Talk:False accusation of rape/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Criticism of Kanin section now again longer than Kanin

I see in particular as exerting a bias on the page. A False Rape Denialist point of view is not a neutral point of view. In particular, criticism of Kanin's study is again longer than the Kanin section, and written very pointedly. The length alone is sign of denialist bias, but including unsubstantiated accusations (no methodology in Kanin's study) just because it can be quoted to David Lisak is probably abusive and misleading. Definitely unnecessary and in violation of a neutral point of view for an article that should focus on evidence for a phenomenon slightly more than its denial.

Kanin himself pre-addressed the criticism of his study ( This information should be used to "pad" Kanin's section in order to appear balanced. Godspiral (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


It would be wise to include mention of the disparity between repercussions for false rape accusations and for being charged falsely of rape, and that most false rape accusations today are not even prosecuted.Jayhammers (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that would violate WP:UNDUE. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

why would it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


This is basically a list of research papers about false allegations of rape. These may be useful as references but I don't think they constitute an article. I suggest a merger with Rape. Biscuittin (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know - I'd say this is a useful article on a notable topic (or subtopic). Unfortunately it has to consist of, essentially, a list of studies, as any attempt by us to draw a wider conclusion would violate the rule against original synthesis. Robofish (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Against merge. Article should be improved, but topic distinct from rape and likely to weigh down that page unnecessarily Vartanza (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an important topic in of itsself and should not be merged. Tomtac (talk) 04:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tomtac. It's good encyclopedic detail, but would be excessive to dump it all into Rape. Also, 'Rape' isn't currently tagged (as says it should have been.) Since it isn't (didn't check to see if it once was), and we have 4:1 !votes against, after a year, I'm going to go ahead and remove the tag from this article.--W☯W t/c 05:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Merge is completely inappropriate here, this is a hugely important topic. The article simply needs to be expanded and wikified.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Problematic section

The article says: "A dely reported examples of false accusations of rape include those of Mabel Hallam, Victoria Price and Ruby Bates, Tawana Brawley, Crystal Gail Mangum and Danmell Ndonye." The source mentions Danmell Ndonye as an example of false rape accusations and none of the other women. I removed the other names. TheLuca (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


I think this page is totally US-centric and needs to be more internationally based. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fountofwisdomhaha (talkcontribs) 13:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

~Fount, if you have information, then add it. I doubt anybody would object to that. --Paragoalie (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Broken Source Links

The links for sources 4 (, Crime Index Offenses Reported 1996) and 11 (Harvard Women's Law Journal (now Harvard Journal of Law & Gender) have become broken. (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

FBI rape statistics

The FBI rape statistics are shown, and then it is said: 'and as Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner explains' and goes on to say that he believes the statistics are misleading. This implies that his opinion is correct. I don't believe you should throw out anything he says you should, but that's just my opinion. His opinion is also just that, and it should be treated as such. The FBI doesn't believe its statistics should be thrown out (or the semantics of the meanings of the words and phrases unfounded and false accusation. Or, if it does, you haven't shown that to be the case. I'm saying that Bruce Gross' opinion should not be treated as any sort of fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Agreed, his opinion is given undue weight — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite necessary

I have studied this article with some effort and think that the complete article is misleading and is strongly shifted to a "false accusation of rape are rare" POV.

The main problem of the article is, that it carelessly mixes two completely different topics. Cases where police suspects that the accusation of rape was false (and would probably persecute the alleged victim) and cases where the accusation of rape was false. While the former can be easily evaluated the latter can be only assumed. This fact is also mentioned in the article by the citation "As a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown.", but no consequences are drawn.

The first chapter creates the impression, that there are studies that show everything (from 1.5% to 90%), but there is some common agreement that the real number is somewhere between 2% and 8%, even if the real number cannot be probably determined. However the 2-8% agreement figure is just the personal opinion of Ms. DiCanio. Her statement, while not unfounded, must not be cited in the same gasp as the 1.5% to 90% paper.

In the next two chapters we see an evaluation of FBI and British Home Office statistics. Both present a number of 8% (although in the later source the real number is 9%). And both numbers are accompanied by a citation, that presumes the real number is even lower. This creates the impression, that the 2-8% figure perfectly fits.

If you actually read the sources however, you get a different picture. Both articles criticize that only a small number of less than 10% of accusations make it to a conviction. There is a number of reasons for that. One of the reasons is, that in 8-9% of the cases the police officially believes that the accusations are false (BHO) or unfounded (FBI). And in this 8-9% the police is not always right, so the real number is even lower, according to the articles.

In reality however more cases are potentially false accusations. The vast majority of cases (more than 80%) doesn't result in a conviction because the accusation is either withdrawn or there is not enough evidence. In both cases at least a part may be false accusations, but are not classified by the police as such (there are a lot of possible reasons for that). This very important fact is concealed in the Wikipedia article.

The next chapter cites an Australian study where the same problem arises again. Only the cases, where the false accusations are charged, are concidered.

The following chapter explains the Kanin's report. This is the only individual study in the article, that seems to propose a higher number than the 8% of Ms. DiCanio. However this chapter has a three times as long criticism part as the study description. In addition the criticism ends with a counter study resulting in a convenient 5.9% figure. While this chapter is totally fine on its own, in the context of the article it creates the following impression: A lot of studies suggest there are less than 8% accusation rates, but then there is Kanin suggesting that the number is 41%. Fortunately this is not true and the real number is 5.9%.

Then comes the Rumney chapter, which is totally fine, concluded with the last chapter that is somewhat unrelated.

I have written all of this together, because I am planning to rewrite the article. Before I do so however, I want to present others with the possibility of giving their opinions on my thoughts. I also would appreciate some help as I do not possess the Rumney paper, which seems to be the very important, and I am not a native speaker.

