Talk:Rape/Archive 22

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 15

←

Archive 20

Moving references

I have to admit, sincerely, I am not as familiar with 'blue' links as I should be; those that are referenced above. But since there are only three possible edits where this could have happened, there might not be much of a problem for me to go back and proofread those sections where the references were moved. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

About those definitions....

The definition of rape and the definition of sexual assault are currently in a state of flux. What this means is that the terms are not as well defined as they used to be. In older sources, the term 'rape' almost always meant forced, non-concentual vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman. The term sexual assault is a more recent term that appears in the more current sources. Rape is a type of sexual assault at this point. Maybe the question is this: Whose definition is best? The dictionaries or the CDC and WHO? We already have the solution to this problem in presenting all versions of the definitions and explaining that they differ. Respectfully,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2015‎ (UTC)

Like I stated in the #Use of "victim" in place of "person," and expansion to the Definitions section discussion above, the definition of rape is usually vaginal, anal or oral penetration, or penetration with an object; that is not simply an "older sources" matter, and is also clear by content you added to the Definitions section. While there are various parts of the world that still define rape solely as forced vaginal penetration, rape has been broadened to include other forms of forced sexual penetration for sometime now, and this article has been clear about that. The definition of rape does not usually include non-penetrative sexual activities...unless the activities are penetrative in some way. If it's groping/fondling, for example, it's usually termed "sexual assault," not "rape." The one area where groping/fondling is commonly termed "rape" is when it's child rape (meaning child sexual abuse). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of "victim" in place of "person," and expansion to the Definitions section

With edits like this and this, Barbara (WVS), also known as Bfpage, has been trading the terminology of "person" for "victim." I know that Doc James removes "victim" when he sees it in a medical article. So which wording should we use? My other concern is Bfpage's significant expansion of the Definitions section. This is what it looked before Bfpage's expansion. And this is what it looks like because of Bfpage's expansion. I object to the significant expansion because I think it is going overboard with largely the same definitions, no matter that these are different organizations relaying the same definitions. I am more so for summarizing like we did before, not going that far in-depth, which I also thinks confuses readers (making them think there are so many different definitions, when the definitions are usually vaginal, anal or oral penetration, or penetration with an object). The World Health Organization (WHO) content, for example, is too lengthy, and goes into the WHO's report on the negative consequences of sexual abuse, when that would be better placed in the Effects section. Furthermore, this is not the Sexual assault article; so we should not be going into too much detail about that matter in the Rape article. Opinions? I'll go ahead and alert WP:Med to this matter for their views. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

There really are many, many definitions many without referring to penetration. Historically, penetration was the defining term but that is no longer the most common definition. Adding content to an article and replacing older references is appropriate. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I alerted WP:Med. You stated that "penetration was the defining term but that is no longer the most common definition.", but the section you expanded shows otherwise. I also happen to know that sexual penetration is still the most common definition of rape all over the world. In what way is non-penetrative sexual activity usually defined as rape? It isn't usually defined as rape. And what definitions beside penetration or non-penetration could you possible mean? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDMOS we use the human centric language "person" not victim. Please restore back. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Bfpage, it's not like this article didn't already cover the non-penetrative aspect of rape before your expansions. It did. And I don't see where you added any non-penetrative definitions of rape. What you did add was sexual violence and sexual assault material, which are topics that are broader than the topic of rape. While the terms sexual assault and rape are commonly used interchangeably, sexual assault covers various things that are not usually defined as rape, including forced kissing and groping. With this edit (followup edits here and here), I moved some material back up and cut one of the sections you added. Unless you or someone else can make a convincing argument as to why we should keep all of that material you added, I will also be significantly reducing it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that "victim" language is acceptable and appropriate here. WP:MEDMOS discourages the use of "victim" when talking about a disease like cancer, not when talking about a crime like rape. The exact words are "Avoid saying that people "suffer" from or are "victims" of a chronic illness or symptom" (emphasis added). There is plenty of room in that guidance to allow someone to be a victim of actions taken by another person against them, e.g., a victim of rape or a victim of medical malpractice.

