Talk:False accusation of rape

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2020

There have been over 100 false rape claims as a result of facilitated communication, and this is still going on. Under the "Causes" section, please add a new subsection called "Facilitated Communication", like so.

Facilitated Communication

See also: List of abuse allegations made through facilitated communication

Facilitated communication is a scientifically discredited technique that attempts to aid communication by people with autism or other communication disabilities who are non-verbal. The facilitator guides the disabled person's arm or hand and attempts to help them type on a keyboard or other device. Research indicates that the facilitator is the source of the messages obtained through FC, rather than the disabled person. However, the facilitator may believe they are not the source of the messages due to the ideomotor effect, which is the same effect that guides a Ouija board. There have been a large number of accusations of sexual abuse made through facilitated communication. As of 1995, there were sixty known cases, with untold numbers of others settled without reaching public visibility. Since then, the number of cases has continued to increase.

--- Attribution ---

Some text has been copied from facilitated communication and List of abuse allegations made through facilitated communication. 66.244.121.212 (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC) ,

References

 Done this is a controversial suggestion so further discussion may be warranted, but I believe this is relevant information and due weight to include. The information appears scientifically correct and well-sourced from my perspective. I have implemented the request in this edit, with a couple of typographical changes but also changing the language around "large number of cases" because this is subjective and it's not clear to me that it follows our neutral point of view policy. — Bilorv (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Jogger case etc.

@Ian m: as Calton (talk · contribs) notes, the subject of the article is accusations of rape where no rape has occurred - which is not the case with this incident. Many reliable sources do draw connections between the Scottsboro Boys and the Central Park case, but if we were to mention it, it would be important to note that it's essentially...orthogonally related? It's related to the intersection of racism with accusations of rape, but it's not actually an example of the article topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese (talk · contribs) There's a problem with the definition used in this article and with the article itself. A false accusation is when someone is accused of something they didn't do, it does not mean to accuse someone of something that didn't happen (although that could be the true). From the New Oxford English Dictionary, "Accusation: a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong." Also, see the Wikipedia definition of Accusation. Within that definition, the Central Park Five case matches that definition in the fullest sense of the words "false" and "accusation".

What the current definition is talking about is a false declaration or assertion, where someone has claimed something that didn't happen. If you look through the citations, the term "allegation" shows up repeatedly, but "accusation" only shows up three times, so as written, this article is not really about accusations.

The subject of the article should probably change to "False allegations of rape" and then be expanded to include false accusations, as in someone who is accused of committing a rape that they didn't do and the reasons and effects of that.

But yeah, the Central Park Five is a clearcut case of a false accusation and that's why I keep adding it back. Because it matches the article topic. I'd also add that the Central Park Five case matches the second type of false accusation in the False accusation article and the False allegation of child sexual abuse article. Expanding the definition to actually include false accusations would align this article with the other two articles.

The proper definition for this article is probably something like, "A false allegation of rape is a statement that someone has been raped by an individual that is unsupported by the facts, either because the accused individual did not rape the accuser or because the alleged incident did not occur." Ian m (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ian m: We do not need to look up the definitions of "false" and "accusation" separately when the thing that sources discuss when they talk about false accusation of rape is crimes that didn't happen, not crimes that did happen but were wrongly pinned on someone else. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Roscelese (talk · contribs) "a false allegation may result from mistaken identification by witnesses. In this category of case, a rape has occurred but the wrong person is identified as the perpetrator." Ian m (talk) 07:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

False accusation of rape → False allegation of rape – (was False allegations of rape) – This article is really about allegations not accusations. Looking through the text, "allegation" or "allegations" appears 62 times, "accusation" or "accusations" only appears 30 times (including the title and leading definition). The list of references, further reading, and external links include 3 instances of "accusations" (and those are only from news media sources), but 20 instances of "allegation" or "allegations". Most of the instances of "allegation(s)" are from peer reviewed sources. The two most cited articles barely use the term "accusation", it shows up 6 times in Rumney (2006) and once in Lisak (2010), but they use the term "allegation" 171 times and 50 times respectively.

References

Ian m (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC) ; edited 08:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Why switch from WP:SINGULAR to plural? Otherwise, the two forms seem pretty synonymous in common usage. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that it should be singular, especially because the article is currently written in a way which defines and clarifies the idea of a "false accusation", not highlighting or listing particular examples. I don't see a substantial difference in the two meanings, except that accusation implies more agency and certainty on the part of the accuser, while allegation faintly implies that an assertion is being made passively and without facts to support it. When we switch to the singular form, "False allegation"" sounds worse to my ear than "False accusation", but I'm not enough of a linguist to say exactly why. I think the title should stay how it is. RoxySaunders (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about plural vs singular. I was mostly going with references which nearly all use the plural. But the singular form makes sense.