--Naaram (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you do not turn this article into a POV piece as to fit your own agenda that "false accusations of rape are very common", because it will not work. Given what you've written above, it's very clear that you have a very strong opinion on this matter, and that you're planning to slant this article as to fit your own views. This article is perfectly fine. Official statistics from authorities (FBI, Home Office and Victoria) suggest very small numbers, and it's these statistics that should be given the most prominence, before anything else. The number of 8% from the Home Office has been subject to major criticism, about many of these rape accusations being classified as false in violation of the official process for establishing a false allegation, based simply on the opinion of the police; similarly, the FBI number of 8% 'unfounded' rape accusations (not the same as false) has also been subject to the same criticism as 'unfounded' is often merely the opinion of the police, with few evidence and based on prejudice. This criticism is perfectly sourced, and, as such, it belongs in the article, whether you like it or not. The most often figure cited by sexual violence experts is 2%. There is very few research which shows more than 10%. Kanin's report has been also harshly criticized, for 2 major problems: 1. its methodology, 2. the very high number found, which contradicts most reliable research. This is in the article, and will stay, regardless of how much it appears to upset you. The 'fact' that "in reality", as put it, many more accusations are false, but are not classified as such, is nothing more than your personal opinion, pure speculation, and WP:OR."This very important fact is concealed in the Wikipedia article." I'm sorry but this is not a "fact", this is just your opinion and speculation. Situations where an accusation is withdrawn or where there is not enough evidence do not equate with false accusations (as you'd like to suggest in the article). Accusations may be withdrawn for very many reasons (eg, threats&pressure from the accused, bribe from the accused, pressure from the family and/or friends-as to avoid public 'shame' and 'scandal', the way the police is treating the victim, feeling emotionally exhausted and that there is no chance to get justice, and many other more reasons). Speculation on your part, that these accusations are withdrawn because they were false, doesn't belong in this article. Not enough evidence to pursue a case has nothing to do with false accusation, it is simply a case where police does not posses sufficient prove that a rape occurred (which is very common in rape cases given the nature of the crime). How does this suggest in any way that the victim is lying? In other words, do not attempt to turn this article into a piece of opinion to advance your own views on the matter, because it won't work you will get reverted. If you believe that "most accusations of rape are false", as it appears you do, than find another way to try to convince people about it, but don't try to use this article for this. Skydeepblue (talk) 18:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
First I like to thank you for your opinion. Fortunately you are wrong, as I do not have a " "false accusations of rape are very common" POV. As you seem to be a regular committer to the article, in fact I do hope, that you can help me. To tell the truth, I do dislike your threats of reverting some changes, before the changes were actually made.
I have used the sloppy argumentation style to emphasize on the impression that the article gives on the reader and now I have to admit that this might be inappropriate considering the topic.
I am german. I have looked on this article after it was cited in a German blog comment, telling that 3% of rape accusations are false. Someone else then cited the German paper hosted by the police that deals with statistical analysis of rape in Bavaria.
In this paper the numbers are basically the same (7.4% of cases ended in a criminal charge against the presumed victim by the police, and about one third of them is convicted). But then there is lots of text. About 100 pages are dealing with false accusations only. An interesting graph can be found on page 161, where 70 police case officer, that investigate sexual cases only, were asked on there opinion of how many accusations are false. As you can see 81% think it is more than 10%, 63% think it is more than 20% and so on. According to the following pages this doesn't depend on the sex of the police officer.
On page 164 we see, that in the opinion of the associated case officer, 36.5% of all cases are likely to be false accusations and 27.1% are more likely to be false accusation than not. While this data doesn't represent reality and is heavily biased (as is Kanin, which is basically the same, besides that the authors do not draw any conclusions based on the numbers), I do have enough trust in German police to assume, that police officers will not say such numbers, if the real rate of false accusation would be 3%.
The different numbers come from the fact, that the police can only file a criminal charge for false accusation if there is some evidence to support that. For me it is obvious that at least in some of the other cases the accusation are false, and there is not enough evidence. But the extent of this is unknown to me.
Now I will tell you my opinion. Despite your allegation, I do not believe that the real numbers are that high. We have a 2-3% conviction rate for false accusation. And then we have some more cases (8% minus 2-3%), where there is some evidence, but it is not enough for conviction. And then we have some extra cases where in the personal opinion of the police officer the accusation is likely to be false (but which is heavily biased). The is no scientific way to estimate the real number based on this information. But in my opinion it is for sure higher than 3%. It may be 5%, or 10% or 20%, I don't know. But IMHO it is for sure more than 3%. I really hope you can follow my argumentation.
One thing I want to especially criticize is Ms. DiCanio with the 2-8% agreement citation. The figure for me is rather unprofessional as the conviction rate is already more than 2%. And because of how legal systems work today, the prevalence of an offense is always (and often much) higher than the conviction rate. Just for comparison, the prevalence of rape itself is for sure dozens of times higher than the conviction rate. So while there probably is such an agreement, the 2% at the lower end has no meaning.
The last two chapters present the basic plan for changing the first chapter of the article. First we need some numbers on convictions for false accusations, then we present some other numbers and then we say that it is impossible to determine the real number of. The 2-8% agreement oppinion is moved near the end of the article or is removed. About the 1.5% to 90% I am not sure, because it creates the impression of more controversy that there is.
Before I do change something however I hope, that I can find some time during the next two weeks to find some more research on this topic. I am somewhat unhappy about the FBI, BHO and Australian numbers, because the focus of the underlying article is not determining the rate of false accusations. I think more information can be found Rumney paper which I hope to get somehow.

--Naaram (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The see also section that contained feminism should not have been deleted, since this is what all feminist of all "different groups" are in reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As already said, your point is valid Naaram. But there's no evidence that "false accusations of rape" are higher than 3%. Why can't they be 3%? False accusations of rape may be more mediated than true ones. So, that maybe why you have such strong point, only true experience on the matter would make such point valid. But it's better not to have a point on things we are not really sure about. Therefore, do not include it in the article. Thank you. MusicsColors (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

POV-motivated removal of text

ZHurlihee, I know you believe that women lie about rape all the time, but please don't remove sourced text from an article because it doesn't support your beliefs. You removed a rather important caveat from the authors of the Home Office study which noted that false accusations were conflated with retractions. You removed a statement from a state Attorney General's office noting that unfounded and false are not the same and a quote from the official journal of the American College of Forensic Examiners explaining that "unfounded" reports aren't always as unfounded as all that, which are pretty damn important if you're going to put in a statistic on unfounded reports. You removed criticism from the pre-eminent sexual assault researcher because you don't like the venue that published it (the American Prosecutors Research Institute, not some random PAC). You removed a study that found a low number of false reports. Stop pushing your agenda. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The quotations were selectively culled from reports to place an undue emphasis on the material not present in the source and this constitutes a breach of WP:SYNTH. The Criticism of Kanin’s study is three times as long as our coverage of the study itself and that’s a serious wp:weight issue. If the study is that notable and if David Lisak’s criticisms are that noteworthy, then you should have no problem coming up with multiple reliable sources to that effect and no. one article on an advocacy website doesn’t cut it. Either work with me to rectify these issues, or I will be forced to tag this article for both its factual accuracy as well as its NPOV. ZHurlihee (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

ZHurlihee, your behavior on this article, as well as on other articles, such as Jamie Leigh Jones, is completely unacceptable. You have cut this article into half, against other people's objections, you have been reverted several times, by more than one user, but you have continued to edit the article as to fit your own views, in violation of WP:OWN. I have posted a message on your talk page, but you have reverted it without any response. Well, that's your talk page and you can do as you please on it, but I'm going to re-post the message on this talk page, where you cannot simply delete it, so everybody sees it, and maybe you can offer a justification for your behavior. The message I have posted on your talk page is the following: "Please stop you disruptive editing at False accusation of rape . You have already been reverted several times by another editor, before I reverted you. The edits you are making to that articled are a serious breach of WP:NPOV, and those edits, in combination with the edits you made to Jamie Leigh Jones, which have also been repeatedly reverted, suggest you clearly have an agenda and are unwilling to listen to anybody else or to follow the WP rules."

If Kanin’s study is to stay in this article, the criticism of this highly controversial and disputed study - which not only has a methodology which disqualifies it from even being seriously considered as scientific research, but also contradicts other reliable research on the subject - then the criticism which notes these problems shall stay too, and you have absolutely no justification to remove it (and btw Lisak is not the only academic to criticize this study, many others, such as John Bancroft have also disputed its validity ). And how do you justify removing David Lisak's study?? How came Kanin's study stays, but Lisak's goes?? That's not how WP works, you don't remove the research you don't like, but keep the one you like.Skydeepblue (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
But he is right as, if the study is highly disputed, then this should be emphasized by adding another reference, that critisizes the study. Currently it is emphasized by having a critisizm part, that is three times as long as actual part. As I already mentioned IMHO this is POV in the other deriction.
The same does apply to both citations above. They are somewhat out of context. They might be good quality OR, but they are not independend studies about the topic. --Naaram (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The quote that you have removed is crucial to the understanding of the main problem with Kanin's study - the fact that its methodology was not a proper scientific one - and it clearly was removed for POV reasons.