Furthermore, in this context, using different words for the person who rapes and the person who is raped leads to simpler, clearer writing. It clearly distinguishes between the two people. Simple English includes the word victim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with WhatamIdoing. There is a lack of an obvious alternative term, which is needed for clarity. MEDMOS's writ only runs to parts of this topic. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Although I haven't inserted the content concerning the social support systems, these health providers suggest that the term 'survivor' be used instead of victim. Even though I personally like that term better, it is not yet in common use and though I can source the content, I have to use the language that most of the sources use. Thanks for all the comments on the article. I hope med editors understand that my agreement with Pitt is that I improve the medical content on Wikipedia and this is part of my assignment. I am prone to long bouts of editing, not to irritate or dis-improve (is that a real word) an article. I have been very careful to edit in a systematic and incremental manner which allows other editors to collaborate in the improvement of the article. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion is continued in the #Concern about the amount of content in the article section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference 27 26

I read the source and the quotes are quoted out of context since the rest of the page talks about sexual violence and doesn't seem to limit it to the specific anatomical descriptions quoted in the definition section. I think it should be removed. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

My sources are now adding 'fingers' to the list of 'penetrative' anatomical parts. This should be inserted somewhere in the article. I suspect that the statutes that allow the prosecution of 'rape' to proceed based upon finger penetration is something readers don't know about. (Now here is where I will show my bias.) The more definitions that a person has about what constitutes rape, legally, may help them realize that they can stop the abuse, even if the penetrative anatomical part is a finger (or tongue!). Encyclopedic and good content. I appreciate your input on this. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the reference Barbara was talking about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree!

As I mentioned above, I am not a fan of dictionary references and I am glad that you removed them. I was not the original editor who added the dictionary definitions, except for one which showed a change in the definition. The change in definition will become more obvious in the additional content I will add about the differences in the age of consent (Can you believe that in Georgia it is 10-years-old????!!!) I have another question, since the article is improving with your edits - I've come upon sources, especially describing the different laws that the states currently have on rape and have found that many of them will prosecute on charges of 'attempted rape". In what section do you think that belongs and (sorry to say this) does that change the definition in any way? Should there really be a totally different article on Attempted rape? Best Regard,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The age of consent is very complicated. Where did you get information saying that it is 10 is Georgia? Gandydancer (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Kruttschnitt, Candace, William D. Kalsbeek, and Carol C. House. Estimating the incidence of rape and sexual assault. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press, 2014. Print. The publisher is Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies of Science. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
"The Age of Consent, Georgia – Age of Consent Laws". Retrieved 2015-12-10.

I noted in the #Concern about the amount of content in the article section above that I don't know what dictionary definitions you are talking about, other than what you added; that is all that I was talking about. You added that material. More on the matter is stated above in the aforementioned section. As for what you've stated in this "Totally agree!" section, the definitions of rape are distinct from age of consent matters, even though the two topics overlap because of the child sexual abuse and statutory rape aspects; we all know that consent is the major aspect in these cases. Children and other minors cannot legally consent to sex with adults (or other minors in some cases). Little children cannot mentally consent at all, no matter what a deluded person states on that topic. We already have a Consent subsection in the Definitions section addressing this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know how to respond to what you are saying about 'a deluded person states on that topic.' I am reviewing the content contained in the above mentioned source above in my reply to Gandydancer. I have to say that I am somewhat shocked, but the source is reliable. Some of the information in the above mentioned reference will undoubtedly make it into other articles, but since I'm still reading, I can't really know at this time where the information should go. I have to wait till I read it, so that I can understand its context. But it is shocking that the age of consent is so low: Georgia-10-yrs-old, 8 states=12 yrs-old, then 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and of course 18. The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What I meant by "no matter what a deluded person states on that topic" is people who think that little children can validly consent to sexual activity. In other words, a 7-year-old as opposed to a 17-year-old. There have been plenty such people on Wikipedia, including an editor noted on my talk page (I don't mind if you look at my talk page), which is why the WP:Child protection policy exists. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Collaborating

