This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EvergreenFir (talk | contribs) at 21:35, 12 March 2015 (→Figures without citation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:35, 12 March 2015 by EvergreenFir (talk | contribs) (→Figures without citation)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Law C‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the False accusation of rape article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Rape Is Rape: How Denial, Distortion, and Victim Blaming Are Fueling a Hidden Acquaintance Rape Crisis by Jody Raphael (Chicago Review Press, 2013) ISBN 9781613744796 "...between 2010 and 2011, Misplaced Pages users edited and added some of the new studies—as well as Professor Lisak's critique of Eugene J. Kanin—to the site's "False Accusation of Rape" entry. As recorded by the entry's "Talk" page, the article's author, a rape denier, then removed some of the new material. These actions caused the new research, non-Kanin material to be unavailable to Misplaced Pages readers. The hullabaloo stands as a mini-version of the whole controversy." |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the False accusation of rape article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The overview section tells a lie
The overview section says that the FBI reports that 2% of rape accusations are false. That isn't true. The FBI says 2% of rape accusations are proven false. I don't know whether the author is misquoting the FBI or wikipedia is misquoting the author, but either way the result is wrong or misleading at best. The FBI notes that higher than the 2% are likely false. It gives the unfounded number (8%) but notes some problems with the methodology. This is included later in the article. As anybody knows, the number of people convicted of committing a crime is not the same as the number of people who commit a crime. 2% should be treated as a minimum value, not as a best guess. That number (given by the FBI) is 8%. I removed the incorrect claim but was reverted. I don't have the source but I likely suspect it is being misquoted by wikipedia rather than the author misquoting the FBI. (The justice department numbers being of course, the same thing as the fbi numbers in this case) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.227.216 (talk • contribs)
- I do have the source, and Anderson and the Justice Department are not being quoted inaccurately. The source goes on to discuss the FBI's "unfounded" number and methodology issues, just as we do. I'm not sure what you're suggesting we do; if the sources don't give us a number for "actually false" vs. "proven false", we're not going to speculate upon it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, the fbi and justice department releases a report every year. The summary section should not display the opinions of one source to the exclusion of the other sources. The 2% number is prosecuted and convicted, the summary section gives the exact opposite impression. There is no reason for that source to be so priviledged in the summary section. It should be removed to the simple description with a range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.227.216 (talk • contribs)
"Every year since 1989, in about 25 percent of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI where results could be obtained (primarily by State and local law enforcement), the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing. Specifically, FBI officials report that out of roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases since 1989, about 2,000 tests have been inconclusive (usually insufficient high molecular weight DNA to do testing), about 2,000 tests have excluded the primary suspect, and about 6,000 have “matched” or included the primary suspect.1 The fact that these percentages have remained constant for 7 years, and that the National Institute of Justice’s informal survey of private laboratories reveals a strikingly similar 26-percent exclusion rate, strongly suggests that postarrest and postconviction DNA exonerations are tied to some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions." https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt The above poster raises a valid point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.112.234 (talk • contribs)
Misinformation, article really needs cleaned at least at overview
I'm new to editing and I don't want to make mods angry at my lack composition, but kids don't read and are likely to throw this in each others faces at fact. First statements attributing Michelle J. Anderson for that 2% figure are not factual and are based from a report made over 25 years ago by a squad of NYPD officers not trained in statistical analysis which was initially quoted by one Susan Brownmiller in "Against Our Will" Turvey Brent is also attributed with arguing this figure in another text decrying Susan Brownmiller's work
Please consider removing this 2% figure because attributing to the idea that false rape accusation don't happen presents a paradigm where there is a hole in the law that allows people to make baseless claims about the worst crime next to murder and many times the false accuser goes unpunished or with minimal impact such as wasting police time or 2 years in prison at most for filing false reports. 204.194.141.29 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC) MUTT
- It's possible we could be clearer about what we mean with Anderson's reference to "conventional scholarly wisdom", but it's not clear from what she writes that all citations of 2% trace back to this study, and the DOJ has the same figure. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Poorly Written Article
The key issue here is the tone of the article. The entire article appears to be a persuasive essay trying to discount any studies that provide a false accusation figure of higher than 2%. This is especially dubious because the majority of the studies cited on the page provide figures much larger than 2%. It's for this reason I cannot understand why:
"The "conventional scholarly wisdom," according to American law professor Michelle J. Anderson, is that two percent of rape complaints made to the police are false".