"Kanin describes no effort to systemize his own ‘evaluation’ of the police reports—for example, by listing details or facts that he used to evaluate the criteria used by the police to draw their conclusions. Nor does Kanin describe any effort to compare his evaluation of those reports to that of a second, independent research— providing a ‘reliability’ analysis. This violates a cardinal rule of science, a rule designed to ensure that observations are not simply the reflection of the bias of the observer [...] [Dr. Kanin] simply reiterates the opinions of the police officers who concluded that the cases in question were ‘false allegations.’"

Skydeepblue (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Dedicating nearly a fifth of this article to one source critical of a widely cited study is the essesne of WP:Weight. ZHurlihee (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I really want you to stop you making obligations about others POV and pushing your own POV instead. You can rewrite the section in any way you think is reasonable. But the idea that we present a study in 4 lines and then present criticism by one person in 12 lines is unacceptable. This would be different if there would be a vivid scientific discussion on this topic with multiple counter-papers. At the moment we have two references and one of them is not OR, but just citing the other. --Naaram (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Skydeepblue, what do you mean when you say: "be aware that i will take this further". Is this a threat? --Naaram (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
ZHurlihee, you have absolutely no right to modify my comments on the talk page. Hiding what I wrote with the summary "Personal comments about editor not related to article content", when my comments were about your editing and your approach to articles, and were not personal attacks about you, is a severe violation of WP rules.Skydeepblue (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh contraire: WP:RPA. As it now stands, I will wait until an administrator has addressed your edit warring until I work on this article further. ZHurlihee (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
These were NOT personal attacks against you (do you have any understanding what a personal attack is??) These were issues regarding your editing to articles.Skydeepblue (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't like stepping into a content dispute with my admin hat on, but please look at this edit: I cannot find those quotes in here. (See also this Google search for the phrase in the Wiki article that I could not find in the cited source.) If they are in there and I'm just blind, please let me know, or another admin, and it will be stuck back in. But given the contentious nature of the subject matter, I don't think it should be in the article until we are sure it is correct. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree completely and that’s one of the reasons I took that quote out initially. Unfortunately, rather than deal with the behavior of some editors, the decision was made to lock the article down. ZHurlihee (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm going the other way around. I did NOT look at the behavior of anyone--I saw a typo (Criticism-->Critics or something like that) and then looked on. I was going to template the URL reference and wanted to include the page number, but couldn't locate the quote. In other words, I'm as objective as can be, given that I am completely and blissfully unaware of what's going on. That's probably not helpful to solving the dispute, but it's important for the article, in my opinion, and as an admin I can do that. Like I said, I don't enjoy doing that, but here I felt I had to. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The linked document was the wrong one, but the quote is cited in-text to a specific issue of a specific journal and three seconds of googling got me the name of the article. Sources don't have to be online. (The link was added some time after the initial text was added, by another editor.) Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is a paste from a study by Lisak, it contains one of the quotes, in bold.

False Allegations of Sexual Assualt: An Analysis of Ten Years of Reported Cases David Lisak1, Lori Gardinier2, Sarah C. Nicksa2, and Ashley M. Cote2''

"Kanin reported that 41% of 109 consecutive rape cases investigated by the police department of a small, Midwestern city over a 9-year period were determined to be false reports. Unfortunately, Kanin provides little information about the methods used to evaluate the police department’s system for classifying cases. The study did not appear to employ a definition of a false report. Rather, Kanin asserted that a rape allegation was classified as a false report if the complainant “admitted they are false” (p. 82). Kanin recorded a case as a false report when he was notified by the police department that a case had been so classified. Kanin reported that he was given access to police files and given the opportunity to ask follow-up questions, but he provided no details about what if any questions he asked nor how he scrutinized the police department’s decision-making process. He apparently used no systematized method for analyzing the police reports (e.g., a coding system) or any system of independent raters or coders to guard against bias. These are particularly important limitations, given that the police department he was studying used procedures that are now specifically discouraged by the U.S. Department of Justice and denounced by the IACP. According to Kanin, the police department always made a “serious offer” to polygraph the alleged victim, a procedure that is now widely viewed as an intimidation tactic that frequently persuades already hesitant rape victims to drop out of the criminal justice process. This procedure is so frowned upon that the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act stipulates that any state in which agencies use the polygraph on sexual assault victims jeopardizes its eligibility for certain grants, and a number of states have passed laws prohibiting the use of the polygraph to determine whether charges should be filed in a sexual assault case (IACP, 2005b). Furthermore, the IACP (2005b) expressly criticized the type of procedure used by the police department that furnished Kanin with his information: Based on the misperception that a significant percentage of sexual assault reports are false, some law enforcement agencies use polygraphs or other interrogation techniques . . . when interviewing victims. . . . Some states have even enacted laws prohibiting the police from offering a polygraph examination to sexual assault victims or from using the results to determine whether criminal charges will be filed. . . . Law enforcement agencies should establish policies to clearly state that officers should not require, offer, or suggest that a victim take a polygraph examination or submit to SCAN or voice stress analysis during the investigation stage. (p. 13) Downloaded from by guest on December 21, 2010 1324 Violence Against Women 16(12) In sum, the lack of any articulated or systematized method of analysis, the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes a false report, and dependence on the classifications made by a police department that was using investigative procedures that are now widely rejected, all render Kanin’s findings extremely suspect. Finally, his finding that 41% of rape cases were false reports is at least 4 times higher than the estimates found by studies that used systematic methods to determine the frequency of false rape allegations (Heenan & Murray, 2006; Jordan, 2004; Kelly et al., 2005; Lonsway & Archambault, 2008).

From this source, paste, and quotes from Lisak, in bold:

However, the determination that the charges were false was made solely by the detectives; this evaluation was not reviewed substantively by the researcher or anyone else. As Lisak (2007) describes in an article published in the Sexual Assault Report:

"Kanin describes no effort to systemize his own ‘evaluation’ of the police reports—for example, by listing details or facts that he used to evaluate the criteria used by the police to draw their conclusions. Nor does Kanin describe any effort to compare his evaluation of those reports to that of a second, independent research— providing a ‘reliability’ analysis. This violates a cardinal rule of science, a rule designed to ensure that observations are not simply the reflection of the bias of the observer"' (p. 2).2

In other words, there is no way to explore whether the classification of these cases as false was simply made as a result of the detectives’ own perceptions and biases, without any real investigation being conducted. This concern is compounded by the fact that the practice of this particular police department was to make a “serious offer to polygraph” all rape complainants and suspects (Kanin, 1994, p. 82). In fact, this practice “has been rejected and, in many cases, outlawed because of its intimidating impact on victims” (Lisak, 2007, p. 6). The reason is because many victims will recant when faced with apparent skepticism on the part of the investigator and the intimidating prospect of having to take a polygraph examination. Yet such a recantation does not necessarily mean that the original report was false. In reality, there is no way that an investigator can make an appropriate determination about the legitimacy of a sexual assault report when no real investigation has been conducted—and the victim is intimidated by the department’s policy of making a “serious offer to polygraph” all rape complainants. As we will discuss at length below, the determination that a report is false can only be made on the basis of findings from a thorough, evidence-based investigation. As a result of these and other serious problems with the “research,” Kanin’s (1994) article can be considered “a provocative opinion piece, but it is not a scientific study of the issue of false reporting of rape. It certainly should never be used to assert a scientific foundation for the frequency of false allegations” (Lisak, 2007, p. 1).