I looked a bit more into the distinction between "allegation" and "accusation". I think the difference comes down to the the legal definitions of the two words. An accusation is a formal charge made by a prosecuting attorney or by a grand jury indictment, while an allegation is a statement that hasn't been proven yet. Since this article describes individuals making statements to the police or other authorities, then the term allegation would apply, but accusation wouldn't. Ian m (talk) 21:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose; our article on the concept of Accusation (which, I will disclose, I substantially wrote), cites sources broadly defining the term in both legal and non-legal terms; our article on the concept of Allegation (on which I have worked very little) provides an entirely legal reading of the term. BD2412 T 05:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
• Also leaning oppose per comments from RoxySaunders and BD2412. The terms seem synonymous in common usage, and the current form seems a little less artificial or stilted. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reporting rates

@Bilorv: the article cited specifically says that the 10% metric for Canada is inaccurate, can we remove that line or use a different source? —blindlynx (talk) 21:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

How about this edit? Removes the sentence as the other two say similar things, and are reasonable summary statistics for most of the current body of the article. Also reorders since the sentence on methodologically uncertainty seems like it should be presented after the stats. — Bilorv (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

that works—blindlynx (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Rolled back some changes + scope question

I've reverted some changes made to the lede in the past few weeks, including the removal of "men" from the paragraph about privileged people making false accusations, the more confusing wording in the first sentence, and the elaboration on the consequences of false accusation in eg. the Jim Crow South.

At what point did we decide that incorrect IDs of perpetrators of real rapes fell into this article? That is not consistent with what the sources say. The Central Park jogger case obviously relates heavily to some of the cases we discuss in this article that are straight-up false, but sources that talk about false accusation generally use it to refer to fictitious crimes. [Edit: Oh, welp, I see I mentioned this a year ago...] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello I’m the one who originally added the paragraph about race and privileged people making false accusations under an IP. I tweaked it because it was inaccurate to the sources I pulled to support it. All the sources go in detail about incidents of white women in the United States making false accusations against black men which led to the mass murder/rape of innocent black men and women, and an explanation on how it was/is a prevalent problem.

Also my second bit on the first paragraph isn’t referencing an incorrect identification of a rapist. Saying that you have been raped (Without specifying a perpetrator( and claiming someone did a rape should be distinguished as they’re both statements used in false accusations June Parker (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't follow your second point. What I am pointing out is that while sources often note that wrongful conviction of innocent people for the perpetration of a real crime committed by someone else is a racialized issue that bears similarities to false accusations of a crime that did not occur, they are not the same thing. Sources talk about false accusations of rape as accusations of crimes that did not occur.

I also wouldn't say "justification for prejudice"? Surely it is more appropriate to say "malicious intent" given that the accusations described in that section would not be made if prejudice were not already present. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@June Parker: Wait, I just realized, is the distinction you're making that you think it's a "false accusation of rape" if someone says they were raped but doesn't accuse anybody? That is also not consonant with the sources. A false accusation of rape occurs when someone accuses a person of a rape that never happened. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Specifically to your second reply, I'm afraid your stuffing words in my mouth. But this can be solved if we fix the introductory sentence since it's creating too much confusion. The initial definition before I came in was "Woman claiming she was raped when she was not" which like you said is not consitent with the rest of the article. I changed it to include "Person A claims person B raped" which can also be read as "Person A claims person B raped Person C" or "Person A claims person B raped them", all situations concerning a blatant lie. I think we can exclude the initial definition. June Parker (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@June Parker: Sources indicate that a false accusation of rape is one where no crime has occurred, not one where a crime occurred and the wrong person was identified. What is your reason for changing the article to say the latter? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Because I was mistaken and thought that's what the sources indicated, but I looked into it and realized it is not. Which is why I removed that statement ages ago. June Parker (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "prejudice" inserted into the lead section, the idea is unreferenced, and is not a summary of existing article prose. We need to have a cited source discussing the concept of prejudice. Also, let's see whether the literature characterizes false accusations as "malicious". Binksternet (talk) 22:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: Hello, I had been asked you to come to the talk page already to discuss this. You are repeatedly reverting the page's contents to a version that is not backed up by the sources used. For one false accusations are defined in this article as when a specific perpetrator is named for a rape case when they are not guilty and when there was no rape, not when a person claims to be a victim when they are not without naming a perp, which is what I was discussing with @Roscelese: already. Secondly the "Analysis" you removed is also referenced by the sources used. Again i asked you to come here and discuss why you felt the need to remove it but instead you attempted to edit war. June Parker (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you supply a citation for the bit mentioning prejudice? Binksternet (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Binksternet: The existing citations (That I pulled from lower down in the article in the "Historical racism" area) go into detail about how racism and hatred of black people allowed American society to pereptrate ridiculous false accusations against black men and turn a blind eye to the violence it results in.