is included in the overview. First of all, it would appear from the article itself that most scholarly wisdom places the number much higher (18 of 20 studies). Secondly since when is an uncited anecdote of an anecdote a legitimate overview of an issue? So you're telling us (uncited) that Michelle Anderson says that others (uncited) conventionally (vague) state that 2% of reports are false. There is no study that even begins to indicate that! As previously mentioned, an accusation proven to be false vs. being false are two entirely different things that can't be responsibly conflated!
This paraphrasing needs to be removed as it is no where near being factual or authoritative. It is the opinion of one professor on the opinion of "scholarly wisdom" with no citation or data supporting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.129.113.158 (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Figures without citation
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)
- FBI says 8% are unfounded, but that's definitively not the same thing. I think we could allude to the issue of different definitions in our lede, but inclusion of the FBI figure must necessarily take into account, and clearly state, that not everything in that 8% is actually false. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- So I'm still blown away that this Michelle Anderson quote is in the overview. There is 0 justification for it. You are practicing disinformation because you don't want it to be true. Once again you restored this DOJ 2% figure WHICH HAS NO SOURCE AND IS ENTIRELY MADE UP. In any case 8% of rape accusations are deemed unfounded whereas only 2% of other felonies are deemed unfounded. Still 4 times the rate of other felonies. The fact of the matter is False accusations of rape are much more prolific than that of other crimes and you merely not wanting it to be true because it's not politically correct is absurd. I will change the word to unfounded but the Michelle Anderson quote and the 1.5 to 8% (which you mistakenly wrote as 1.5 to 108%) have no merit whatsoever and are anecdotal and anti-scientific. 142.129.113.158 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- The DOJ figure is in the cited source. I can see that you're taking this personally, but there's no need to do so - instead, let's respect reliable sources and report their content correctly. I suggest that you undo your unconstructive edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- The US Department of Justice report in the Cambridge University Law Journal article dates to 1997, when what actually constituted rape was understood differently by different jurisdictions (forcible? by a stranger? By an acquaintance? etc). The article also states that at least one police department (specifically the Philadelphia Police Dept for at least two decades) dumped information to create better crime statistics. Though the article itself dates to 2006, I am wondering if there are any more recent US government/statistically valid studies to cite for this article re the percentage of accusations being false? Also, if we are going to use this article and cite the US stats as being 8% or whatever, then keeping in mind that Misplaced Pages has a worldwide readership, we should also include the Denmark figures for 1.5% plus the issues with police/reporting bias that the article mentions, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, certainly we could do with updated numbers, if they're available. Shearonink, re US-centrism and issues with police, what do you think of the previous lede before the IP's changes - what is good and how would you improve it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Roscelese There is no cited source so I don't know what you're referring to. Once again I cited the DOJ and their 8% figure, where is this DOJ 2% figure? If you're referring to the not publicly available book cited after the statement "Scientifically etc." I find that rather dubious i.e. "trust me it's in there". As for the US bias that can be corrected but the fact remains this is an English wiki and the world's largest English speaking country is the United States. Moreover these are the largest and most authoritative analysis. Furthermore the largest study in Britain also confirmed an 8% false report rate as cited later in those article. These sources are somewhat authoritative though there is criticism on both sides (i.e. the true number is much larger or much smaller). One could argue as one does in the body of the article that the definitions of false accusation is too broad and includes accusations that are not truly false. Personally I believe that 8% is MUCH smaller than the true number because every accusation that "could be true or could be false" as defined by the police, is in these numbers considered to not be a false report when in reality at least some of them are. In the case of the FBI only cases in which officers demonstrated though evidence that the report was extremely unlikely or in cases where the accuser recanted did the cases amount to "Unfounded Accusations". For example if a woman and man were in a room on Tuesday together and a woman reports on Friday she was raped by the man and no injuries are present and no DNA evidence is intact, the only way to consider her testimony false is if she admits she was lying. In every other case her testimony stands. The only study in which every case was investigated until it's completion found that 41% of rape accusations were false as defined by the accuser admitting they lied. I don't think that readers will be misled by thinking the FBI and DOJ numbers apply across the world. As mentioned Law Enforcement can't determine what happened if there's no evidence and they don't have the resources to fully investigate every case. However the FBI's standard for determining if an accusation is false is the same standard they apply to ALL other crimes and the fact remains that in rape cases, accusations are 4 times as likely to be found unfounded. For this reason I think the FBI numbers are the fairest. No need to mention specific criticisms of figures in the overview since those are dealt with in the body. It wouldn't be right to include the arguments that make 8% smaller if you'll exclude those that make it larger and if you're going to include both you may as well write the whole article in the overview!142.129.113.158 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- This stinks of WP:POINT.