Drmies, could you please fix the criticism section now, based on these sources? And could you plese look at the history of ZHurlihee, at his repeated conflicts with other users? And please note that this users has openly admitted his POV regarding this issue: he, himself has written that: "But women lie about being reaped with a disturbing degree of regularity. In cases like this, when a political end can be served by the lie, people on one side or the other tend to throw away reason and logic and buy into the fakers story because it enables a partisan end." He wrote this on his talk page, but later reverted it (please see the history), when other have pointed to this during his escalating conflicts.Skydeepblue (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I am not an editor of this article, and sorry, but there is no way I'm going through the above wall of text to figure out who wants what inserted in the article with what source. The layout of it is entirely unclear, and I don't know where to start. Look at Wikipedia:Edit requests to see how to use the proper template and how to format your request, which will consist of a specific sentence or sentences with the source given. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, did you see my comment above? It was very short, so you may have missed it. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes--is yours also the "Here is a paste..." phrase below? But let's make this easy on me or another admin, please, given the plethora of words here. Using the edit request template, propose the change and give the source. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
      • On a related note: Skydeepblue, I can't figure out who you're talking to (besides me?) or what your desire is. I hate to say it, but WP:TLDNR comes to mind, and I'm thrown off by the formatting--indents, italics, bold, etc. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
        • No, the paste is not mine. I just observed that the text was indeed cited and that sources don't have to be online. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

N. B. - Shoddy Work Here...

I understand that there's a POV discussion going on... But this article is being referred to by an article on [1] which is how I got here - and serves as a heads up as to why the integrity of Wikipedia editing is of such importance.

As a reader/user directed here by a link in an MSM article, I am appalled by the tension/dissonance and contradictions between two paragraphs... i.e. 4. Kanin's Report and 4.1 Criticism... Obviously someone is playing around with facts here and pushing propaganda. Rape/False accusations of Rape is a very emotional/volatile subject. It doesn't help when such emotionalism is imported into discussions of the topic that are supposed to be NPOV and fact, not opinion! Somebody is "lying" here - and it isn't helpful...

Kanin's Report has been "criticized"... But the "critique" as presented by the Wikipedia article is NOT objective and NPOV...that much is completely obvious when reading the two paragraphs. Someone is pushing an agenda... This is NOT up to Wikipedia Community Standards.

Please bring this article up to Wikipedia standards. Thanks, Emyth (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not exactly providing an explanation of how the criticism subsection, which consists of an assessment of the study by the field's leading researcher on rape, published by the Civic Research Institute, is not objective or NPOV. Just tossing out claims of bias without substantiating them or offering suggestions for how to correct them is unlikely to get you the changes you want. Likewise with accusing random people of lying. Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lame attempts to make false accusations look more prevalent than they are

"False accusation of rape" is when someone fabricates a rape that didn't happen. This is how it's defined by reliable sources (eg. [2], [3]). It is not:

  1. a rape is committed and the victim identifies the wrong person
  2. a rape is committed and prosecutors charge the wrong person (good luck arguing that Debra Sue is one of those nasty women who goes around accusing innocent men of rape)
  3. no rape is alleged
  4. the accused is acquitted and states that he believes his accuser lied
  5. the victim recants under pressure, but police and defendants still say that her story was correct.

It's also inappropriate to include stories in your list where

  1. there is no main article
  2. no accusation was made.

The language you're using in your attempts to spin these stories also stands out as particularly shameful. Please consider stepping away from this article and finding another one where you are capable of observing WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

First may I request that you do your best to obey WP:AGF as well as WP:CIVIL.
I am not trying to "make false accusations look more prevalent than they are."
I've listed just a few examples, and given that there are almost 7 billion people in the world, a list 1000 times as long would have absolutely no relevance to prevalence. And besides, this isn't an article entitled "Prevalence of false rape allegations."
I have absolutely no position, no opinion, nor even the vaguest guess how prevalent false rape accusations are. I agree with the lead where it states that it is unknowable. Therefore I think too much of this article is wasted trying to debate the unknowable.
I'm adding constructively to the article content that directly relates to the title: "False accusations of rape".
Also, since false allegations are relatively rare it is especially useful to include individual examples.
As to your assertion of how reliable sources define false accusations ... First, some reliable sources might define what they mean for their particular study ... but that doesn't make it the definition of the phrase.
The plain meaning is ... exactly how it sounds: Making an untrue/false allegation of rape. There are multiple ways an allegation CAN be untrue/false:
  • There was no rape
  • There was a rape but:
    • the victim blames the wrong person, or
    • someone else blames the wrong person (police, prosecutors, eye witness, enemy of the accused, etc.)
All of these end up with the same result: an untrue (false) allegation of rape is being made. And the damage is the same no matter why the person or people are being falsely accused. Also, by including false allegations that are NOT an example of an alleged victims lying we are having the article focus on the area that matches the title: False accusations, what they're like, why and how they occur.
  • You assert that it is "inappropriate to include stories in your list where there is no main article". I'm always open to being educated: please cite and quote the relevant WP policy and I'll not add examples that aren't discussed in another article.
  • Also, you keep saying that I'm in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Please quote the relevant policy sections and then relate the quote to the specific sentences I've added that you believe violate WP policy.
And if you want an individual listing removed please discuss it on the talk page and point out specifically what about it violates what policy(and quote the specific part of the policy it violates. Just waving around WP:BLP is easy to do -- but it isn't at all helpful.)
You assert that my additions are "lame" ... and that my "attempts to spin these stories also stands out as particularly shameful." If you feel the wording could be more balanced I'm up for reading your suggested changes. I'm not trying to spin anything, I'm doing my best to describe the false allegations as described in the Reliable Sources. In fact, the wording for most of the items I didn't even write -- they were just copied from existing WP articles.
Hoping To Help (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
How about citing some sources for your expanded definition of false accusation of rape? Because if it includes things that are neither false accusations nor accusations of rape, I really doubt that it's coming from a reliable source. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Examples of "falsely accused" used when a rape did (or may have) happened

First, all of the examples you removed did included untrue allegations of sexual assault. If you believe otherwise: please reference specifically on the talk page and describe what you find wrong with that particular example.You've just been reverting almost all of them with just the comment WP:BLP violation -- but you don't say anywhere why you believe any of them are a BLP violation.
Second, on the particular issue of how to handle cases where an innocent person has been accused, but a rape may have happened -- reasonable people can disagree. And I'm open to suggestions on how to handle them. Possible listing them in a separate section of the article. Then if the section grows big enough creating it's own article. I could even be convinced not to include them at all -- but it would help if you truly engaged in a constructive, open, and WP:CIVIL conversation on this topic.
Third, you insist that I provide citations that show the broader use of the term: "False accusation of rape".
Here are four:
Here is an additional example that highlights the challenge of defining the term/article too narrowly.
Above I've provided five examples from reliable sources that show the term "false accusation" being used to cover different type of false accusations including:
  • Rape happened and
    • The false accusation was intentional, or
    • The false accusation was unintentional, or
  • Rape didn't happen, or
  • It is undetermined if the rape happened or not - but the person accused is innocent -- i.e. has been "falsely accused".
You are already way over three reverts WP:3RR in the last 24 hours. If there are examples you want to remove please discuss them first here on the talk page. Thanks.
Hoping To Help (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

content dispute

Five different times in less than eleven (11) hours Roscelese has removed the same material placed by two different editors. She is claiming the WP:BLP exception -- but even after being asked on the talk page she won't explain how she thinks BLP is being violated.

Another editor (not me), placed an edit warring message on her talk page -- but she just deleted it.