I also do not appreciate how you are changing the first sentence into something that does not represent the contents of the sources without going to the talk page first, and still trying to ream me in about properly cited material. June Parker (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

The part I'm concerned about is you shoehorning "prejudice" and "malicious" in the lead section. This is a violation of the guideline WP:LEAD which says we should not introduce new ideas in the lead section, and that the lead section must be a summary of the article body. Your very first effort at this article introduced the idea of privilege in the lead section, without any mention of privilege in the article body. Please take a good look at the WP:LEAD guideline to see why this cannot continue.

Regarding "prejudice", the word racism is far more appropriate here. In any case, these ideas must be fleshed out in the article body before they appear in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@June Parker: (edit conflict) Your edits are making the article more confusing. If you agree with me that wrongful conviction/misidentification of the perpetrator of a real crime does not belong in this article, there is no need for the rambly "particular person, particular person" in the lede. I do not feel that the previous version - "A false accusation of rape happens when a person says they have been raped, but in fact no rape has occurred" - was unclear. Do you believe that it gives the mistaken impression that someone simply saying they were raped, without naming a perpetrator, constitutes a "false accusation"? @Binksternet: I guess I see where you're coming from about "malicious intent," but it seems relevant (and very sourceable) that cases like the Emmett Till case or the Scottsboro Boys case are not the typical false accusation case that the criminology literature is talking about. Even if, say, the purported white victims in the Scottsboro Boys case may have been chiefly motivated by their desire to escape suspicion as prostitutes rather than to hurt and target the boys specifically, they still chose to falsely accuse them of a crime that carried a death sentence, to accuse them rather than any of the white men present, and to play on the public's racism in pursuit of a conviction. Cases like these are a distinct subset of the general topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding malice, the criminal law textbook Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation says there are three motives for false accusations of rape, only one of which is malicious. The listed motives are: "providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention." It is not accurate to characterize all of the false accusations as malicious. Binksternet (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

First off, Binksternet, privilege and prejudice are not new ideas because it is explained (In detail) in the sources used when the article shifts to the topic of Jim Crow and historical racism. I yanked those sources from the bottom to the top when I added that paragraph. Prejudice is a parent term to racism, (The way it's used in english today) and I don't see a reason to not say it if it's already in the article.

I won't be doing this any time soon, but consider I plan to pull some sources from another page to bring up how aristocrates in Ancient Rome would dub consensual relationships between their daughters and men they did not like as "Rape", and considered them eloping as rapture. If anyone does something similar, drawing attention to an era in history where disatantaged men were victim of false accusations made by powerful women, it would most likely have nothing to do with race but class or faith. The Jim Crow section would have to evolve and it would no longer just be about race. Prejudice is a parent term to racism (The way it's used today) so it allows the article to include such stuff should that happen. But concerning the content we have now, the reason I said "Malicious" is because if the accusation is being made out of spite for the accused and their race or social status, how could that not be malicious? That would make it fall under something akin to "Seekign revenge", like how Carolyn Bryant claimed Emmett Till raped her out of vengence for him being black, and existing near her.

Secondly, Roscelese, I do agree with you and I do agree some of my edits may have causes needless confusion. I do believe the original statement creates that impression, I thought you were challenging me because you thought I was trying to keep that. I don't believe that statment is accurate to the sources but we can hammer out what should exist now, or tell me if I'm wrong. June Parker (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I got to jump in here. @Roscelese:, you keep insisting that a false accusation of rape is "false accusation of rape occurs when someone accuses a person of a rape that never happened". That is not the only definition. In Saunders 2012, the author describes how that definition is not so clear cut, and that false allegations can be lumped into two categories--the false complaint and the false account. The false complaint matching your definition, and the false account being an account that has varying levels of truth which may include rape. While the false complaint is quite rare, the false account is much more common. The author cites a case where a young woman was raped but deliberately misidentified the assailant because they were afraid of the actual rapist. This was a false allegation even though the rape actually happened and the police believed the victim. Saunders goes on the state that it's important to describe and distinguish between false complaints and false accounts because law enforcement lump the two together which leads to higher estimates of false allegations, even though everyone agrees that the cases of false accounts are fairly rare.

In Rumney & McCartan 2017, they describe seven different categories of false allegations, which includes "mistaken identification by witnesses. In this category of case, a rape has occurred but the wrong person is identified as the perpetrator." See the Central Park Five case. They cite data in that show that mistaken identity contributed to roughly 67% of the false convictions of sexual assault, while perjury or false accusation contributed to only 45% of false convictions. Ian m (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ian m: This is just a conversation about defining the terms and scope of the article. I can see how the (even) rare(r) case of "real crime, deliberate misidentification" would fall into this bucket, but I still don't agree that literally any wrongful conviction is a "false accusation of rape" and the sources do not generally back that up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Is the part about USA racism in the summary warranted?

This article is about an international issue, I'm not sure this special case should figure in the article summary. What do you think ? MonsieurD (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)