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)
- This stinks of WP:POINT.
- @Roscelese There is no cited source so I don't know what you're referring to. Once again I cited the DOJ and their 8% figure, where is this DOJ 2% figure? If you're referring to the not publicly available book cited after the statement "Scientifically etc." I find that rather dubious i.e. "trust me it's in there". As for the US bias that can be corrected but the fact remains this is an English wiki and the world's largest English speaking country is the United States. Moreover these are the largest and most authoritative analysis. Furthermore the largest study in Britain also confirmed an 8% false report rate as cited later in those article. These sources are somewhat authoritative though there is criticism on both sides (i.e. the true number is much larger or much smaller). One could argue as one does in the body of the article that the definitions of false accusation is too broad and includes accusations that are not truly false. Personally I believe that 8% is MUCH smaller than the true number because every accusation that "could be true or could be false" as defined by the police, is in these numbers considered to not be a false report when in reality at least some of them are. In the case of the FBI only cases in which officers demonstrated though evidence that the report was extremely unlikely or in cases where the accuser recanted did the cases amount to "Unfounded Accusations". For example if a woman and man were in a room on Tuesday together and a woman reports on Friday she was raped by the man and no injuries are present and no DNA evidence is intact, the only way to consider her testimony false is if she admits she was lying. In every other case her testimony stands. The only study in which every case was investigated until it's completion found that 41% of rape accusations were false as defined by the accuser admitting they lied. I don't think that readers will be misled by thinking the FBI and DOJ numbers apply across the world. As mentioned Law Enforcement can't determine what happened if there's no evidence and they don't have the resources to fully investigate every case. However the FBI's standard for determining if an accusation is false is the same standard they apply to ALL other crimes and the fact remains that in rape cases, accusations are 4 times as likely to be found unfounded. For this reason I think the FBI numbers are the fairest. No need to mention specific criticisms of figures in the overview since those are dealt with in the body. It wouldn't be right to include the arguments that make 8% smaller if you'll exclude those that make it larger and if you're going to include both you may as well write the whole article in the overview!142.129.113.158 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, certainly we could do with updated numbers, if they're available. Shearonink, re US-centrism and issues with police, what do you think of the previous lede before the IP's changes - what is good and how would you improve it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- The US Department of Justice report in the Cambridge University Law Journal article dates to 1997, when what actually constituted rape was understood differently by different jurisdictions (forcible? by a stranger? By an acquaintance? etc). The article also states that at least one police department (specifically the Philadelphia Police Dept for at least two decades) dumped information to create better crime statistics. Though the article itself dates to 2006, I am wondering if there are any more recent US government/statistically valid studies to cite for this article re the percentage of accusations being false? Also, if we are going to use this article and cite the US stats as being 8% or whatever, then keeping in mind that Misplaced Pages has a worldwide readership, we should also include the Denmark figures for 1.5% plus the issues with police/reporting bias that the article mentions, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- The DOJ figure is in the cited source. I can see that you're taking this personally, but there's no need to do so - instead, let's respect reliable sources and report their content correctly. I suggest that you undo your unconstructive edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)