Talk:Rape myth

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

Refs to University websites[edit]

I have a high urge to get rid of them gradually. While they are good sources of lists of myths, their scholarly value suck despite belonging to universities. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The article mentions young battered women but doesn't look at the male component, it is not just women who are raped (which is a myth in its self). The article is short and leaves out research, statistics, and definitions that are needed to understand the concept of rape myth. The shortness of the article could be behind the rape culture in the United States. (Karaatz (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC))

What prevented you from improving the article? BTW please don't throw around accusations. This will not make you welcome in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. Oh, I see, you are a new wikipedian. Please be aware that we are volunteers here, working in our free time. Instead of bemoaning the shortness of the article you should have thanked me that (a) I noticed the term without any wikipedia article, (b) instead of jumping up and down "Look how stupid this wikipedia is!" , I created a brief introduction, even if I am very far from expertise in gender topics (c) wikilinked it everywhere where the term was used in wikipedia. (d) keeping an eye on the article against occasional vandalism and other misfortunes.
Wikipedia articles are not like student's essays. Quite often they grow in small increments, people adding this or that, until a person really familiar with or interested in the topic sets aside a considerable time to write a considerable text. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Just what ARE the rape myths?[edit]

This article notes that rape myths stem from many causes, but it doesn't say just what the myths are. Is the myth that rapes don't really occur? Is the myth that rape isn't rape because women like being raped, and thus there is no such thing? Is the myth that women invite rape by ____________ (fill in whatever reason)?

A detailing of what rape myths are needs to be added to the article. GetSomeUtah (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The above is your plan to work as a wikipedian, right?. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm always happy to address any substantive issues other editors are willing to raise. Regards, GetSomeUtah (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, here is an issue: nobody gives a shit about this subject I started almost a year ago in the area I have no interest. This is the most substantive issue with this article ever. And your (and of the smartass in the section above) supervisory attitude is hardly helpful. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for taking an interest and filling out the article. I, for one, am grateful for your efforts. GetSomeUtah (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of pseudo-headings in contrast to WP:BADHEAD[edit]

Staszek Lem, regarding this and this, WP:BADHEAD is clear that we should not be using pseudo-headings. They are not needed and it is sloppy writing. Even if we were to turn the headings into real headings, I don't see that subsections are needed for that little bit of material; they would be unnecessary headings disrupting the flow of text. Per MOS:Paragraphs, I usually don't use subheadings for a little bit of material. For more input, I'll alert the WP:Manual of Style talk page about weighing in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: These are not subsections, these are definitions of individual myths, useful for their identification. Nearly all sources use these. Basically, these are MOS:DLISTs. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't view the matter like that. I see this use from WP:Student editors a lot, and some have stated they were used in a pseudo-heading way. And regardless, they are not needed at all in this case. Can you explain why you feel they are needed? We don't even do this style for our medical articles.
On a side note: The ping didn't work, but there is no need to ping me to this page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you explain why you feel they are needed? - They are needed for quick identification. I agree they are rather long, but many of them, such as "She asked for it" are a common reference.
Frther, compare:
A woman can avoid rape by fighting off her assailants

In a significant number of cases, the victim is either under the threat of violence, physical or otherwise, or is not in a mental state to ward off the assailants. When the victim is raped by somebody they know, they are not really in a position to attack the rapists. When the victim is in a state of insobriety, the victim cannot be expected to fight somebody. Adding on to this is the general difference in physical strength between the assailant and the victim, as the assailant is likelier to be male, and the victim, female.[4] Therefore, in a majority of instances, it is not feasible for the victim to fight the assailants and ward off rape.

vs.

In a significant number of cases, the victim is either under the threat of violence, physical or otherwise, or is not in a mental state to ward off the assailants. When the victim is raped by somebody they know, they are not really in a position to attack the rapists. When the victim is in a state of insobriety, the victim cannot be expected to fight somebody. Adding on to this is the general difference in physical strength between the assailant and the victim, as the assailant is likelier to be male, and the victim, female.[4] Therefore, in a majority of instances, it is not feasible for the victim to fight the assailants and ward off rape.