I've got a great idea - why don't you just delete the definitions you don't think are appropriate. Most of them were added by other editors and so I don't mind at all. I have to ask you to please stick to one point at a time. I don't know what it is, but I have trouble skipping around on many of the things that are brought in one message. Also the phrase "we all know" may not be true and doesn't add to the discussion. There is no such term as 'mentally consent' and are you referring to the authors of the National Academy of Sciences as being deluded? Can't we just talk about improving the article? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of what is currently in the Definitions section was added by you. As for "cannot mentally consent at all," I was referring to the cognitive state of little children, not to a legal definition of rape. The cognitive ability and emotional state of children with regard to sexual activity is covered in the literature on child sexual abuse. As for the "deluded" aspect, I explained in the #Totally agree! section above what I meant by "deluded."

On a side note: It would be best if you reply in the sections where the original discussions are instead of starting a new discussion for a new reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not best for me if I reply in the sections where the original discussions are instead of starting a new discussion because I am not able to follow things. Sometimes there is a sharp turn where the discussion changes abruptly I then get confused about whether we are discussing something new or something we have discussed before. I have already trimmed much material including one or two dictionary definitions that I did not add. I did add one and now that is also gone. At this point, I am not sure what else you want to see removed.

BTW, I probably will be switching over to my other account...Even though my agreement with Pitt is about adding medical content, they are not too terribly thrilled about having so many of my edits on rape. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2015‎ (UTC)

What you stated about communicating is one reason I have trouble communicating with you (our difficulty communicating makes more sense now). I can't grasp why you communicate that way. In the case of this article, it seemed that you were initially doing that because of the guidelines matter (noted in the #Dilemma section above). But if you must communicate like that, I'll follow. I reverted you minutes ago because I never stated that I have a problem with dictionary references. In the #Concern about the amount of content in the article above, I stated, "Sourcing to dictionaries are fine for some aspects of this article. My problem with your dictionary/encyclopedia material is that you were apparently going to add an entire section about dictionary and encyclopedia definitions. In some Wikipedia articles, it is important to include dictionary and encyclopedia definitions, but I don't see how that is the case for this article." This link shows what you intended to add, and seemingly were going to expand. As for what I want removed, I was clear about that in the "Concern about the amount of content in the article" section. I stated that I'll get around to cutting the material later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Concern about the amount of content in the article

Generally speaking, my edits have been bold. I looked at the talk page before I began my own personal edit-a-thon and found that there wasn't too much controversy or action related to the article. I was checking in on the Wikiproject: Women's Health page where there is a 'to-do' list posted and the Rape article was tagged for improvement. I had some free time along with an agreement with the University of Pittsburgh to improve health and medical content and so I dove right in. As for removing content, I have to admit my confusion with this idea. The information I added is significantly condensed from the source. The only instances where I have heard of significant content removal have been in cases of vandalism, removing material created by socks, and merges. Someone with more experience than I have may know of some other types of content removal, but from what I understand, it isn't generally done. I was under the impression that concise, referenced, up-to-date content could only benefit the article. In any case, I have been trimming some run-on sentences, in line primary source references (this seems unusual), breaking up sentences that contain long clauses into smaller sentences and the like. I expect the article to continue to shrink. I only have a little more content to add regarding the treatment of psychological treatment and I expect that will be all I have to offer. I will do some maintenance, some wikifying, expanding references and the like. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I explained in the #Use of "victim" in place of "person," and expansion to the Definitions section discussion above why I am looking to significantly reduce what you added to the Definitions section. Content is significantly cut all the time here at Wikipedia, for various reasons, including WP:Summary style or WP:Due weight reasons. And since you still fail to directly engage me in conversation and offer a solid reason for keeping all of that material, despite what is stated in #Dilemma section above, I will proceed with significantly reducing the content; by that, I mean summarizing, reducing the redundancy, removing sexual abuse/sexual violence information that is not needed in this article, and moving any content that is better placed elsewhere in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, in light of what you have posted above I would like to ask for the opinions of other editors regarding your concerns. In fact, we are in total agreement about summarizing, reducing redundancy and moving content elsewhere in the article. I am not in agreement that the definitions should be removed. I request that you delay removing material related to definitions until we receive some input from other editors. With Respect,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I will wait for other input. But I don't see why I have to wait for long when you are busy editing away on the article. I will also make explicitly clear what my issue with your definitions material is: The section begins by noting the "vaginal, anal or oral penetration, or penetration with an object" aspect of rape. Then, in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention subsection you added, not only is there the "vaginal, oral, or anal insertion" aspect, but the following: "Other acts of coersive, non-consensual sexual activity that may or may not include rape (vaginal penetration) are part of rape." After that, a list of different circumstances are presented as if all of these circumstances are primary definitions of rape, even though the sentence before that states "may or may not include rape" and the title of the reference is "Sexual Violence: Definitions." We do not need all of that in the Definitions section. You worded the text as "rape (vaginal penetration)," but I don't see anywhere in that reference where rape is defined solely as vaginal penetration. After that section, we have the World Health Organization subsection, where you included a list of the negative consequences of sexual abuse as if those are definitions of rape. You then go on to quote the broad definition of sexual violence: "Sexual violence is defined as: any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or acts to traffic, or otherwise directed, against a person’s sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting, including but not limited to home and work ... Sexual violence includes rape." That is not needed in the Definitions section. After that is the "Federal Bureau of Investigation" subsection, which also notes the "vaginal, anal or oral penetration, or penetration with an object" aspect. This material does not need its own section. It was better off where it originally was before your edits. After that section, we then have the Global definitions subsection, which simply notes that are now more inclusive definitions which do not require penetration, and then goes into the "term rape has been phased out of legal use in favor of terms such as sexual assault or criminal sexual conduct" aspect, when that material is better served earlier on in the Definitions section where it originally was. Furthermore, the section goes on to note that other countries or jurisdictions continue to define rape to cover only acts involving penile penetration of the vagina, treating all other types of non-consensual sexual activity as sexual assault, which is also content that was better left earlier in the Definitions section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

