Talk:False accusation of rape

Journal of Forensic Psychology

I got my total by adding the unfounded + actual numbers so I wouldn't have to write "and 85,000 accusations are true" the way the source did, but if editors don't think this falls under WP:CALC we can make it hew closer. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• The study does not state that 85.000 accusations that are not classified by the Police as false are in fact true. Cases of disputed consent who may end up with acquittal in court thus branding the allegations as false are also among the 85.000, cases of innocent men who spent years in prison before being acknowledged innocent, like Brian Banks, are among those 85.000 accusations that are not filed as false after the first Police investigations, but are not necessarily true. The study states that an average 5000 accusations of rape every year are filed as false by the Police after the first investigations, adding up to a rough 5,6% of all rape allegations Isananni (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
  • You don't seem to understand the topic we are writing about here. A false accusation as written about in this article is not any accusation that does not result in a conviction, or one where a crime occurred and the wrong person was convicted. Anyway, do you have any input on my question? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
    • What question? And I do understand the topic of this article, thank you very much. The case of Brian Banks I mentioned is a perfect example of false accusation of rape that had NOT been classified as false by the police and led to a conviction of a perfectly innocent man where no rape had occured, hence it belonged to the 85.000 cases each year that you, not the research in Journal of Forensic Psychology, classify as “true” without any notion of what each file was about in the time period that was taken into consideration. Isananni (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty suspicious of the Journal of Forensic Psychology. It's a journal published by the OMICS Group, which is an academic paper mill that's been accused of predatory publishing and was sued by the FTC for deceptive practices. The FTC also claimed that there is little or no peer review with papers published by the OMICS Group which throws up a red flag. Should Wikipedia be citing studies that likely don't go through peer review? On the other hand the authors of this paper are legitimate and have published other papers in respectable journals.

I also have problems with the statement that false allegations of rape are "five times higher than for most other offence types". As was pointed out here, the operative word here is most not all. The same article points out that an individual is 15 times more likely to be accused of murder than rape. This leads me back to my suspicions about the publisher. If it had been published by an organization with a credible record then we could be more certain about peer review. Would peer reviewers have suggested that the language be cleaned up to emphasize which types of offences were more or less likely to have a false allegation? I don't know. I'd suggest striking the whole section. Ian m (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

While the editor of the OMICS Group has been subject of accusations as referenced, it has not been convicted of anything yet and you acknowledge that the authors of the research on the Prevalence of False Accusations of Rape in the United States 2006-2010 are respected scholars presently working for the most important Universities in their country and have published other papers in respectable journals. I therefore do not see how their work should be taken any less seriously. As for the statement that false accusations of rape are "five times higher than for most other offence types", if you had taken the time to actually read the paper instead of limiting your action to the section that summarizes it in this page, you would have noted that the only other crime with similar rates is burglary, where false accusations are more often than not directly linked to attempted frauds against insurance companies. Interestingly and maybe unsurprisingly, false accusations of rape also have gain as prevalent underlying motive, though not only a monetary one, but also an emotional one. False accusations of rape may address a need for attention or revenge, a need for an alibi as in the case of infidelity, they may be instrumental in a divorce proceeding etc. The same respected authors published another paper on such motives that you can find here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313830325_Motives_for_Filing_a_False_Allegation_of_Rape Together with Kanin's research this paper may well serve a section on such motives that has already been suggested and approved to further improve this page. The article from The Cut that you are quoting, one that seems to have sought out not exactly unbiased voices over the Kavanaugh controversy 1) does not say that an individual is 15 times more likely to be accused of murder than rape. It says that an individual is more likely to be wrongly CONVICTED of murder than of rape. Now, a conviction normally comes after an accusation, but an accusation can be filed as false before it reaches a court let alone the stage of a decision over an acquittal or a conviction. 2) one of the authors mentioned in the article explicitly admits to "counting the uncounted" when referring to the supposed number of unreported rapes. In that respect any figure will do. 3) none of the authors mentioned in the Cut article, one of whom is decribed as a novelist, has, to my knowledge, published a single academic paper on any journal citing state-of-the-art research based on the e.g. FBI guidelines like the authors of the Prevalence of False Allegations of rape in The USA 2006-2010 have done. All this considered, I will reinstate De Sutter's research, whatever the editor. Isananni (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

We do not cite omics journals. it is the premier predatory publisher. see here. Jytdog (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog:I personally find removing the entire section of De Sutter's study a waste of a reliable source. Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources verifiability and reliability can be based on the creator of the content rather than the carrier (the carrier being in this case, the publisher, that has had nothing to do with the creation of the content itself, the content being an authoritative study by 3 leading professors of the Criminal Department of the Universities of Amsterdam and Maastricht who have based their work on data provided by the FBI). As already shown here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313830325_Motives_for_Filing_a_False_Allegation_of_Rape the exact same authors of the study on the Prevalence of False Accusations of Rape in the United States (2006-2010) have also published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour, which is one of the sources to which one of the sections in this page is dedicated. The authors themselves are acknowledged to be legitimate by Ian m. Must we assume that Wikipedia considers these exact same authors to be reliable when their work is published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour but not when it is published anywhere else? I will not revert your second edit (so YOU are one revert away from edit warring, NOT me), but I definitely hope other editors will step in in this discussion. Isananni (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

What you personally find to be anything, is irrelevant in WP. There was a community discussion that found consensus that we do not cite omics journals. User:Martinevans123 I did explain on the talk page -- see above. Please self-revert. pinging Guy. Guy, are we now citing omics journals? Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: 1) you are being unnecessarily aggressive towards me, bordering on offensive. You are not assuming my good faith, which is against Wiki policy 2) you removed an entire section after one single editor complained about the alleged unreliability of the source months after it was published on this page following the Kavanaugh's controversy and citing a magazine quoting unpublished authors that admit to "counting the uncounted". I do not call that consensus. The prior discussion on this section did not question the reliability of the source, it discussed how the content of the research should be summarised, not the research itself. I assume the reliability of the source was not being questioned by @Roscelese: when they copyedited on the content without removing the section. Isananni (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, so now I'm the supreme arbiter of content in this article? Does that mean you're going to stand down from all your previous bad edits? If other people have more familiarity with the journal, to the point of citing an RSN discussion of why it's junk, I will defer to them, obviously. Please demonstrate good faith here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: No, you are not the supreme arbiter of content in this article just as I am not, but you did contribute to it and spent part of your unpaid time on it when you copyedited this section, just like I did. Have I edited on the article page after the latest revert? Does it look like I'm being possessive? Do you think I have any personal gain in having this particular section in this page aside from finding it a reliable source and a positive contribution to this page since the exact same authors are published in the same journal that makes the present latest section of the Estimates of Prevalence chapter? The results of this research even fall in the prevailing cited range of other studies. Isananni (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No, we are not citing OMICS journals. And even if we were this is WP:PRIMARY. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Well I think it's pretty clear that the OMICS Group engages in fraud, the FTC has been granted a preliminary injunction preventing them from making false claims and specifically addresses claims about peer review. The complaints about OMICS are all over academia, journalism and Wikipedia too WP:SCHOLARSHIP. This brings me back to the issue, should Wikipedia reference literature that's unreliable. This page is treating a paper that didn't go through peer review as an academic paper, this gives it a false level of legitimacy. Just because the authors published in other journals doesn't mean that this article doesn't have problems, that's the point of peer review. Nobody an academia says, "Well you wrote a couple valid articles so you can just publish whatever you want to from here on out." Can research really call a paper "state-of-the-art" when it wasn't peer reviewed? And just because I said the authors are valid doesn't mean that what they've written isn't. Ian m (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah - I didn't see the red flags initially, but there are some glaring issues here once I read past the abstract: the authors combine false and baseless accusations, and they assume, without any real evidence, that police are correctly applying the false and unfounded allegation classification when there's plenty of literature to suggest that they routinely misapply it in accusations related to rape and sexual assault. Nblund ^talk 14:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: I assume police routinely misapply the false and unfounded allegation classification both ways. Isananni (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Not really - researchers find that they tend to overestimate, rather than underestimate the number of false or baseless reports. The British Home Office study, for instance, found that the police estimated about 8% of assault claims were false, while the official criteria suggested the number should be closer to 3%. There have been some efforts at reform, and a 2014 study found that the LAPD mis-classified cases as unfounded "only" about 2/3rds of the time, but that still represents an overestimate.Nblund ^talk 14:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nblund: thank you for citing those studies. Isananni (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Following this discussion I wrote to the contact author of the study. Mr De Sutter was so kind as to reply and inform me that the study was indeed peer reviewed and amended before publication. Peer reviewers were not disclosed out of respect for their privacy. If the reservations are against the publisher whatever the reviews, arguing is moot, but I think it is fair to acknowledge the authors' intellectual honesty. Amendments addressed in particular the following concerns:

there seems to be some confusion about the difference between false allegations and unfounded/unsubstantiated allegations. The terms are not interchangeable, with 'unfounded' usually encompassing those that are false AND baseless (as per the UCR guidelines). I think you need to make it clear that the definition of 'false allegations' you are using is not the industry standard definition (see Lisak's work, Lonsway, etc). The industry definition requires not only that an investigation be done as per IACP, but also that allegations deemed 'false' are consciously and maliciously made by the complainant. What you are actually measuring is unfounded allegations, i.e. those that are false, mistaken (baseless), etc. Your terminology needs to reflect this important difference. The definition used in the literature currently (requiring consciousness and maliciousness) would stipulate that your examples of false allegations of murder would indeed NOT be deemed false at all. Using this industry standard definition, cases that were investigated and found to involve a mistake, or misunderstanding of the criminal code by a complainant would not be deemed 'false' but may still be considered unfounded in the UCR because they are baseless and did not occur. When you speak about allegations as 'false', you are actually describing unfounded allegations, which is a much broader category. Most of the other, newer literature in the field speaks about allegations as being 'false' only if they meet the stricter definition. Because of this, I think you need to go through and think about terminology every time you are claiming that you are measuring only allegations that are 'false', as this is not what you are really doing and will create more confusion about the prevalence of these types of allegations. This is obviously not the goal of your manuscript. Another issue has to do with using confessions or retractions as evidence of falsity. To deem an allegation 'false' most professionals in the field now require that there is actual evidence to support the falsity, rather than just a retraction or confession to police (despite UCR guidelines). This is because of an acknowledgement that police may pressure people into retracting allegations (either consciously or not, and sometimes through threats of being charged), and then cases can be classified cases as 'unfounded' legitimately under the new guidelines. Anecdotally, this does seem to be happening in some agencies on the ground, and indeed it has been demonstrated that true victims of rape will sometimes retract/confess because of fear, stereotypes, embarrassment etc. Using a retraction of the allegation as evidence of falsity is fraught with issues, and is no longer seen as demonstrating falsity, despite the UCR guidelines, by most in the field. This is something that needs to be addressed in your work, especially if you are going to call all your unfounded cases 'false'. Most importantly, I think the conclusions drawn need to be tempered to provide a more balanced picture of what these findings really show. To say that unfounded rates have fallen, which means the police are following the new UCR guidelines may be correct, but that does not mean that the rates of 'false allegations' you are offering are a correct representation, in my view. Labelling cases as false that are actually unfounded is one issue, using retractions/confessions as evidence of falsity is another. There is also the problem of police bias and rape myth acceptance in the investigations that they are carrying out to discover evidence of falsity or baselessness. Many people working in this field are now looking at not using police classifications of false reports at all, but independent ones to establish these rates, for the reasons I have outlined and others. There is an acknowledgement in the field that police decisions need to be checked in order for findings to be considered robust enough to add to the debate (for a discussion see Ferguson & Malouff (2016) Assessing police classifications of sexual assault reports: A meta-analysis of false reporting rates, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1185-1193). Another issue is that not all agencies in the USA contribute to the UCR for various reasons and motivations. This is discussed ad nauseum in many places and is a major limitation here. At the very least, you need to make it clear that your conclusions only apply to those agencies who did/do contribute in the relevant years. It might also be worthwhile to see whether there are differences in the quality and quantity of those who contributed in your sampled years, as this might explain the decrease in rates of unfounded cases. Specific Comments: -you use the word 'dissipation' inappropriately in the first sentence of the abstract and throughout the manuscript. Do you mean 'waste', or something like it? -In the abstract and results, when presenting something as a proportion (e.g. 1.16) you need to also provide the denominator. 1.16 out of what? Does it require a percent sign? -there are a number of missing commas throughout the manuscript -there are a number of awkward phrases throughout the manuscript (eg. 'vis a vis' and 'deliberate system' on page 4, use of 'in case' when you mean 'when' or 'if' on page 4 and elsewhere, first sentence of the 'procedure' section) -page 6 you talk about the unfounded category being used to 'clear out' crimes, you need to provide more details here, especially since this might still be happening but in a different way -does the 'actual offences' category encompass both solved and unsolved cases? -Your argument about why the estimate of false allegations of rape is conservative (page 9) has not convinced me, especially given my comments above. What about bias in the way the category is used now, you are also including 'baseless' allegations, etc. -page 9 final sentence is not correct. Allegations which are found to be baseless are also included, and these do not require either a confession or proof of falsity. They are allegations made in error. You need to be very specific here. Do you mean 'does not reveal proof of its falsity or baselessness'? -page 10 - your statement that 'law enforcement agencies do use the unfound category to clear criminal cases anymore' needs a lot more evidence in my opinion. Since you haven't looked at the cases I don't think you can say this. This statement needs to be pared back. -page 10 - you state that false allegations of burglary are probably caused by insurance fraud. This is an assumption that needs evidence. It is also incorrect, since you are actually talking about both false and baseless cases. You do not know how many were false (malicious) and how many were baseless (mistaken), let alone what the false ones were motivated by. -Final sentence is too sweeping, in my opinion. You have not studied all US agencies, and have not looked at whether they are actually following the guidelines. The numbers have gone down, but that may mean that they are using the unfounded category in a different way than before.

I hope the other editors will find this new information satisfactory enough to reinstate the section, if not I have no further points to present to advocate for such decision. I will personally refrain from editing on the article on this point. Isananni (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

If that's the review, then I'm not sure the authors implemented the recommendations: the reviewer is pointing to some of the same issues I pointed to above, and they're still in the paper. The authors still rely entirely on UCR data despite a broad consensus that it is unreliable, and they still assert - without evidence - that police have stopped inappropriately using the "unfounded criteria". I suspect that OMICs may solicit reviews for papers but they don't appear to require authors to implement the recommended changes until reviewers are satisfied, making it a sort of meaningless process. Nblund ^talk 14:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding a section to a Wikipedia article based on an email with the author of the study seems to violate all kinds of Wikipedia policies. WP:NOR WP:PRIMARY WP:VERIFY. Also look at the section Overuse of primary sources where there's a discussion about the use of too many primary sources. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a literature review. Ian m (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Estimates of prevalence

I wish to add a line to the first paragraph as follows:

False accusation in regards to rape has been found to be 5 times higher than for most other offense types.

Source: The Prevalence of False Allegations of Rape in the United States from 2006-2010

Quote: "Approximately 5% of the allegations of rape were deemed false or baseless. That was at least five times higher than for most other offence types."

Thoughts?

