impression that the finding is unique to the AAU study when it isn't. 15:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

So Fisher was mistaken when discussing the finding, when she said "We as researchers don’t know a lot about this — it hasn’t been measured in the past"? Nblund, your personal opinion that this finding is "not unique" not supported by the source, Bonnie Fisher, an "expert" you've quoted in the past. This same expert worked on the AAU study. Also, you guys want to do your own interpretations of the primary source (the study) rather that what reliable sources say about this. Per WP:RS "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." Nblund, it's time to drop it. Your POV is showing.Mattnad (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no prohibition on using primary sources, and I don't think there's any interpretation going on: the AAU says explicitly that this finding is consistent with previous research. Further, Fisher's comment to the Washington Post about this study is just as much a "primary source" as the AAU report itself, it's not a matter of the number of links in the chain, and the mere fact that she was quoted in another outlet doesn't mean that the claim is independently verified.

That said: We do have secondary sources that discuss the fact that multiple studies have reported the "not serious enough to report" finding: Fisher's 2010 book Unsafe in the Ivory Tower (which I quoted in the RfC) contains a meta-review of women's reasons for not reporting, and cites multiple other studies that included the "not serious enough to report" finding. If we used that source, would it solve the issue for you? Nblund (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to add the 2010 details to the prevalence opening if that suits you (within reason) since it's a general overview. However, you ARE interpreting what was meant by quote from the AAU intro as a justification to ignore what secondary sources say about it. We have no detailed idea what is meant by "consistent with" the 2003 book by Fisher, but it certainly doesn't mean it should be ignored or barred from the AAU section. I will make some edits now. I think it's pretty clear that adding some of this to the AAU section is consistent with wikipedia's preference for secondary sources, and is not OR.Mattnad (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The news articles are simply repeating the topline AAU findings, without offering any analysis. From Misplaced Pages:LINKSINACHAIN "If the book merely quotes the proclamation (such as re-printing a section in a sidebar or the full text in an appendix, or showing an image of the signature or the official seal on the proclamation) with no analysis or commentary, then the book is just a newly printed copy of the primary source, rather than being a secondary source." I think it's a stretch to call the AAU a primary source for the statement that this is consistent with previous research, but the other sources you have cited are no less "primary" than the AAU source. Either way: I still don't see any evidence of a consensus favoring those edits, and it seems like this would interfere with the ongoing dispute resolution process that you initiated. Nblund (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I thought you'd have many objections to articles that provide analysis, such as Slate's take on this and the other WP article that provides an opinion on what this says about the survey design. And I thought Fisher's comment that this is a new finding was salient. But if you're OK with those, so am I.Mattnad (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Fisher quote seems like it would also be at least as much of a "primary source" as the statement published in the AAU. The columns are, arguably, secondary sources for some things, but I and other editors have raised neutrality and due weight concerns with citing those articles. Particularly if they are cited without in-text attribution or in a way that seems to place them on equal standing with the views of most experts. I think that point should be fairly clear to you by now. Nblund (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So you're OK with in-text attribution then? I'm good with that. I do think you're being a little tendentious on keeping Fisher's words out the article when she's quoted, but not when it's her own book and really distorting wikipedia's guidelines. So if I have it right according to you - we can quote Fisher, but only if it's a book she's written. If a news article quotes her, we cannot. Correct?Mattnad (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think providing in-text attribution would certainly help assuage some of my concerns, but it might not really address the due weight concerns others have mentioned. Those arguments would still need to be presented in proportion to their prominence (which is fairly low) and it should probably be acknowledged that this is an argument that dates all the way back to the earliest surveys on this topic. I think Carwil's suggestion of including a short section that dealt with non-reporting might be a good option.

And, no, that really isn't correct. I haven't said there's a blanket prohibition on quoting Fisher's statements to newspapers. To restate: where there's a discrepancy or ambiguous statement, it seems like we should favor the explicit statements in the text of the survey over off-the-cuff statements in a newspaper, especially considering that it's demonstrably untrue to say this is a new finding. Nblund (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Why does the criticism section list so many individual cases?

They're giving undue weight, since we don't list cases brought by individual victims of assault as numerously. Propose to remove some of the cases and focus on the criticism itself. The examples may be sourced, but they're also gratuitous for the purpose of making the point. Anyone object to trimming it down a bit? Ongepotchket (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed in the past. The short details on the cases provide better context and meaning. However, you are correct that we should bring in some of the instances where colleges treated accusers poorly as well. My view is that this is an emerging issue and illustrations help readers understand the scope and quality better than simply a sentence that says there have been some lawsuits. Also, in terms of balance, we have thousands of words on the assault rates and types, but far less on quasi-judicial college processes which are really at the center of the issue for victims and the accused.Mattnad (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ongepotchket: I agree. I think a general description is probably more useful here than series of bullet-points. Aside from a balance issue, it's going to be nearly impossible to keep that list up-to-date, avoid overemphasizing some cases, and offer sufficient detail while avoiding BLP and neutrality issues. If you're willing to take a crack at doing that, I say go for it. Nblund (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised. Just now it's urgent to removed examples because it's "impossible to keep the list up to date" and BLP issues (but nobody was concerned about that until this very moment, after those had been like that for months). May I point out that while you're intent on removing these details, we're keeping the vast, repetitive presentation of other sections such as expansive details on very similar surveys. Now, to quote Ongeptcket, "they're also gratuitous for the purpose of making the point" could readily be applied to the many surveys presented in the previous section. Mind if I trim those down too given the logic? We could have 1 to 2 single lines about each which would fit neatly in one paragraph.Mattnad (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I posted a request on your talk page where I asked you to trim this section. I actually agree that the survey section is repetitive and too detailed, and would support summarizing it, but I think that's probably an issue that needs to be addressed separately from this one, and maybe would be something that we should leave to an un-involved editor. Nblund (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Feminism articles
• Mid-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• Start-Class sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• Start-Class psychology articles
• Unknown-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Start-Class Higher education articles
• WikiProject Higher education articles
• Start-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Unknown-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Start-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Start-Class Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles