Talk:Rape/temp1

"There is even widespread disagreement on what the published FBI statistics of false reporting of rape are, though this is a matter of public record: lawyer Alan Dershowitz has claimed that the FBI statistics show rape to be the most frequently falsely reported crime, at a rate of 8.6 percent; yet in numerous places one can find it listed as a "myth" that rape is falsely reported with any frequency, and claims that FBI statistics show it to be falsely reported at 2%, no more often than any other violent crime, or even less often. "

This entire section is questionable. There is no primary source being cited here, and even though it states right in the first sentence that this is a matter of public record this passage is not providing any material from that record. I don't see any justification for it until someone can cite the FBI records directly, until then it is nothing more than speculation and turns wikipedia into a chat forum used by partisans on both sides. Kev 20:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe you are entirely misunderstanding the thrust of the passage. We have no unimpeachable source, no 'oracle' which would tell us, unequivocally and without possibility of error, just exactly how many reports each year are false. On the other hand, the FBI publishes its statistics, and those statistics, their estimates, are a matter of public record. One can strongly dispute whether the FBI got it right when they said false reporting happened at a rate of X%, but what the FBI said X% was is a matter of public record; even if they were wrong, the fact that they said it is an inalterable fact. Now when even the inalterable facts on a subject are quoted by one source as this, and by another source as that, both sources fairly clearly being sincere, it shows you how hard it is to be sure you have hold of the absolute facts on this issue. If anyone is coming to this article with an iron-clad faith that they know exactly what the facts are, because someone told them the "facts" and assured them that they were true, and Wikipedia points out how many people are claiming to have the facts, and we disabuse them of that certainty that they already know it all, I think we've done a valuable service. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little lost here. I don't recall saying or at any time implying that there was an oracle or sublime or perfect source we could cite to know "the truth(tm)", nor would I given my various philosophical positions on skepticism. What I did say, and what I find perfectly reasonable, is that if this article is going to refer to the FBI records being a matter of public record (and thus a hard fact that can be presented with proper citation) it ought to actually cite that record instead of getting lost on a tangent of how many people have a different conception of what that statistic is. How hard is that? If we can't come up with the public record to cite, I don't see why we should be wasting the reader's time with speculation on what that statistic just might be. As you can see, someone else seems to think it is inappropriate to list a broad range of speculative statistics and has simply removed the passage, bypassing this sandbox altogether. I don't blame them, but I was hoping wiki editors could actually supply the data they are claiming before someone found it necessary to remove the fluff. Kev 22:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how it can be made clearer. To fully discuss the subject, it is not sufficient to clear away all the erroneous guesses which you can find every place, each one claiming their answer to be the accurate one straight from the source, and say "Here are the facts, instead." Part of the subject is the fact that every place you go, you can find all sorts of erroneous guesses, contradicting each other, all claiming to be the accurate one straight from the source. Calling it speculation without facts on the part of Wikipedia editors is inaccurate: What Wikipedia editors are noting is speculation without facts on the part of other sources which are claiming to be distributing the facts. What part of warning people how prevalent misinformation on the subject is is "fluff"?

The part after the delcaration is already made that, "Figures vary wildly on the issue of false reporting, with no apparent consensus." After that, it is just saying the exact same thing with numbers. Kev 05:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You know what's going to happen if someone looks up the FBI's statistics and says "Ah, it's N.N%" and puts that in the article, clearing away any reference to how many people are claiming different figures? The next person who comes along and reads the article who happens to have heard a different figure will say "Oh, they got it wrong; it must have been a POV-pusher who deliberately put in the wrong figure; I'll edit it and put in the correct figure." -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which is why the FBI source needs to be cited directly, so that anyone else coming along deciding to change it will find themselves stonewalled if their source is indirect and thus the number incorrect. If their source is direct, then the number for the same year will be the same. Is this unreasonable somehow? Regardless, this is only one of many changes I am proposing, if this sticks to you somehow then we can leave it be for the time as there are much more important changes in this sandbox version that need to be made as quickly as possible, like the revealing of the entire Carol Wallace quote for example. Kev 05:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"or even that they are impossible"

The claim here was that "many" public voices claim false reports are impossible. I already changed that to some, but I would like evidence of this supposed fact before it is retained. Kev 20:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"being interviewed by the newspaper regarding a UMass student who had made a false report of being assaulted in a parking lot by a man who had grabbed her and cut her face with a knife (a wound that the student herself had inflicted). The student provided a description of the nonexistent assailant to the police before admitting a few weeks later that the incident had never occurred. Despite the fact that the false report took police resources away from investigating a series of actual sexual assaults that had taken place on campus, the district attorney failed to hold the student accountable for the false complaint, stating "If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them."

The relevance of going in detail on this? Got me, and the second half is just more POV being shoved into the mouth of wikipedia. BTW, someone was trying to play very naughty by only providing half the quote from Carol Wallace. Kev 20:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Some feminist commentators have accused Western society of encouraging sexual assaults by not pursuing them vigorously enough or punishing them severely enough. If this is so, then the logical consequence is that false reports are encouraged by announcing beforehand that they will not be prosecuted, and in some cases, actually rewarding them when they occur. In many instances, false reports of "hate crimes", sexual assault included, are actually praised even after they are revealed to be false, for bringing attention to the issues."

Wikipedia is being used here once again as a sound-board, not appropriate. Kev 20:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Victim Blaming

"It has been proposed that one cause of victim blaming is the so-called "Just World Hypothesis"."

Who has proposed this? We need a citation here not just wiki editor proposals that would indicate original research.

"Some people even attribute all incidents of false reporting, no matter how well-documented the falsity, to victim blaming."

Again, who are these people?

"It has been suggested that vitcim blaming many be one explaination for the low reporting rate for sexual assault."

I charged this sentence from "a commonly held belief" to the more NPOV "it has been suggested", but a source would still be nice.

"Many commentators emphasise that victim blaming in rape cases justifies the restriction of women's freedoms and encourages the under reporting of the crime."

Who? Again and again, we have weasel words like "many commentators" replacing substantive facts on both "sides" of this issue. Kev 21:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Temp page still needed?

Does this temp page still serve a purpose? If there is useful material here it should be merged into the main article. -Willmcw 22:33, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I created this temp page on the advice of someone on the main article that didn't want me to change a number of biased statements in that article. I've since given up on the whole thing, so this page no longer serves any purpose from my end. Kev 23:36, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then if there is no objection I'm going to blank it. That's not to deny the value of its contents, or the correctness of the main article, neither of which I've read. It's just that this subpage is inappropriate to leave in the main article space. FYI, temp pages do serve legitimate purposes, but they should be made as subpages of the Talk page, not the main article. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:48, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)