Flamous7 (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the section dedicated to that research, see “Journal of Forensic Psychology”. This rate may not be true for all instances, hence I do not think it is a good idea to have it in the lead. Isananni (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Didn't see that initially.Flamous7 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. Isananni (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Percents in lead

Iwog please discuss proposed changes here. WP:RS use that percentage range. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The conclusions are being misread and misreported because you are not willing to dive deeper into the data. ALL ESTIMATES EXCEPT KAGEN are an attempt to find provable false allegations the exact same way that a trial attempts to find provable legitimate accusations. However the vast majority of allegations are neither proven or disproven so making any representation of a false accusation rate is extremely dishonest. I find it vile that you would support such bias in a Wiki article.

Again I'll ask you this question. If I lead the article this way: "95% of rape allegations do not result in a rape conviction" I could connect hundreds of credible sources and I would be technically correct. Would you allow it? No of course you wouldn't. Data about conviction rates are entirely missing from an article and why is that exactly?

In this spirit, I have prepared an additional paragraph that reads "The conviction rate for initial rape allegations is only around 5%." (numerous citations given) How could anyone complain about the inclusion of this data in a discussion ABOUT FALSE AND LEGITIMATE RAPE ALLEGATIONS?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwog (talk • contribs)

Because it'd be like writing an article on the suicide rate under the assumption that any death that wasn't provably murder was a suicide. We're writing from actual evidence here, not making assumptions about the gaps. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Stick to what sources say the rate is, not your own research on it. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR all relate. And don't accuse editors of ill intent without unambiguous evidence. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm writing about the actual evidence here, it's the current state of the article is making assumptions about the gaps. In this case, that ALL accusations outside of those few proven to to be false are true leading to the conclusion that the false rape report is 2-10%. Not only is this impossible considering the data but it EXCLUDES many of the studies listed on the page such as the ONLY study that actually attempts to quantify the ACTUAL number of false rape reports. I will give an example of how this reckless treatment of the data translates into the real world:

"Fact: Only 2-8% of rapes are falsely reported, the same percentage as for other felonies."

This is simply a bald faced lie and comes directly from the reckless nature of this page and the bias that is created from the opening paragraph. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the actual rate is under 10%. NONE! So why is such a paragraph being included if it's not to mislead and create bias? Iwog (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

According to RAINN, a source that references FBI statistics, only 3.5% of rapes reported to the police result in prosecution. Would I be justified in editing the Wikipedia page on the crime of Rape to preface with: "It is difficult to assess the true prevalence of legitimate rape allegations, but it is generally agreed that, for only about 3.5% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation will result in the prosecution for a crime." Can anyone explain to me why the exact same language is allowed on a page devoted to the crime of false reporting of rape?? Iwog (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Added {{Reflist-talk}}, to move References from the preceding post up from the bottom of the talk page. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC) updated to move refs to bottom of section; by Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

If I may weigh in in the discussion, since different studies have given different results based on different methods (e.g. one of the most recent studies in the Journal of Forensic Psychology only takes into account the cases dismissed as false by the Police, which are 5,55% in 2006-2010, whereas Kanin studied the files of judicial cases and the results based on the women’s eventual admission was a 41%, with the Rostock police report giving the record result of 80% accusations resulting false after investigation), maybe it is safer to avoid such a wild range like 2-10% in the lead and go into detail of the different ranges in the sections dedicated to the specific studies. A more neutral rephrasing like “recent studies on false rape accusations have resulted in ranges going from as low as 5,5% of all rape accusations (which was 5 times higher than false accusations for other crimes within the same study) to as high as 80%.” The 2% rate was NEVER scientifically proven in any case. Isananni (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Isananni, I wonder do have the citation for that study in Journal of Forensic Psychology? Was that a study in one country, or based on data from multiple countries, or perhaps a meta study of earlier work? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Isananni: when you said "other editors" favored your 80%, I hope you weren't referring to obvious throwaway or single-purpose accounts. Please behave like a reasonable person here. This 80% in the lede is a non-starter and the 2% is not an outlier. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I am not a single purpose account and I am not the one behaving unreasonably here. The 2% rate was NEVER scientifically proven, more than one reliable source shows higher rates than 10%, and 80% is actually the rate of false rape accusations emerging from such allegations made in the context of divorce in my country. So, either we mention outliers on both extremes in the lead or we leave out statistics alltogether from that section and only state rates with each specific study. Otherwise it is biase, a deliberate attempt to dismiss false rape accusations as statistically irrelevant, which is not the case. Isananni (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources? Here's some I found [1] [2] [3] EvergreenFir (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Isananni: why are you harping on "scientifically proven" and insisting on this 80%? If you're so concerned with accurately conveying the science, why are you suggesting that we present a range from 2 to 80, instead of indicating that most studies cluster around 4%? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: what most studies? And how do you build a worldwide average since all studies seem to use different criteria? Let alone the different laws (e.g. an adult sleeping with a 17 years old like Asia Argento seems to have done is statutory rape in California, but not in Italy where the age of consent is 14) Even the latest study of 2017 giving a 5,55% rate clearly states that it only took FBI data of cases dismissed as false by yhe Police after the initial investigation, thus leaving out all judicial reviews where further evidence was eventually produced that proved the rape allegations were false (as was instead the case of Kanin’s study giving a 41% of false rape accusations, even though not on a national level). The case of Brian Banks would not have been in that 5,55% for example, and that was just one case of men spending YEARS in prison over a false rape accusation. And you ask me why I am “harping” on demanding that the 2% rate is shown as the unproven gossip it is on an encyclopedia that supposedly bases its entries on reliable sources?!? Furthermore these studies do not take into account the many instances of petty frauds that do not result in formal charges, but are not less real and known and a social plague. Have you ever heard of anyone giving a lift to a girl with their car only to be threatened to be accused of rape unless they handed her 100 bucks? Or similar blackmails when asking for room service? One such blackmailer was caught on camera by her fortunately smart victim, look it up on youtube. After all is said and done, I hold my point that we either mention both extremes in the lead or none at all. Isananni (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Isananni: You seem to be fighting a battle that has nothing to do with the content dispute at hand. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: The same can be said about you. The present rephrasing clearly states that a 2-10% is a generally agreed rate but at the same time does not dismiss higher rates from perfectly reliable sources as urban legend. It respects WP:NEUTRAL (while this was not the case before), and encourages the user to read further in the article to discern the different studies that have been reported so far, hoping for further contributions. What exactly is your problem with all this?!? Where exactly is wiki policy not respected in allowing for a wider and neutral perspective? Isananni (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Isananni: I don't think you understand very well about how to present statistics, and your wild statements about how Asia Argento's statutory rape is toooooootally the sort of thing this article is about and how really every rapist could be a Brian Banks bely a lack of interest in encyclopedic editing of the article. I suggest you leave it up to people who are more up for encyclopedia editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: you have moved from bordering harassment against me to being downright offensive. 1) as far as my interest for encyclopedia editing is concerned, you may note I was awarded a Good Article badge for my extensive editing on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England so you’re not exactly addressing a naive beginner, while I understand you were implicated in canvassing and have not been awarded a similar badge yet. 2) I never implied every person convicted of rape is a Brian Banks, but it is a fact people wrongly convicted of rape like Brian Banks still exist (two were freed after 26 years in prison after a very belated recantation last May in the USA) and such cases do not add up to the data of cases filed as false allegations by the FBI after the initial investigations in the 2017 research, just like all the other cases that were proved to be false allegations based on evidence produced during the proceedings, and that by admission of the researchers themselves whom I happen to know personally aside from actually reading their paper and I am not aware you can boast either of these circumstances, you certainly do not seem to. As for the Asia Argento case, it is a fact that rape is not a universally agreed concept, national laws do differ on what is considered rape, marital rape e.g. is a very modern western world idea that is still not shared in several islamic countries as far as I am aware and this different approach based on cultural and legal differences would of course weigh in in any serious statistical study. How you can accuse me of pursuing any agenda by merely giving examples in the talk page when all I have done IN THE ARTICLE is curbing the blatant biase in the lead and rephrasing it in a perfectly neutral way (as well as adding the section on the 2017 research you do not seem to have objected) is beyond me. So far the only one pursuing an agenda seems to be you. Isananni (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, @Lwarrenwiki:, @Martinevans123:, @Serial Number 54129:, could you please read my latest edit in the lead of the article that I made in response to the imo reasonable request of other users and tell me if you find it disruptive or in any case not complying with WP:NEUTRAL? Since none of you was recently involved in the editing and cannot be accused of possessiveness, I would honestly appreciate a third party opinion Isananni (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Any clues as to what is being discussed here? Didn't realise I was involved. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2018