This section you were intending to add, despite knowing my issues with what you've added to the Definitions section so far is exactly what I mean. In what way do we need a whole section on how dictionaries and encyclopedias define rape? In what way do such definitions, which are not different than how rape is defined by law anyway (since "especially sexual intercourse" can mean vaginal, anal or oral intercourse), affect rape laws, which are the definitions that people go by for the crime of rape? The most we'd need about about dictionaries and encyclopedias in the article is "including in reference works, such as dictionaries and encyclopedias" added on to the "The definition of rape has varied historically and culturally." sentence. And I reiterate that this is not the Sexual assault or Sexual violence article; we have three separate articles for these topics for valid reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I support Flyer22's views here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 as well. The article had been improved upon in the last month; a good portion due to collaborative efforts over a period of weeks. Now it needs a mop and pail. Barbara, Flyer22 isn't likely to give you poor editing advice, and if they weren't already here I'd probably be asking them for help. An agenda-free editor on this topic whom also has patience for us newbs isn't spotted too often. Ongepotchket (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

We may be making more of an issue than we need. It was mentioned in one of the editing summaries that we don't need dictionary definitions or there are too many of them-I certainly agree and will be the first one to delete these. I don't referencing dictionaries at all. The only thing we may disagree on is how many definitions there should be, how they differ maybe why they differ and if it matters. As for having an agenda, I don't know what you mean, Ognepotchket since my goal is to expand and improve the article. I have tried to improve and update sources, added references, expanded medical content, wikifying, removing duplicate links, correcting spelling mistakes. I have removed quite a bit of extraneous wording like: "Research shows...." or "it is known that...". I believe the article has improved over the years with the collaboration of hundreds of editors. It don't believe that I've been given advice-there are just a few things we do not agrre on. I would suggest that we all continue to edit away, working together to make sure readers understand that the term 'rape' used to mean only one thing and now different governmental organizations and NGO are changing the meaning. I was reading some recently published books (2016) on the topic of rape and even the researchers are having difficulty with the definitions. One reason for this is their need to quantify instances of all the kinds of sexual assault and because of the number of different definitions, research has become difficult.