Now I'm not attached to the disputed material remaining in the article. I just want everyone to WP:AGF and have aWP:CIVIL discussion on the talk page on what would best serve the article. But her posting to the discussion page she titled Lame attempts to make false accusations look more prevalent than they are and then went on to say that my attempts to spin these stories also stands out as particularly shameful. But doesn't at all say: (a) How BLP is being violated, or (b)What in particular is offensive/wrong/bad

As I've said above I have no intention of spinning anything -- I'm trying to do my best to improve the article and an important part of that is doing my best to follow WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

NOTE: I'm extremely open to have my edits changed or removed -- but she is doing it without explaining why and instead just waves around WP:BLP. But (as you'll see below) many of her reverts cannot possible fall under WP:BLP

Here are the diffs of her reverts (I've included the date/time and her comment -- as well as a summary of what was changed):

SUMMARY: Five different times in less than eleven (11) hours Roscelese has removed the same material placed by two different editors. She is claiming the WP:BLP exception -- but even after being asked on the talk page she won't explain how she thinks BLP is being violated. ALSO: Five different times she removed the following links under See Also: False accusations, List of miscarriage of justice cases, Day care sex abuse hysteria, Hungry for Monsters -- How can the placement of these links under See Also possibly be a WP:BLP violation?

REQUEST: I would like advice on how to handle this situation (both now and in the future) and I'd like more eyes on the article. These eyes certainly don't have to agree with me -- I'd actually welcome having explained to me how and why they see a better way. Thanks.

Hoping To Help (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The place to complain about 3RR would be WP:AN3. Quigley (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
@Hoping to Help - As to your request for advice - take your time, please do not repeatedly reinsert content thats disputed in regards to living people - use more discussion and remember there is no time limit. Users that are objecting to content inclusion do it in good faith - attempt to listen to their worries/issues and address them if you can. Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


Well, I was prepared to add some eyes to the article, but really, I think we need to start with the intro and work through the article to improve it. Here's the intro..

"A false accusation of rape is an accusation, formal or informally made against another individual or individuals concerning a forcible sexual assault. Failure to consider a false accusation of sexual assault during a criminal proceeding is considered a due process violation. Pereptrators may be motivacted by a number of factors including profit, revenge, embarrassment, crime concealment, or some mental defect.Detailed investigations using differing samples and methodologies have found widely differing results ranging from as high as 41% to as low as 1.5%. As a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown."
  • "A false accusation of rape is an accusation....". If we don't say a "false accusation of rape is an untrue accusation" then we are actually saying an accusation of rape is a false accusation. Read it again.
  • It also says it is an accusation of "forcible sexual assault". Sexual assault is not necessarily rape. See Sexual assault#Definition where the US Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network defines sexual assault as "unwanted sexual contact that stops short of rape or attempted rape.....".
  • Where is it a due process violation to not consider a false accusation of sexual assault during a criminal proceeding? One country? Some countries? Isn't it true that in some countries such information may not be mentioned during a criminal proceeding?
  • ".....widely differing results ranging from as high as 41% to as low as 1.5%." Forty one percent of what?
  • Doesn't the last sentence in the intro contradict the previous? Moriori (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey thanks for joining the party. :-) You've found so many obvious errors it's actually funny. I do think the article is a huge mess and has been for a long time. Lots of editors (not me) have been fighting back and forth over how to present the statistics on the issue. But as you point out it is really unknowable. That is why I haven't been involved in any of that or the article at all until recently when I tried to add some examples of proven false accusations. Because I thought that would actually make for some useful content -- a few examples on the topic of the article.
Hoping To Help (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Warren Farrell

MusicsColors may have had different reasons for removing it, but mine are these:

  1. He's working off a different definition of the subject than the one reliable sources (and consequently Wikipedia) use/s, so his comments are fairly meaningless for us.
  2. In what way is he qualified to make this analysis?
  3. His book is a polemic, not a scholarly work, and has no place in a serious Wikipedia article.

Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Mine are exactly the same reasons. His writing seems to be purely opinative, which has no place on Wikipedia. MusicsColors (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
This article is totally biased towards the male gender - it has too many opinative aspects that imply women lie about rape all the time, and no reliable source is given. It is totally unknown whether women lie about rape or not at a high rate. But we cannot forget that many men are also victims of rape. So, when writing about false accusations of rape, males should also be included in those studies. I think this article needs a total make-up to look cleaner, less opinative, and less biased towards one gender. MusicsColors (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Recommendations for fixing page

Politics and Methodology

This page's neutrality will always be disputed because there are political forces who wish to deny false rape claims are prevalent as well as people who believe otherwise. This page has shifted over the years between a resource useful to victims of rape accusation, including common reasons for fabrication, to a denial that there is a significant level of false rape accusations.

Methodology is critical for any study that attempts to discover liars. If there is no standardization in the interview process, or if the interview is non-confrontational, or includes a presumptive belief that the interviewee is telling the truth then there will be a far lower incidence of discovered liars than if the interview is very aggressive and probing. On the other hand, it is also possible to find false admissions of lying if the interview techniques are too aggressive or include torture.

With this in mind, the results of highly controlled methodologies such as those used by Kanin(94) (41% of rape accusers admitted their complaint was false), and McDowell(85) (Panel of feminist-accredited investigators unanimously agree that 60% of investigated complaints are false) should be taken seriously. Certainly more such studies are needed to convince those that wish to deny the prevalence of false rape claims, but political intransigence, sometimes influenced by emotionally charged personal violations, will likely permanently impair the neutrality and relevance of this page.

(don't know why following was deleted from article)

McDowell & Hibler, 1985

In an Air Force study of 556 complaints originating in 1984 and 1985, following the same model later adopted by Kanin of initially only classifying a false rape complaint if the complaint herself admitted it was false, Charles McDowell and his team then examined the remaining complaints (including followup interviews in some cases), and only if the panel of 3 investigators were unanimous that the allegation was probably false was it classified as such. 60% of rape allegations were classified as false under this procedure.[1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godspiral (talkcontribs) 03:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources you provided link me nowhere. And the numbers are pretty high, but your sources were said to be nonsensical by an editor of this article, so, I don't really know if I believe it. And also, perhaps there should be included the numbers of women that don't report rape would be appropriate, or would that suit another article better? MusicsColors (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
sources are and They are both consistent with the source that was added (Gross). Except that Gross reports a 65% false rape finding, while the other reviewers of McDowell's paper say he reported 60%.
There are 2 reasons why McDowell and Kanin found substantial false rape claims. First, its a real problem, and their studies used aggressive interview techniques designed to find out liars. Second, the main reason for making a false rape claim is avoiding accountability for behaviour. Both College towns and the Navy have an additional layer of rules (DUI, curfews, underaged drinking) that making a rape claim can absolve responsibility for.
"perhaps there should be included the numbers of women that don't report rape would be appropriate"
That has absolutely no place on this page. The implication is that false reports of rape are not a problem, because victims of false rape accusations would make up for those who are not punished when a rape is not reported. Add it to rape statistics page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:56, 2 January 2012
So as I said, nonsensical sources. If you can't find real sources for these claims, they do not belong in the article. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, it's a problem. The numbers of people who don't report may be quite large, but doesn't make false accusation of rape less of a problem. I said that because I didn't know where statistics were put. MusicsColors (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

kanin and mcdowell sections should be first

These are the core studies with a described methodology designed to determine liars, and the real reason this page exists and should exist. Either there should be a false rape allegations denial section at the end of the page, or a separate page as per climate_change_denial. If the page can never be neutral, it should at least be in the form of argument and counterargument with only unsubstantiated claims edited out. For instance, Kanin section should have detail of the sound reasons for the methodology and its fairness. Its not that criticism of Kanin should be silenced, but it should definitely be less prominent. For instance the Kanin study itself rebukes the Lissak complaints. The page seems like a disgrace in its current form for its bias against the issue.