@Martinevans123: some users objected the previous lead only reported the lowest rates of false accusations of rape and left out the highest. My recent edit aimed at bringing more neutrality and added that different studies from reliable sources (that have been already reported in the article and perfectly sourced) yelded rates going from a generally accepted 2-10% to as high as 80%. Does this look like I’m distupting the article? What is wrong with giving BOTH the lowest AND the highest rates in the lead and let the user read in detail what rate each study gave according to what data, etc? I involved you and other editors to have an unbiased opinion Isananni (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I see. Well it's a relief to lean I'm not actually involved. Maybe discussions like this need a "ask a random uninvolved editor" function that then deposits a request to comment, via bot, on one's Talk page? Thanks for the explanation, anyway. I'll try and have a look. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: articles are referenced here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape Also sorry if this comes out of the blue, but I thought users who had not been previously involved in the editing could be more unbiased in their opinion. Isananni (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be now at WP:3RR on this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: could you PLEASE state your opinion on my latest edit? That would help avoid edit warring. It’s barely two lines to read. Thanks. Isananni (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please don't shout. Let's wait until the other three uninvolved editors appear? I wonder could you answer my question above? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I wasn’t shouting, I was begging, I am sorry I gave the wrong impression, but I am close to tears, with no one, mot even yiu, simply adding their opinion to a thread where I have been called names from nonsensical to unreasonable to pursuing my agenda with total lack of respect for my good faith. Why wait for the others to give your opinion Martin? Don’t you have an opinion of your own that you prefer to follow the others? What exactly is wrong with my edit stating both extremes of the percents in the lead? What? Isananni (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Waiting might give you a chance to cool down. Look forward to your answer. My interim answer is that we don't generally go straight into numerical detail in the lead. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

that was my second point, either both extremes of the spectrum or none at all. I guess none st all is a preferable solution since that line is a duplication in any case. What was the question? Isananni (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: could you please add your opinion? What exactly is wrong with my edit stating both extremes of the percents in the lead? What? I would appreciate it if one of you had the decency to tell me instead of hiding behind an unargued revert button. What is wrong with my perfectly neutral rephrasing of the lead? Isananni (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not neutral. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Now it’s neutral, no numerical details in the lead, as I suggested as alternative option fron the start with @Martinevans123: confirming it was a more viable and commonly used option. Isananni (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Look, you don't like the lede. Can we move forward constructively without you continually edit warring to change it? Propose a new lede, discuss, get input. Try to establish consensus through communication. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion for the lead is to leave out all numetical details, exactly like user Martinevans123 confirmed is common practice, which has always been my best secobd option (read the ehole thread please). What exactly is your objection to my latest edit? What was not neutral in my latest edit in this respect? What is your constructive contribution aside from reverting my edits even when I merely follow other users’ suggestions??? Isananni (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: could you please give your opinion on my latest edit where I left out all numerical details? Please look at the history of the article. Isananni (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

In response to the request by User:Isananni for comments from uninvolved editors, I looked first at the cited sources for the numbers in the lead. The first source is from 1993, much too old to be reliable. The second is less than completely reliable looking; it has an uncorrected typo in its title as published, and doesn't appear to be widely cited by other literature (as far as I can see). Those facts tell me that the numbers don't belong in the lead. They may not even be good enough for the body of the article. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: those concerns make sense, but I think they can be addressed by using the more recent sources present in the body of the article - it's an issue of keeping the lede up to date with the body content, not of sources not being available. Certainly I think that if we're going to state in the lede that it's hard to assess how often they happen, we naturally must follow that up with the estimate - but in general, the prevalence (or lack thereof) of false accusations is the biggest thing that anyone talks about about them, so even if there's a general no-stats-in-the-lede guideline, that would seem to be superseded by the directive to have the lede be an overview of the body of the article and how the subject is discussed in the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I must say that's a pretty convincing point. We just shouldn't present too much numerical detail in the lead. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at other sources cited in the body to verify the numbers in the lead; I hope others can help with this. So far, I don't see support for the words generally agreed in the lead. I see dissent. It would be verifiable to write According to a 2010 study, for about 2% to 10% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.^[2] Putting that in the lead, though, visibly gives it WP:UNDUE weight. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that singling out that study would be undue. I did a quick google of sources from the last year to see how the rate currently tends to be summarized, and the common view seems to be around 3-4%, 4% or 2-6%, etc. - but I would also understand the argument for summarizing the numbers in recent reliable scientific studies, rather than using news reports which are reporting at a remove. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The 2-10% range is supported by more recent research as well.This primer cites studies from 2006, 2009, and 2010 as sources for that figure. This 2017 article from Rumney and McCartney states that "Reviews of the more rigorous international studies suggest a false allegation rate of 2–8 percent and 2–10 percent". This 2016 meta analysis finds an average rate of about 5.2%, which might also be a reasonable figure to cite in the lead. There's general agreement among reliable sources that this represents a plausible range, there's no reason to remove it from the lead, and there's definitely no reason to rely on patently unreliable figures from police. Nblund ^talk 16:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

addendum Regarding Lwarrenwiki's note about undue weight: the 2-10% range in the 2010 study comes from the authors' survey of past research. The authors also conduct their own separate study and find a result in that same range, providing further confirmation, but the figure itself is a summary of other work. Since the same range is reported in Rumney's review (among others), I don't think it's undue. Lisak and Rumney are two of the most widely cited scholars in the field, and I don't know of any published academic work that disputes that that figure is representative of the quality research. Nblund ^talk 15:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The 2-10% range is not supported by any research including the study you linked. There remains an 80% or more range of accusations that are undetermined as to legitimacy or falsity. I don't know how many other ways I can say this. The ONLY study that attempts to quantify an entire data set as either true or false allegations of rape is the Kanin study. No other study cited on this page attempts to do this. Iwog (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the visitor of this page would be better served with a more detailed explanation of what is understood under “false accusation of rape” instead of trying to find an average among studies where not one report is based on the same criteria and therefore cannot be compared to the others. In terms of percents of estimates given the different criteria, scope of the study, legal aspects etc. at best we don’t know, as this article in Bloomberg states https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-09-19/how-many-rape-reports-are-false.

I may be wrong, but I have a feeling many, including some editors and researchers, are under the delusion that a false rape allegation is such only when no sexual intercourse has occured. While this represents one of the instances, the other instance of false accusation of rape is when a sexual intercourse has indeed occured but one of the parties lies about the lack of consent on their part during the intercourse. This partiality may account for the dissent on at least part of the percents found in the different studies, which is why one cannot throw figures around without explaining exactly what they are based on, as one can do in detail only in the section dedicated to the respective study.