I realize that the Rape article is not the Sexual Assault article nor is it the Sexual violence article.It is also not the Child sexual abuse article, the FBI article...ad nauseum. From what I can tell so far, other editors are working with me for article improvement. We probably should continue to do so. As for waiting for so long while I am busy editing - I didn't think there was much harm in adding wikilinks, references, medical content while we are waiting for other editors to comment about 'Definitions'. Let's keep up the discussion about definitions while I add medical content and wikilinks. The Very Best of Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what dictionary definitions you are talking about, other than what you added; that is all that I was talking about. There are no other "dictionary definitions" in the article, other than what is in the "Etymology of term" section, which are not sourced to dictionaries. Sourcing to dictionaries are fine for some aspects of this article. My problem with your dictionary/encyclopedia material is that you were apparently going to add an entire section about dictionary and encyclopedia definitions. In some Wikipedia articles, it is important to include dictionary and encyclopedia definitions, but I don't see how that is the case for this article. As for an agenda, I think that Ongepotchket simply means that I commonly strive to edit while keeping my personal feelings about a topic out of my editing. For example, I have made it clear that for the Sexism or Domestic violence article (where I'm currently involved in a dispute with an editor) I am simply following the WP:Due weight aspect of the WP:Neutral policy, some other policy or guideline, and/or that I despise WP:Activism editing. Despite editing that way, I am sometimes faced with agenda-pushing editors who think I'm not being neutral...when Wikipedia states otherwise. Thank you, Ongepotchketm, for recognizing my editing principles. As for waiting some more, I don't see a need to do so, given what is stated in this section. I will wait one more day or so (maybe a few more days, given my laziness), and then I will begin cutting the Definitions sections, per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, as seen with this edit (followup edits here, here, here, here and here), I significantly cut the Definitions section, made tweaks to it for better flow, and moved most of the WHO content to the Effects section. I cut some of the Scope content you added since it was redundant to the Definitions section, and I moved a bit of content from the Definitions section to the Scope section. I then made the Scope section part of the Definitions section, since it partly concerns the definitions/categories of rape. I also re-made the Consent section a subsection of the definitions section since consent is a crucial part of the Definitions of rape. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of term

"Rape" can mean a type of sexual assault. But it can also mean a "violation" of a city or country. The "Rape of Nanking" is such an instance. The title does not refer specifically to rapes, but to the violation of the city. The list of rapes in war should not therefore include "Rape of Nanking".Royalcourtier (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Concern about the amount of content in the article - revisited

It is good that we finally got around to the basic point. I mistakenly thought there was a problem with the amount of content regarding definitions as was mentioned above. I began to trim the amount of information regarding definitions including dictionary definitions. Now I think I better understand that is not really the number definitions that are the problem. The problem seems to be the addition of the information about the CDC and the FBI. Am I closer to understanding the problems with these edits? Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. Again, see what I stated in the #Concern about the amount of content in the article section above; by that, I mean my "04:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)" post. That post addresses my problems with the definitions material you added, including some of the CDC material. The FBI material is fine, and I'd rather that not be reduced; it was already there before you started editing the article, and I plan to move that back up to where it was. I never had a problem with the dictionary references; my problem was with this bit you added, which I removed. Dictionary references being in the article is different than dictionary definitions being in the article. I just explained myself in the #Collaborating section above; I'd rather not keep repeating what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Moving the FBI material wherever you would like is not a problem. Removing the CDC information would be deleting information that is appropriate in this article. Seriously, out of the hundreds of edits that I have now made to improve the article, you only have a problem with some of the CDC information? If this is the case, we certainly have wasted a lot of time talking about such a minor issue. Why don't you help out a bit more? The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), I reiterate that I explained in the "Concern about the amount of content in the article" section above the problems I have with the content you added to the Definitions section, and it's not just the CDC information. I didn't state that I'd be deleting all of what you added to the section, but I will be significantly downsizing what you added, per the points I've made on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Like I just noted in the "Concern about the amount of content in the article" section above, "[A]s seen with this edit (followup edits here, here, here, here and here), I significantly cut the Definitions section, made tweaks to it for better flow, and moved most of the WHO content to the Effects section. I cut some of the Scope content you added since it was redundant to the Definitions section, and I moved a bit of content from the Definitions section to the Scope section. I then made the Scope section part of the Definitions section, since it partly concerns the definitions/categories of rape. I also re-made the Consent section a subsection of the Definitions section since consent is a crucial part of the definitions of rape." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Shootingstar88, I reverted you on this because it is redundant to what is already covered in the General subsection of the Definitions section. See what I've argued above. There is no need to repeat the same definitions via different organizations, and there is no need for extensive quoting. We are supposed to summarize the matter, and this is already summarized. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