NCIB really the NCIB has reported that false rape accusations are at 41% I know this is wikipedia but can you at least try and post facts?Darkproxy (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You may have noticed that we include the Kanin study in the article already, as well as criticism of its poor methodology from several sources. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 15:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
To be clear: the NCBI (not NCIB) is a part of the NIH and, among other things, indexes the published medical literature for easier searching. The NCBI didn't "report" anything; the paper in question was written by a sociologist at Purdue University and published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. Attributing the content to NCBI is like attributing the results of material found through a Google search to Google. MastCell Talk 15:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Also true. Knew I should have mentioned that. :P –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"McDowell, 1985"

Is there a way to check the original McDowell paper as WP:V requires? So far, the section relies exclusively on one secondary source: Bruce Gross' "False rape allegations: an assault on justice". The problem is that other secondary sources offer very different descriptions of the McDowell paper. For example, there is different information about the sample size, ranging from 556 to 1,218, as well as the rate of "false" allegations, ranging from 17.41% to 27%. You'll find even more contradictory descriptions if you search the internet. According to Gross, the McDowell paper was published in the "Forensic Science Digest", a publication that does not seem to exist according to my search. There is a "Forensic Digest", the "the multidisciplinary publication of the International Academy of Forensic Professionals (IAFP) and the Academy of Forensic Nursing Science (AFNS)." But it has no trace of a paper by McDowell.

Due to the contradictory descriptions of McDowell (1985) and the above mentioned WP:V concerns, I've decided to remove the section for now. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The McDowell stuff has been reviewed by many other researchers than Gross. Easy google search finds them. is one. That poster can't find them is not proof it doesn't exist. (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there are many contradictory descriptions of McDowell's paper but the actual McDowell study is missing, making it impossible to decide which description is accurate. According to the Gross description McDowell found that 45% of allegations were "false". According to other sources, McDowell found that ca. 17% of allegations were false. Which is it?
You've linked to another second-hand description of this mysterious paper. Can you point me to the place where I can buy or access the actual, original McDowell paper to check which description is correct? Or where can I find this "Forensic Science Digest"?
Please do not restore the section until you address the WP:V concerns. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC) links to an interview where McDowell admits to research into false rape reporting. theforensicexaminer/Gross (used in article) cites the 1218 sample size number, and the link to how it is possible that some people misquoted 556 has been quoted as:
The discrepancy in the size of the dataset can perhaps be explained by the wording in the CfMR article which implies that the 556 case dataset was an earlier study “cited” in McDowell’s 1985 paper, not the main subject of it. The difference in percentages between CfMR and mediaRADAR might be explained by CfMR citing McDowell correctly, while the 60% figure was obtained by someone just adding the 80 “false” cases to the 256 “inconclusive” ones and calling them all false. (
but the mcdowell section (here) didn't include a 60% claim. It included the 45% claim. No reason to throw that out. We should use the 1218 sample size. One reason that the study is often attributed to McDowell and Hibler is their 1987 book "Practical aspects of rape investigations" , and so likely published there. Perhaps we should disprove the existance of this book, before claiming that an unused potentially wrong version of McDowell exists invalidates that mcdowell exists.

Godspiral (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are numerous blogs, advocacy sites and even very few reliable secondary sources that describe "McDowell (1985)". The problem is (a) that the few reliable sources offer contradictory descriptions (ca. 17, 27, 45, 60... % of false reports), and (b) that the actual, original study cannot be found.
No, the blog ( can't be used to decide which of the several contradictory descriptions is correct. No, this is not about McDowell & Hibler (1987), it's about McDowell (1985).
Please note that this is not an issue of ease of access. It's not that I can't access the paper because it's too expensive or because it's in a library 300 miles from home. The problem is that -- according to my research -- it cannot be purchased or accessed anywhere. But perhaps my detective skills aren't as advanced as yours. So Godspiral and IP, if the McDowell (1985) paper if verifiable, then you should be able to link to where one can buy this paper or which library has this paper. Please do so. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
interesting. on page 3 of the gross article, he did link to a findarticles search that returns empty today. Previous attempts to deface this page by removing McDowell link were rebuffed with the claim that Gross was linking to it. It would be surprising that at the time he linked to it, findarticles link didn't exist, so this may be an attempt to deface wikipedia by erasing internet access to the material. Godspiral (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I easily found McDowell (1985). Some cite it without reading it; others deny its existence. Dueling ignoramuses! (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And your link to that easily found source would be...? Shearonink (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I got it through the library because most verifiable things in the world are not free clickable links. (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
So your cited source of that information from the library would be...? Shearonink (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
McDowell, C. P. (1985). False allegations. Forensic Science Digest, 11(4), 56- (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
So you found an actual, physical copy of the article? And the library you found it in would be...? Since it appears you've actually read the article in question, it would be really helpful if you'd share where you found it with other interested WIkipedia editors. WorldCat only lists one library as having Forensic Science Digest and that library is the FBI Academic Library at Quantico with publisher being United States Air Force Directorate of Fraud and Criminal Investigations. I have read articles (a 2009 Bruce Gross article from The Forensic Examiner and a National Center for Domestic and Sexual Violence paper) that analyze the McDowell/1985 content, but the actual article itself remains unavailable to almost all Wikipedia editors. The major problem with using the McDowell/1985 article is that WP editors are only able to access tertiary commentaries about the study and in addition to issues commentators have found with the study itself, some observers apparently think that the commentaries and interpretations are also flawed. The FBI reports put the figure of 'unfounded' rape claims at about 8%, while other studies put the figure of 'false' (not the same as unfounded') at about 2%. As Gross states "although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false". Shearonink (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Interlibrary loan. "To better understand the dynamics of false rape allegations, the results of 556 rape investigations were carefully reviewed (21). Of this total, 220 were determined to have represented rape and 80 represented verifed false allegations (the remaining 256 could not be conclusively verfied as rapes, although they were throoughly investigated and are currently carried as unsolved sex offenses). Consequently, about 27% of the claims were found to have been false." (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It isn't necessary for sources to be accessible by all users, but it would be helpful if users who do have access would, y'know, tell us what it says. (Note that the article is unpublished, so its usefulness may be questionable.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC) was able to get it through Inter-Library Loan, I'm certainly now going to put in for an ILL of that Digest issue too. It will be interesting to actually see the article...from the commentary I've read about "McDowell 1985", the initial analysis of the data might be flawed with a secondary problem possibly being an initial reporter's mis-reading of the data and their errant conclusion then becoming a circularly-referenced part of the article's Internet lexicon without any analysis of *that" reporter's* methodology. Should be interesting... Shearonink (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Good luck, but I posted all the relevant stuff. Other people are citing numbers and interpretations that are simply not in the McDowell (1985) paper. (talk) 21:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
What do you think about NCDSV/Atkinson's' claim that McDowell's methodology in getting the percentages is flawed? On page 1 Atkinson states that the article "presents a conclusion that 60% of rape complaints made on air force bases in the 1980s were found to be false. The conclusion derives from extrapolation of certain traits from the 27% of women who recanted their allegation." and (as you stated above in your quote from McDowell, since 256 of the asserted crimes could not be conclusively verfied), that "The 27% figure, for starters, may grab peoples’ attention but it’s not a true reading of the article anyway. First, not all of the 556 allegations were actually allowed inclusion of the study. If the authors could not make a determination o[f] truth or falseness outright, they were excluded. Consequently, 256 allegations were excluded out-of-hand. We simply don’t know if they were true or false. The 27% figure is derived from the 300 remaining cases; in fact, that means the 27% “false” cases represent 14% of the entire original number of allegations." Even though it is reported that the military abandoned the checklist in 1997, I find it and McDowell's methodology regarding tabulating the checklist's questions results to be very troubling...especially since "the best a victim can do or be classified as is equivocal" from Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation: A Multidisciplinary Approach(2001). I will contact my local library system to get the ILL process started for the Digest, am looking forward to reading the McDowell/1985 material for myself.
I do think it is worthwhile to note that McDowell/1985 is at least 28 years old, that the reported data is not borne out in other subsequent studies (including the FBI's ongoing crime statistics), and that the military itself has not used the 'McDowell checklist' (an important facet of McDowell/1985) for at least 16 years. Shearonink (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
McDowell (1985) quoted only 80/300 = 27%, but 80/556 = 14% would place right in the middle of Rumney's chart. The military environment has a bunch of young, healthy, horny, single people who can be punished for consensual sex on base. So it might have a higher rate of false accusations. McDowell (1985) has no checklist. I recently received a Wikipedia warning that my IP address might be blocked from editing due to "vandalism", presumably for my edits on this Talk Page. (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Re: your 'warning'... I see no warning about a possible block on your IP-talkpage, just a Welcome with helpful you have an URL from within Wikipedia (one that starts with "") for that warning? If so, please post it on my talk page.
Re: the was my understanding that McDowell had a team of three anonymous 'independent reviewers' who went through the rape reports and assessed them...I wonder how in the world they assessed them if they didn't use some codified type of assessment criteria, either the 'McDowell checklist'(dated as at least being used in 1990 according to Page 196 of 'Practical Aspects') or some other assessment tool. As an aside, it's interesting to me that access to the checklist was restricted for McDowell's 'Indirect Assessment of Real and False Claims of Sexual Assault' sessions - only certain members of the investigative community were allowed to register. According to Terri Spahr's For Love of Country... at one session, no psychotherapists, no psychologists, no rape counselors... Might take a while for my library system to get McDowell/1985, will report back when it shows up. Shearonink (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note I have been referring to McDowell's Forensic Science Digest paper in 1985. McDowell wrote a different paper for Chicago Lawyer in 1985. That explains some confusion over sample sizes and percentages. (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