Another issue that would be useful to hint at in the lead and would probably be worthy of a section of its own is the motives behind such false accusations. So far we only have a few words about it in Kanin’s section, when there is more recent research about it https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313830325_Motives_for_Filing_a_False_Allegation_of_Rape

After all, I support editors Martinevans123’s and Lwarrenwiki’s opinion that percents do not belong in the lead in general and especially in this page, but there are other aspects to improve on. Isananni (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"under the delusion that a false rape allegation is such only when no sexual intercourse has occured" - No, I don't think anyone is arguing this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Splendid, so you will not object to a lead specifying “no rape has occured either because the claimant lied about having a sexual intercourse with the accused or lied about their lack of consent during the actual encounter”? And what about adding a section on the motives behind such accusations based on Kanin’s 1994 study as well as the 2017 research by Prof De Sutter and his colleagues? Isananni (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The 2-10% figure is based on published, peer reviewed research conducted by experts in the relevant field, we aren't going to discount those statements because Megan McCardle, a conservative blogger with no relevant experience, thinks that the rate of false allegations is fundamentally unknowable. The lead currently acknowledges that there is a wide variance and uncertainty in estimates, but also states the fact that higher quality studies indicate a rate of 2-10%. Unless you can present high-quality sources that explicitly contest this, there's no reason to remove a widely-cited and well supported figure.

Regarding the statement of about lack of consent or lack of sexual intercourse - there are more reasons that a rape allegation might be categorized as false, so that statement would not be consistent with the sources. Rumney gives some examples in this article: someone may mistakenly believe that a rape took place because they are mentally ill or were unconscious or intoxicated, or, someone might report a rape in a state that has out-of-date consent laws, where marital rape or rape by intoxication are actually not illegal. Alternatively, a third party might mistakenly report a rape when they genuinely don't know (but suspect) a crime has occurred. Nblund ^talk 18:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I will read Rumney’s paper and come back with a better suggestion on how to word the reasons when an accusation of rape is false. Can we agree that based on the already mentioned studies a section on the motives behind a false accusation of rape is useful and within the scope of this page and can be added? Isananni (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that would be within the scope of the page, I'm not sure if it is within the scope of the lead, but that might be worth discussing at a later point. Nblund ^talk 23:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

If you would research for 15 minutes rather than only 5, you'll quickly learn that 2-10% (as written in the lead) is documented but likely inflated. ● Those numbers come from police reporting that is volunteer based and without defined terminology, likely including reports that are difficult to substantiate but not proven false ("False Reporting: Overview," National Sexual Violence Resource Center, nsvrc.org). ● For example, a study of 216 "false reports" found only 2 were proven false in an investigation (Francie Diep, "What the Research Says About (The Very Rare Phenomenon of) False Sexual Assault Allegations" Sep 26 2018). ● On the flip side, only about 0.6% (6 out of 1000) of perpetrators of sexual assault end up in prison ([[RAINN.org|RAINN.org]]). ● "Research shows that rates of false reporting are frequently inflated, in part because of inconsistent definitions and protocols, or a weak understanding of sexual assault. Misconceptions about false reporting have direct, negative consequences and can contribute to why many victims don't report sexual assaults" (Lisak et al., 2010, "False accusations of sexual assault: An analysis of ten years of reported cases," Violence Against Woman, 16, 1318-1334).

...(And that last quote is why it is SO IMPORTANT that we get this right--because most people will see those numbers before they see anything else on this Wiki page. And they will make up their mind that those are the percentages. And they may not read on after that, because they just came to this page wanting to know how often it happens--and now walking away thinking it's as high as TEN PERCENT?! (FYI, I was so upset by this misrepresentation--especially one that has direct consequences on the wellbeing of humans--that I chose to figure out how to write to the writers, pleading for an edit. I have NEVER, in fact, written on the talk page or edited a Wikipedia post before. So I'm sorry if my sources or my name aren't documented correctly.) ...Additionally, there are MANY good stats/quotes/takeaways that someone could excerpt from this article (too many for me to list here): "False Reporting," National Sexual Violence Resource Center, www.nsvrc.org. ...I also think the following should be stated before any stats: "Sexual violence is notoriously difficult to measure, and there is no single source of data that provides a complete picture of the crime" (RAINN.org). Thanks for reading and considering. 09:57 Oct. 1, 2018 HHH--166.70.63.4 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This page is about false accusations of rape, the definition of rape is linked so the alleged difficulty in measuring sexual violence should imo be added there, if ever the case. I object to the percents in lead because hardly any study uses the same criteria as the other and it should be specified what the percent represents since the differences in criteria, legislation etc. make it impossible to derive a reliable worldwide average that does not only include English speaking countries, as is now the case instead. The sources you cite do not seem the most unbiased ones and Lisak is already quoted with an entire section dedicated to his study. Isananni (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

To clarify that 216 Home Office number, it seems like what it's saying is that of the 216 reports labeled as false in the study, only 39 identified a specific perpetrator, and only 2 led to charges being brought against the supposed perpetrator. This seems like potentially relevant/useful information that's not currently in the article. Do other studies have this kind of stat? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Blanked the Germany section

I blanked the #Germany section in the article because the assertions about it based on the Rostock police statement were not supported by the reference given.

former content of Germany section from the article
In 2015 the Rostock police in Germany observed the false allegations had increased in number and claimed 80% of sexual attack allegations in the town were "faked ones". Chief Criminal Investigator to district Britta Rabe opinied the reason for faked allegations was in many instances the women trying to justify her mistaken conduct to her husband, friend or parent.

I blanked it because the WP section asserted that:

1. false allegations had increased in number – but the OZ newspaper does not say that false allegations had increased in number. It said that they are dealing with such reports more frequently than before. That might mean there are more of them. That might mean they hired more investigators to go through them. That might mean there is more political pressure in Rostock on the police to solve sex crimes. It does not imply that the number of them have increased. In fact, it appears that the opposite is the case: at the point the article was written in mid-September of 2015, 173 crimes had been reported; pro-rated to an annual rate that comes to 245 per year. The article reports 262 rapes in 2014, so 245 would be a decrease, year over year.
2. police... claimed 80% of sexual attack allegations in the town were "faked ones" – but if by "sexual attack" we are to understand "rape", the OZ newspaper does not say anything about the numbers of rapes. Or even, unwanted touching. What it does say, is that the 80% of the total reports of rapes, exhibitionism, child pornography, and child molestation were false reports. That could mean, 90% of exhibitionist flashing events were false, and all the others were valid reports. Since the four categories of sexually-related crimes were bundled together, there's no way to know whether reports of sexual attack in Rostock were 80% false, 100% false, or 0% false. The information simply isn't available in the news report.

Since this article is about false claims of rape, and the entire paragraph rests on a source which says nothing verifiable about this, I removed the section. Consequently, since we have no reliable source for a figure of 80% of false reports in the body of the article, it cannot be included in the lead, either. Mathglot (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed this statement from the Helsinki police on largely the same basis: since no distinction is made amongst different types of sexual crimes, and no distinction is made between false allegations vs allegations where the accuser decided not to pursue the case. Nblund ^talk 14:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Who is User:Iwog?

Just stumbling by. (Was bored and had a look at recent edit wars.) If you peruse this talk page only and have a look at recent behavior by the Isananni account, this smells like tons of bad faith and even sockpuppetry. Just look at the User:Iwog account's contributions. Created only to support Isananni's position on this talk page.