History of Rape

The section on the history of rape in this article is longer than the article on the History of Rape. Doesn't this mean that some of the material could be moved to the other article? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Is the section really bigger than the History of rape article? Either way, it should be downsized, per WP:Summary style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Oh yes, I did a word count. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: I extensively cut the History section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Misleading graphic

I was browsing this article, and I noticed this file being used to indicate rape prevalence. It seems to be misleading for a number of reasons. For one, the statistics seem to refer to sexual assault in general and not necessarily rape, so the header of the image is apparently inaccurate. Secondly, the information in the image doesn't seem to be present anywhere else in the article, so it would surely require a citation. Thirdly, the countries used for this image seem to be completely arbitrary. The article says that rape is most prevalent in Oceania, southern Africa and North America, and yet only one of the countries in the image fits into that category (the United States). The article seems to suggest that South Africa has the highest rate, but I don't know if that's accurate. What exactly is the point of this image anyway? It seems to me that this information, even if it is somehow relevant, would be much more valuable as part of the article, so it could be cited and expanded if necessary.-RHM22 (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC) By the way: if there must be a selective bar graph, it should probably use information from the largest countries by population or those with the highest per capita rape rate. I don't see how selecting a few random nations adds any value whatever.-RHM22 (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Numbers are correct (well, USA number is 2012, not 2011... seems to be sound rounding issues too) and they are for rape not sexual assault. Source is here (Excel file). See the second tab in the excel file. That said, I agree that the chart is too selective. A color-coded map would be better. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, EvergreenFir. Yes, I agree that a color-colored map would be much more useful. I believe I saw one in another article. If I can find it again, I'll replace the current image with that assuming there is no opposition. By the way, I'm not sure that the "rape" definition is correct, given that the table you linked says that the numbers refer to "rape and sexual assault". I'm not sure exactly what their definitions are for each word, but they seem to be making some sort of distinction. That said, the important thing is getting rid of that awful selective graph, so I'll leave the rest up to the experts.-RHM22 (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I was confused about the title too, but each of the three spreadsheets shows a different type of sexual assault. The middle "rape" does mention the definition of rape on there somewhere. I'm totally cool with the removal of this image though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Rape by gender with this article

I oppose the merge proposal by Graham11; this is because the Rape article is big enough as it is and having a Rape by gender article is valid. I had been considering whether the Serial rapist article should be merged with this one or the Types of rape article, but now that article has significantly grown. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - the Rape article is too large to navigate as it is. Allow more time for more content to be added to Rape by gender. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree with the reasons given above. I also think the research topic "Rape [classified] by gender" is of emerging importance in the field, as terminology and methodology become more rigorous. That might be brought out better to readers with a change in the title of the relevant article. —Geekdiva (talk) 04:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Section Consent

"Duress is the situation when the person is threatened by overwhelming force or violence, and may result in the absence of an objection to intercourse. This can lead to the presumption of consent".

I think it was meant to say "presumption of non-consent". Legally, if duress is proved, the presumption is that there was no valid consent (at least under the English Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 75[1]).

Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F01:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:8BA6 (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Duress isn't the best word to describe force or violence since duress is often considered a defense to criminal charges. Additionally, the language 'in the absence of an objection to intercourse' is somewhat misleading because, at least in most jurisdictions in the US [maybe all of them], a person does not have to object to sexual conduct in order for the conduct to be rape. Silence is not acquiescence or at least it's not always acquiescence. Lots of jurisdictions will imply consent if two parties have a pre-existing sexual relationship. Kresta Daly (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)dhalaighKresta Daly (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it should remain as it is. "Presumption of consent" is from the pov of the accused, not the law. I think in the following sentences the article describes duress adequately.--Frederika Eilers (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)