There's a lot of discussion here about whether/how often the topic occurs, but not much information about what happens when it does. The rape page has a section on: Causes and motivation and another on: Effects

Should False Accusations not have something similar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A false accusation of rape is a false allegation of a forcible sexual assault.

I changed the lede to "A false accusation of rape is an accusation of rape that is not true." Yes, this is a tautology, and if someone wants to edit the article to eliminate it that would be totally fine with me. But I felt the previous sentence wasn't accurate, and so a tautology was a tiny improvement. 1) "Forcible" is irrelevant: a person can be falsely accused of any rape, "forcible" or not (e.g., statutory rape, rape by deception, etc.). And 2) "Sexual assault" != rape, and it seems to me potentially confusing to mix the two together the way the lede had been doing. Sue Gardner (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


It was stated that rape is not always forced, please make your case by citing a source.

According to Merriam Websters dictionary Rape is "unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly."

The current definition is quoted from Kanin, Eugene J., "False Rape Allegations", Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, Feb 1994, p. 81. Where are you getting your definition from?

Thereandnot (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggest that going forward you learn and follow WP:BRD.
Suggest you also read the full definition in Websters: " unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent". This kind of cherry-picking could be perceived as tendentious editing, and I'm sure that isn't how you would like to be viewed. Federales (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This is not tendentious editing because the current definition is quotes exactly from Kanin. And you stating that is AGAIN assuming bad faith. So the burden is on you to find an alternate definition for False accusation of rape because mine is from Kanin word for word and is consistent with M&W. (Thereandnot (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC))
Again, learn policy: see WP:BURDEN. And stop misrepresenting sources - Kanin provides no such definition and you are ignoring 3/4 of M-W's definition. Federales (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
And you would be okay with it if Kanin did provide this definition? Cause it states "false rape allegations: the intentional reporting of a forcible rape by an alleged victim when no rape had occurred." You keep telling me to read policy but you arent even reading the source, just continously edit warring and assuming bad faith. (Thereandnot (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC))
Quote the full sentence from the Kanin source, from start to finish (hint, the full sentence includes the part before the colon). Federales (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
"This paper deals exclusively with false rape allegations: the intentional reporting of a forcible rape by an alleged victim when no rape had occurred." Thereandnot (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Kanin does provide this definition. We could totally discuss whether a better one is available (I'm also skeptical that the literature at large considers force to be a necessary part of the thing), but there is no point in wasting our time arguing over a word that clearly appears in the source. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
That sentence doesn't define rape; it defines the scope of Kanin's study. You just picked the part that you liked and pretended that it means something other than what it actually says. Sort of like you did with Miriam-Webster, when you plucked out the part of the definition that supported your argument and omitted the rest. That's a clear and obvious misrepresentation of sources.
If this is a serious proposal to shape this article in such a way that it ignores the existence of non-violent rape--such as date rape, statutory rape and rape by deception--we will need much wider input from the community. Federales (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No Federales, what we have is consensus and a solid source that we are quoting word for word and YOU are edit warring and assuming bad faith AGAIN. The only reason we don't undo your edit right now is because we are nice people who continue to assume good faith. Thereandnot (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Federales, I don't think we need to read the source in such a way as to say Kanin is defining false rape allegations for the purpose of the study as different from the regular definition of false rape allegations. However, Thereandnot, I think Federales is correct that using this definition omits incidents that studies we cite would include. I could check the studies to make sure, but David Lisak, for instance, does a ton of research into rape that doesn't fit the conventional stranger-leaping-out-of-a-bush narrative and I doubt that his study only dealt with allegations of "forcible" rape as we generally interpret the term. As such, I don't think we are a "we" at the moment - the source does say what you are citing it to say, but it's not necessarily the best we could do for reasons that Federales explained. (As a side note, the Kanin study is widely discredited, though not on the basis of its definition of a false rape allegation per se so maybe that's neither here nor there.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to say. Do you have another more accurate sourced definition? The abstracts of many literature papers define the topic they are going to discuss. Thereandnot (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation says that Katz and Mazur's book in 1979 used "a deliberate lie by the alleged victim accusing a man of a rape that did not occur. It may also be a fantasy report that the female believes is true" (and that Katz and Mazur went on to explain that part of the reason for statistical discrepancies is differing definitions). Practical Aspects itself uses the definition "falsely alleging that a sexual assault has occurred against one's person, or the person of another. The assault may be in the form of touching or penetration, or having been forced to touch or penetrate another in a sexual manner." –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I am okay with definition "is the intentional reporting of a rape by an alleged victim when no rape has occurred. The rape may be in the form of being touched or penetrated by, or having been forced to touch or penetrate in a sexual manner". I would think this definition that we would probably all three agree on. Any disagreements? Thereandnot (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
It isn't necessary or desirable for this article to define rape. The opening sentence is fine as-is. Federales 06:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federales (talkcontribs)
That's a good point. If there is anything that needs clarification it's that false accusation = by supposed victim, no actual assault happened (as opposed to mistaken identity, etc.) and that's clear in the current version. Thereandnot, is there a reason you would prefer to go into more detail? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 13:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I dont really care for more detail to be honest. I just want a source to back up whatever we write. (Thereandnot (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC))

What is considered rape and how you can commit it depends on the jurisdiction And this wikipedia article is not limited to the anglophonic world. At least nowhere it is said so.