If I cared enough to get an account, I would add Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isananni | checkuser = yes | sock1 = Iwog

2.247.242.145 (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I was also wondering about that user. They have made only 7 edits but seem to be WP:SPA. Perhaps they could respond here promptly to clear the air? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Martinevans123: I was wondering about that SPA as well. Now I'm wondering just as much about the WP:SPA IP editor with a special interest in edit wars, who has implausibly thorough knowledge of WP:SPI for a drive-by IP contributor who never "cared enough to get an account", but cares enough to cite policy like an old hand on two seemingly random talk pages. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, haha. That is also quite intriguing. But at least they restrict their posts to Talk pages? Can registered editors still self requests for SPI to clear their own names? Or is that regarded as a frivolous waste of check-user time? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• I have no idea. And please be assured that I'm not questioning your good faith at all! As anyone could, I've clicked the "Geolocate" link on the IP editor's contributions page. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• I can assure you Herne can be very pleasant at this time of year. At least that's a believable location, unlike the spoof locations we often see like North Korean or Outer Mongolia. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually I supported Iwog’s pov and not the other way round. I found their argument to be reasonable and did not waste time x-raying their previous contributions. One single contribution does not necessarily make it bs, and @Martinevans123: I thought our previous shared history of editing on the Richard III of England page, just to give an example, should have spoken for me better than that, but if you feel like opening an SPI to check if I’m hiding behind a double id, please be my guest. Isananni (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll be opening nothing, thanks. I suggested that anyone might want to request an SPI, not just you. I was also asking a procedural question about whether you could open one yourself, to prove you are innocent. 7 edits don't take a lot of x-raying. I'm not sure what any edits at Richard III of England have to do with anything. I'm sure you're a good faith editor who never uses sockpuppets. We have yet to hear from User:Iwog. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: thank you for ackowledging my good faith. User Iwong remains an enigma, that does not make their points less worthy of attention. Isananni (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPAs often get blocked. If Iwog turned out to be a sockpuppet, all their contributions would be discounted. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If that were the case it would be sad. Promoting a valid point in the wrong way does not help the cause of improving the encyclopedia of course. Isananni (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Iwog's almost certainly a sock, possibly of Isananni and possibly not, but as long as they remain inactive and people don't use them to point to some kind of consensus for a fringe view, I'm not bothered. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: if you have no good faith in me why don’t you open an SPI to appeace your curiosity instead of smearing my name with unfounded insinuations? Isananni (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this a serious discussion? I assure everyone speculating about this that I am not a sock puppet. Now that I've cleared the air of the attempted character assassination, can we please correct this page? I once again heard the false 2-8% citation given in the mainstream media. In this case on KGO radio San Francisco. I would like to point out that the Kanin study remains the only scientific research that attempts to estimate the TOTAL number of false rape allegations. Unfortunately it is being listed with a lot of research that does not attempt to do the same thing. This is extremely misleading to the point of being pure propaganda. ALL THE STUDIES THAT REPORT A RATE OF 2-8% ARE TALKING ABOUT PROVABLY FALSE ACCUSATIONS. They are not measuring TOTAL false accusations and in most cases the conviction rate WITHIN THE STUDY is only 5-10%. This means in every singe case except Kanin, over 80% of rape allegations are UNDETERMINED and neither provably true nor provably false. I would like someone.......anyone.......to reply to these specific criticisms and stop muddying the water. Iwog (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it probably is. I thought we might have heard from you in less than 10 days. But thanks for responding. You seem keen to make your real-life identity quite clear at your User page; I see we have an article on The Red Pill. Pseudonymic user names are not mandatory at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

That's actually how statistics work. The murder rate is the rate of deaths that are provably murders, not the rate of all deaths that aren't proved to be not murders. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No one attempted to prove allegations in the unproven range are true or false OTHER THAN KANIN. None of the studies cited attempt to do this OTHER THAN KANIN. In your example, you have 100 dead bodies and you've proven 2-10% are actually murders and you've left the other 90-98% to rot on the sidewalk. Your argument is not valid.Iwog (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If we want to make a percentage range claim in the lead section (or anywhere else for that matter) we need to support it with a source that clearly shows those same figures? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Then the number of actual convictions cited by the source is less than 1% of all allegations. However the majority of studies linked on the page cite around a 5% conviction rate because obviously false rape reports are quickly dismissed by the police. I'm fine with less than 1%. I'm fine with 1%-5%. What I'm not fine with is the opening line that is being used all over the word as justification for false rape allegations being extremely rare. This is grossly dishonest and lacking context. I will reiterate my main point. THERE IS ONE SINGLE STUDY THAT ATTEMPTS TO QUANTIFY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS AND THAT IS KANIN. It is beyond me why so many people are insisting on studies that do not purport to do this. Iwog (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because we can't base an entire article on one single study? Your use of the source to balance what's in that source with what's in the rest of this article is perhaps understandable but is WP:SYNTH. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You are again failing to acknowledge my main point. Kanin is attempting to measure something that no other study is attempting to measure. Total false reports of rape. You insist on misleading the reader into thinking the known rate is 2-10% which can be demonstrated by dozens of media citations. Your argument boils down to "We need to cite studies that don't measure what we are looking for because the one study that actually does measure what we are looking for is not enough". Iwog (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not just me, I'm afraid. But I'm just quoting policy. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:You are misusing policy. You are saying a study on the total number of teens abusing drugs should be shoulder to shoulder with studies demonstrating how many teens are convicted of abusing drugs. This is a grossly incorrect representation of the policy you are attempting to cite. There is a single study attempting to quantify the question at hand. Only one and it's Kanin. Ironically it's Kanin that is being rejected in the opening paragraph. Why? Iwog (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem remarkably familiar, both with policy and with method, for a new user welcomed 11 years ago on 23 September 2007 and now making only their 20th ever edit? Please feel free to get a second opinion on the meaning of WP:SYNTH. I'm suggesting that what you added to the lead wasn't supported by the content of that source. Please explain to me if you think it was. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:You are speaking about the conclusions of the source, not the raw data contained in that source. Do you have a reference that prohibits the using of raw data regardless of the conclusions reached by the publisher? Because I'm pretty sure that the only thing I took from my citation is the 1% conviction rate which I'm going to presume all parties agree with. Therefore my lead was ENTIRELY supported by my source. Your disagreement seems to be that I did not interpret the data the same way however you are missing the fact that I did not interpret the data at all. I simply cited it. Iwog (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If you think a publisher has "reached a conclusion", by all means quote that conclusion. We're not at liberty to draw our own conclusions. If you want to get a second opinion about my interpretation of WP:SYNTH, by all means get one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:Once again I'm getting the feeling that we are not having the same discussion. I did not cite a conclusion. I cited a statistic, that 1% (actually 1-5%) of rape allegations result in a conviction and I gave a citation. Are you telling me it is a REQUIREMENT to state a sources conclusion? If so, the entire opening paragraph needs to be stricken because the conclusion given is not contained within any of the studies being used. Iwog (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You added this:

Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true. *"The Criminal Justice System: Statistics | RAINN". rainn.org. Retrieved 2018-09-27.*

Please show me where, in that source, the words "about 1 to 5%" occur. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:It's not necessary because I already stipulated earlier in the discussion that I would be happy to strictly adhere to my citation and change 1-5% to "Less than 1%" or even "1%". Would you be satisfied then? The presumption of guilt by jury is written into American law however if you insist I can certainly find a citation for that as well. Iwog (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please provide your source here that "The presumption of guilt by jury is written into American law." I'd very much like to see it. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. you don't actually need to "ping" me every time you reply, I am actually watching this discussion? Thanks.

@Martinevans123: "In criminal law, guilt is the state of being responsible for the commission of an offense.[1] Legal guilt is entirely externally defined by the state, or more generally a "court of law"." Guilt_(law)#cite_note-thefreedictionary.com-1 I'm sure you can find what you're looking for there. Iwog (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not looking for anything. I asked you to show me something. I have no idea what you're on about. Or how it relates to the content of this article. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. please stop pinging me. Thanks.