Polish Criminal Code Article l97. § 1. Whoever, by force, illegal threat or deceit subjects another person to sexual intercourse shall be subject to the penalty of the deprivation of liberty for a term of between 2 and 12 years. § 2. If the perpetrator, in the manner specified in § 1, makes another person submit to other sexual act or to perform such an act, he shall be subject to the penalty of the deprivation of liberty for a term of between 6 months and 8 years. § 3. If the perpetrator commits the rape or commits it in common with other person, he shall be subject to the penalty of the deprivation of liberty for a term of no less then 3 years § 4. If the perpetrator commits the rape specified in § 1, 2 or 3 with particular cruelty, or commits it in common with other person, he shall be subject to the penalty of the deprivation of liberty for no less then 5 years.

Source[4] it has been changed since and I don't see an "official" english version,

This is one of many articles defining different sexual crimes but article 197 is the only one defining "the crime of rape" in the Polish Criminal Code. So as you see at least in Poland you can commit rape without the use of force, but with deceit such as promising someone that you love him or you are going to marry him. Mieciu K (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide / Revert war "Protection against false accusations"

Since I've already explained at length why Mieciu K's new addition is unsuitable on his talkpage, I'll sum up briefly here: Wikipedia policy states (WP:NOTHOWTO) that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, and I don't think a section that a) the user explicitly intends as advice about avoiding false accusations b) is sourced to news stories about non-notable events is exempt from that requirement even if it doesn't use the actual phrase "This is how you can avoid..." It does not contribute, nor is it intended to contribute, to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. The user also does not appear to understand what "notable" means on Wikipedia, asserting repeatedly that the events are "notable" because they can help men avoid false accusation, rather than citing extensive or persistent coverage, and evidently using the word as a synonym for "I like it." –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

"because they can help men avoid false accusation" - are we talking about the same article? Because I am talking about the "False accusation of rape" article. Nowhere had I written or was my intention to "help men avoid false accusation". IMHO the information I have added is notable to any person accused of rape male, female or transgender. Mieciu K (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
In response to the recent reverts[5] I would like to complain about user's Roscelese overzelous deletionism and breaking the Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy by deleting notable, sourced information from Wikipedia.
As you all know Wikipedia is a work in progress and that calls for constant collaboration between editors if we delete new information from Wikipedia we have nothing to improve. Would we ever have more then 1 million articles if we kept nitpicking and deleting all content that was deemed not notable for some reason? My edits are just a begining of possible expansion of this article and so far I have tried to use NPOV, gender neutral language. I am not an English native speaker so I encourage others to rework, change and expand the content that I have added. Thanks in advance for your opinions. Mieciu K (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Uh, this is not an argument for the content. Adding content three times and complaining about user behavior when it gets reverted isn't the way to do it - building consensus by convincing other editors is. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
So according to you reverting my good faith hard work in seconds without an explaination on my talkpage or on the talkpage of this article is building consensus? I don't think so. Your first revert was at at 19:25, 9 July 2013 and you didn't post on my talkpage before 19:56, 9 July 2013 after my first revert. You use your own criteria for non notability without seeking opinions of other redditors. This article's history shows that you have eddited it often which makes me belive you may have become overly attached to it, and consider it your own to police and be very critical of any new additions to this article. I do not agree with your judgment and calling my additions "a manual". I do not judge nor do recommend any "method" I just mention that those methods exist. And that we are here to do. Let's the viewers decide what is notable or not. Wikipedia is not made of paper we have plenty of space. Mieciu K (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
To begin with you should have followed bold, revert, discuss. You were bold and added new content to the article, Roscelese reverted your bold edit. The next step is to discuss the edits not revert yet again, and again. You were both edit warring and no one was discussing it where it should be discussed, right here on the article talk page. I would suggest you drop this portion and just concentrate on the discussion of the new text itself about whether it belongs in the article or not. GB fan 22:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to address the key issue here, WP:NOTHOWTO, before you continue. Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics, Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability, and neatness of our articles. Mieciu K (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you please explain how this addresses WP:NOTHOWTO in regards to your edits to the page, because I do not see that you addressed it at all. GB fan 00:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a scientific journal" and after my edits have been reverted this article is one big review of scientific studies. Why does this article even exist if it sole purpose is to compile scientific journals. There are scientific journals that do that and it's not Wikipedia's job to copy (edit:removed the word "them") what they are doing. Do we not use newspaper articles as references in other wikipedia articles? Newspapers are not great reference points but they are good enough before they can be replaced with better sources. "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability, and neatness of our articles" - after the revert this page is all about the statistics. In conclusion on Wikipedia everything that is not explicitly forbidden should be allowed. The judgment of what is considered notable is becoming more lenient as Wikipedia expands. It is my opinion that when in doubt, sourced information should be kept, then revisited and reviewed in a few months time to see if it was a good choice. After all Wikipedia is a work in progress. Mieciu K (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
So your comments have nothing to do with how WP:NOTHOWTO applies to your edits? GB fan 00:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
So I'm violating WP:NOTHOWTO (which specific policy exactly?) until I can prove my innocence? Did User:Roscelese prove anything except that in his opinion my edits are non notable? Mieciu K (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say your edits violated anything, haven't made up my mind, still looking at it. You appeared to be replying to Gamaliel's question about WP:NOTHOWTO, but I understand now that wasn't what you were responding to. GB fan 01:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Paywall vs newspapers By the way how is it OK to quote a study (Rumney 2006) that 99% of wikipedia users will not be able to verify because it is behind a paywall but information form newspaper articles avialable to anyone with an internet connection is not? I'm supposed to believe the 90% false rape accusation rate [Stewart (1981)] because someone punched those numbers into Wikipedia? Mieciu K (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Examples of articles with similar lists/"how-to articles"

So you tactic is to discuss all kinds of other things other than if your edits belong in the article or if the arguements presented so far that they don't apply. GB fan 01:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
That is one of my tactics this article is just a small piece of a larger project and should not be judged alone. Mieciu K (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Except that, again, these methods/preventions have been discussed as a subject in reliable sources, whereas you're trying to extrapolate your own list of tips from a series of anecdotes. If your argument is that this article is part of a larger project, surely you must understand that it is subject to the same policies that govern all articles, even if you really want to make an exception in order to help people avoid being falsely accused. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Why do you not want to discuss these particular edits here? GB fan 09:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: The 3O question is: "Should a section about how a man can avoid being falsely accused of rape, sourced to news articles on specific incidents of acquittal, be included?" The answer to the question, as posed, is a definite no. This is not a "How to/not how to" issue. Rather, the concern is OR. Consider, a trial is held & the defendant is acquitted -- does the new source about the trial parse how to avoid the false accusation? No, it will recap the prosecution & defense presentations to the judge/jury. How does that tell any reader how to avoid the false accusation. Beyond the new sources of acquittals, what sort of HOWTO info might be presented? Things like "Always go on double dates." "Video or record the dates you go on." "Video/record your every movement outside the home." "NEVER engage in any sort of amorous activity." The list of methods could go on & on. And what RS is there, beyond news stories about trials, that actually gives advice on how to avoid a false accusation? Do not include such a section. – S. Rich (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ [6], False Accusations of Rape
  2. ^ [7] with excerpts from McDowell interview