I will be happy to explain. I can give a 1% conviction rate with a citation. I can presume that conviction = guilt via the legal citation I gave you. Therefore I can say entirely consistent with the study I linked that the 1% conviction rate can be the number of people presumed to be guilty of rape. I don't think I'm jumping through any hoops here. I also think indicating the HUGE gap between known and unknown is extraordinarily important considering the entire world accepts the 2-10% (or 2-8%) rate as gospel. It's not. It's provably inaccurate using every study on this page. Iwog (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iwog: I do appreciate Kanin’s work but it’s too limited in scope. I agree percents do not belong in the lead, each percent must make clear what the underlying criteria of the study were, what country/legislation was being considered etc. and that’s simply too long for any lead. The lead should better specify what constitutes a false accusation, especially a false accusation of rape. However, your last edit was simply unacceptable. If a rapist escapes justice, it does not mean the allegations were false, and your source clearly spoke of perpetrators who escape justice, not of innocent people who are wrongly accused. Find a better source or hold your digits. Isananni (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Even your presumption that the rapist escaped justice is biased. Would you say the low 2-10% rate of provable false rape reports indicates many who ruined lives with a lie escaped justice?? I am not saying the unknown reports are true OR false. I am saying they are unknown. Apparently I seem to be the only one willing to acknowledge this.Iwog (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iwog: What you're proposing is original research. There is nothing more to discuss about it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese:No it's not. What I'm proposing is to accurately describe the research being cited. None of the studies except Kanin attempt to measure the true incidence of false rape reports. Please do not confuse a constructed rebuttal to someone's assertion as a page suggestion. My page edits can be easily viewed and do not contain any original research. Iwog (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You've already stated your intent to engage in original synthesis. No one is misunderstanding you, you're just not familiar with policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed. Also why did you revert to an incorrect title for the studies on provable rape allegations? None of these studies except Kanin attempt to determine the actual rate of false allegations. They only claim to be looking at allegations that can be proven to be false with unknowns exceeding 80% of the cases examined. Please explain your reasoning for the incorrect title. Iwog (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

"Where the hell did "provable" come from?" does not appear to be a valid argument for misrepresenting the conclusions of the citations listed. Again I will demonstrate: Less than 1% of rape allegations are provably true and result in a conviction. This does not mean the total number of legitimate rape allegations are less than 1% and such a statement would be false.Iwog (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Find a reliable secondary source that explicitly supports this language and then maybe it's worth discussing - without that, you're just wasting everyone's time. Nblund ^talk 18:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I will do so in every single study on that page. We'll start with citation #2. (I have the book for #1 on order)

The determination that a report of sexual assault is false can be made only if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted. This determination can be made only after a thorough investigation. This should not be confused with an investigation that fails to prove a sexual assault occurred. In that case the investigation would be labeled unsubstantiated. The determination that a report is false must be supported by evidence that the assault did not happen. (IACP, 2005b, pp. 12-13; italics in original)

This clearly indicates "fails to prove" as a second (and totally ignored) category in the study. Thus inclusion of the word "Provable" is necessary to distinguish the cases identified in the study as provable false accusations as separate from unsubstantiated. You will discover that in no case, none, zero, zilch does any study on this page claim to be citing TOTAL or TRUE or ACCURATE false allegations. The only language you will ever see is provable, thoroughly investigated and determined to be false, unfounded, no-crime, and other descriptors which indicate cases that can be scientifically shown to be false. The VAST number of cases in every study on this list will openly admit to containing a large unknown. This makes both the opening paragraph and the cited conclusions for each study extremely bad summaries of each study and all of it should be stricken. Iwog (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Current claim in lead section

The current claim in the lead says "....but it is generally agreed that, for about 2% to 10% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted." Is this for USA alone? for a number of countries aggregated? worldwide? something else? I think this should be made clear. If it can't be made clear it should not be used as a general summary statement in the lead. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It’s based on US studies only. UK studies (Crown Prosecution Service) reported percents close to 12%. I do agree percents do not belong in the lead. Isananni (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)p

I must vehemently disagree with the language being used here and the implication that false rape allegations are only 2-10% of all rape allegations. This is provably false and all attempts to provide accurate context seem to be reverted. Nearly every citation of this "statistic" in the media omits the fact that this is only false rape allegations that can be proven. I defy anyone to show me how the statement "Only 1% of rape allegations are provably true" is out of context here. It's accurate, it's supported with numerous citations including those being used to demonstrate the opposite, and one reading this without context would assume 99% of rape allegations are false. I strongly object to the massive bias being demonstrated here when the only ACTUAL attempt to quantify this number reports a false reporting rate exceeding 40% and the second study isn't even allowed to be cited. Furthermore I think this type of dishonesty is hurting those it purports to protect as the backlash is feeding into politics right now at an accelerated rate. Iwog (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

So this article is just about US, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

From: Phillip Rumney "Reviews of the more rigorous international studies suggest a false allegation rate of 2-8% and 2-10% of rape offences initially recorded as crimes by the police." These appear to be mostly conducted in English speaking countries, for whatever reason, but it's not a US specific figure. Nblund ^talk 18:31, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Breakdown of the opening paragraph

Direct quote: "A false accusation of rape is the reporting of a rape where no rape has occurred. It is difficult to assess the true prevalence of false rape allegations, but it is generally agreed that, for about 2% to 10% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.[1][2]"

I have no problem with the first sentence. The second sentence sets up the subject as "true prevalence of false rape allegations" which the reader will now presume will be addressed following the word "but". However there is a grossly disingenuous bait and switch here. Instead of countering the "true prevalence of false rape allegations", a new subject: "prevalence of provable false rape allegations" is substituted as if it is connected and applies to the first subject. It is LITERALLY connected by the word "but" except it does not apply at all and instead addresses an entirely new subject. This is cleverly done and results in nearly every media source in the world claiming that 2-10% of false rape allegations is the known rate. It is certainly not the known rate and it can be empirically proven to be far greater than 2-10%.

Furthermore the deception is continued at the header where the published studies are listed. The title is: "A selection of findings on the prevalence of false rape allegations." This is false and furthermore none of the studies except Kanin even claim to be measuring the prevalence of false rape allegations. This page is overflowing with errors, deception, and bias and I think it's worth going to war over I would respectfully ask for very specific replies to these criticisms and not more citation of policy or the claim that apples and oranges deserve to be treated the same way and that oranges are perfectly capable of conveying apple information. Iwog (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iwog:... "This page is overflowing with errors, deception, and bias and I think it's worth going to war over"... please review WP:BATTLEGROUND. This, as it stands, is a non-starter imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your link. With regards to WP:BATTLEGROUND, none of it applies to me. Nothing I have written indicates that this is personal, prejudicial, or fear-mongering. I believe you have mistakenly attributed motives to me that do not exist. If you are interested in this discussion perhaps you can address the opening paragraph containing two entirely separate yet connected subjects written intentionally to deceive. Do you want to see it corrected because as it stands, it's not even grammatically valid. Iwog (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Saying something is worth "going to war over" on Wikipedia is BATTLEGROUND. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:You are not correct unless you are attributing motive to me which you have no right to do. Regardless I have corrected my statement to agree with your sensibilities. I will always go to war over conveying the truth as should everyone else. It's a terminology choice, not a defined set of intentions which you seem to demand here. Again I will ask you to address the valid criticisms I have made and not make this personal. Iwog (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Iwog, I'm afraid User:EvergreenFir is correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually astonished. How am I still the topic of a discussion on false rape accusations after I was the stated topic for a much longer period earlier in the discussion? Are the two of you interested in some very valid points or do you wish to make this entirely personal based on the semantics of a single word? Unbelievable. Iwog (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND is pretty clear. I'm not sure about any semantics. You need to withdraw that statement about "going to war over the truth", e.g. strike it through like this. If you persist with your battle cry of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" I can assure you you wont get too far here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have edited a single word to correct an error. It makes the entire article more accurate. I'm going to be interested to see how this is received. Is anyone going to disagree with me that "false rape allegations" and "provable false rape allegations" are not the same thing? Iwog (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably best if you start a new thread for that one. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. I see that the False accusation article says, somewhat wisely in my opinion, "Due to varying definitions of a "false accusation", the true percentage remains unknown."

I don't see why I need to start a new discussion on a correction that basically has no rebuttal. Since every single study cited save one is only attempting to cite PROVABLE false rape allegations, how can it be claimed in the title that they are attempting to simply measure false rape allegations? I know this subject is charged with emotion but I thought the number one rule is accuracy? Are the numbers of teen drug abusers and provable teen drug abusers the same? Of course not they are radically different with radically different conclusions. Iwog (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We generally use different threads to discuss different topics. But hey, you seem to know best around here, so I'll leave you to it. Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Iwog's suggested edits to the article's lede. MugyuToChu (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

What is this, amateur hour? This is your first edit to the encylcopedia, you're clearly a sock- or meatpuppet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A new editor has to make a new edit somewhere. If you're not aware, Roscelese, the Wikimedia Foundation has been conducting outreach seminars to feminists in order to increase their participation in WP. I was told during the seminars that Wikipedians are often hostile to new editors, especially if they're women. I hope your rude reception isn't an affirmation of that. MugyuToChu (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

MugyuToChu/Iwog/Simonvino/whoever you are: I know that from your perspective, you think those nasty liberals will believe anything a "feminist" will say, but Wikipedia decision making is based on consensus determined by the quality of argumentation, not by whether you're a "feminist". One suspicious editor calling themselves a "feminist" and saying "I agree with Iwog" brings nothing of value to the discussion. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Once again I would like to open a discussion on the grammatically incorrect opening paragraph. I defy anyone interested in editing this page to explain to me what the subject is in the second sentence. Is the subject TRUE false rape allegations or is the subject provably true false rape allegations? They are VERY different concepts with very different data sets. It's simultaneously possible for the provable rate of false allegations to be 5% but the TRUE rate of false allegations to be 50%. Not only is the first paragraph grossly misleading but it contains a clear grammatical error in not having a separate subject for each sentence. If no one is willing to correct it or even argue against the correction, I see no reason why I shouldn't rewrite it myself. Does anyone object to my argument? Iwog (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Overuse of primary sources

Listing a bunch of primary sources and giving each one a section and a summary is not a good way to build a Wikipedia article. We don't generate reviews of the literature here. We summarize secondary sources. That whole section should go, and instead we should summarize what secondary sources that themselves are generated by experts in the field, synthesizing the primary literature... Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not see how e.g. Kanin or the now suppressed study on the prevalence of false accusations of rape etc. can be considered primary sources. In the first case I would consider the court papers Kanin worked on to be the primary source, in the second case the primary source was the FBI data, etc. In any case, adding a new section for each new study may not be an added value in the long run. Isananni (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:PRIMARY which is policy. You will find the same definition in WP:SCIDEF and WP:MEDDEF. The argument that court papers are the true "primary source" is equivalent to saying lab notebooks are the "primary source" underlying a biomedical research paper. That is not how we use the terms "primary" and "secondary" here in Wikipedia - these are technical terms here, roughly analogous to their original use in historiography but not the same. Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Good to see you changed the wording of your last statement. The thought must have crossed your mind that there is a difference between explaining and patronising. How considerate. Isananni (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

See your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of these could be excised. However, I think the Lisak (2010) and Rumney (2006) and Ferguson and Malouf (2016) are meta-analyses and review articles, so they can probably be useful models for rewriting the section. Nblund ^talk 19:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I would hope you don't remove any sources though. They were very useful to have. Secondary sources I have seen -even governmental ones- sometimes quote the 2% false rate, which is not based on much if any science. I would question whether in this case, secondary sources which do not cite any studies for their figures are reliable. B^e ⊢ C^ritical 21:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "New york rape squad" from the summary of Rumney. I'm going to quote the text from Philip N.S. Rumney (2006). FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE here:

"In a recently published article, Greer recounts his attempts at tracking down the origins of this statistic (2% from New York Rape squad) and concludes that there is no evidence it was the product of any systematic research. Yet within the scholarly literature and elsewhere, repeated reference is made to ‘‘research’’ or ‘‘studies’’ in the context of the New York figure even though the original source for this figure cannot be identified." The citation itself reads "Greer attempted to find out the original source of the 2% figure by contacting those who were involved in the preparation of Judge Cooke’s original speech upon which Brownmiller relied. However, he was unable to establish the source: ‘‘Whether the original source was a press release, a more formal report, or simply an oral statement to a reporter, remains lost in antiquity’’: Ibid., at p. 958. Is there a reason why a 2% statistic is being listed in the same place and appearing with the same weight as peer reviewed studies published in scientific journals? That a 2% figure that, according to the exact citation it was lifted from, might be nothing more than an oral statement to a reporter? This is not a study, a meta, or even a secondary conclusion. It's a rumor. How is this justified in any way? Iwog (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Brownmiller's 2% figure isn't reliable, but other studies have found similar or lower rates. Rumney cites Theilade and Thomsen (1986), which found a rate of 1.5%. Lisak cites Heenan and Murray (2006) who find a rate of 2.1%. Nblund ^talk 14:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The problem with all these studies is that not one relies on the same criteria as the other and citing percents without saying what that percent is based on can be confusing and misleading. However, so far the generally acknowledged range 2-10% seems to be still valid as far as classification following initial police investigations goes. Isananni (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to deal with these studies one at a time since I believe in every case a 2% estimate is demonstrably false within the studies being cited. The primary citation used in this article states that the source of this 2% number may be ".....simply an oral statement to a reporter." This is not a conclusion, this is not a finding, this is not simply unreliable. This is nothing more than a rumor. Why is a rumor being cited alongside peer reviewed scientific research published in major journals? I can't believe I even have to argue this point but when you say "but other studies" you are implying this is a study. It's not a study. It's not even a guess. It's a rumor. Iwog (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Objection to playing fast and loose with the terminology on this page

I'm going to cover three distinct terms either used on the page or contained within the studies being cited and detail how they are being misused.

• True prevalence of false accusations of rape
• Actual prevalence of false accusations of rape
• False reports of rape

A false report of rape is a determination that no rape occurred. A false allegation of rape means a man or a woman was falsely accused of committing a rape. Using Lisak as an example, a determination was made that 5.9% of all allegations were false reports of rape meaning a rape did not occur. However there can simultaneously exist many cases where a rape DID occur yet a false allegation was made by the victim. The FBI study, repeatedly removed from this page indicating a 20-26% rate of exclusion of the primary suspect by DNA evidence, shows just how badly the match is between false reports of rape and false allegations of rape. Lisak did not consider DNA evidence nor did he apply ANY standard to the 44.9% of cases which were dropped and not referred to prosecution. Therefore this study has no relevance to a page dedicated to false accusations. It does not CLAIM to be studying false accusations. It simply has no relevance to the matter at all with the conclusion being a total mismatch to the topic.

Again I will repeat my strong objection to "True prevalence of false rape allegations" and "No crime was committed or attempted" in the opening paragraph. They are NOT THE SAME THING. The true prevalence of false rape allegations can be 20% and the no crime committed or attempted rate can simultaneously be 5% without any contradiction whatsoever. This is very clearly WP:OR and worse than that, conveys a statistic which is demonstrably false and not contained within any study INCLUDING those that say the rate is 2-10%. The 2-10%, even if accepted does not measure false accusations of rape and never claims to.