In the second quote: Where exactly is the myth? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking at the style you are endorsing, and I still can't see a need for it. It is essay-like and we don't write our articles like that. You mentioned "quick identification," but there is no need. Identifying the myth should be done via paragraph text, not with a pseudo-heading. And, yes, WP:BADHEAD is clear that semi-colons used in this way are pseudo-headings. Look at the first bolded instance. It states, "Rapists are people who are not known to the victim." This is used as a heading to identify the paragraph it represents, but it is not needed because the text begins by stating "The common myth that rapists are people that the victims are not acquainted with, and that the rapists are necessarily strangers is false." So readers will know what myth the paragraph is talking about in that case. Other instances can be worded similarly if it is felt that the paragraph is not clear enough about what myth it's addressing. A good paragraph does not need quick identification via a pseudo-heading; we have topic sentences for that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I had no objection to rewording. I gave an example when removing the pseudo-header is bad idea.Your example when it is OK does not remove my objection that wholesale deletion of pseudoheaders breaks the text. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
We clearly disagree on the pseudo-headings being needed, but, per your example, I do understand why you reverted me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I came here from WT:MOS, where Flyer pointed me to this discussion. To me, the problem seems to be that the headings in question are halfway between subsection headings (in which case they are formatted wrong) and definition lists (in which case they are ok but the definitions are formatted wrong). If they are definition lists, then we need lines ;term :definition etc, and the colons on the definitions are missing. Or, better, they should be formatted using {{term}} and {{defn}}. If that sort of formatting were used, I think the usage here would be unobjectionable. But if what you want is a smaller boldface heading separating text that is unindented just like the rest of the body text, then BADHEAD applies and you should do it a different way. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with David E., exactly, and would add that if you were to stick with ; and : markup (not advised), then there cannot be any blank lines in there at all, not between the ; term and : definition, and not between the last definition and next term, and not inside the definitions (something you cannot guarantee in future edits, given the detail level of the material – someone will make a paragraph break eventually, and I see one already). If there's a blank line, it hoses the list markup in the output (WP:LISTGAPS). If you are certain you want to keep this as a description list, use the {{glossary}}{{term}}{{defn}}{{glossary end}} structure, outlined at MOS:GLOSSARIES. It will also make each "term" linkable like a heading. The hatnote in one of the entries will need to be done with {{ghat}}. All that said, there's no compelling reason to not make them subheadings instead. The benefit would be simpler markup. The only "cost" would be a longer table of contents, but that might actually be desirable, helping people find the "myth" they're looking for, and giving new arrivals to the page a better indication of the content. I'm a fan of glossaries (I wrote most of MOS:GLOSSARIES and all the templates in question), but they are not always the ideal format, especially for content like this. They're more suitable for terminology lists, like Glossary of cue sports terms (the monster glossary all that was developed around).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  22:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
David Eppstein and  SMcCandlish, thanks for weighing in. SMcCandlish my issue with what I feel are unneeded subheadings is if the content is a single sentence, a small paragraph, or ends up being (or contributing to) a lot of subheadings. I know that it's okay to have a subheading for a single sentence or a small paragraph sometimes, but not needing the subheading is more common. A lot of subheadings can cause an article to look much bigger than it is and can also cause navigational issues because an overly lengthy table of contents can overwhelm the reader and make things harder to find. I consider the Violence against women article one such example; see this discussion from that article's talk page about the table of contents. The table of contents being too big in some cases is why we have Template:TOC limit. So, yeah, a lengthy table of contents is a cost in some cases. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
No argument from me, I was just addressing the options. One thing is unquestionable, though: the current markup is wrong.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  07:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: I resolved that, by using the rather robust glossary template markup. It can still be broken if someone tries hard, e.g. by inserting material between a {{defn}} and a preceding {{term}}, but this is easily repaired. The ; and : markup is utterly unsuited for long-form description lists, and it was already broken even with just the content presently in the article.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Improper tone and approach[edit]

I've flagged this article for MOS:TONE, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR cleanup, with {{Tone}} (though that doesn't really cover the NOR issue, per se). It has a lot of problems, including a brochure-like approach, informal wording (MOS:WE issues, "this country", etc.), and strong presentation of a gender feminism viewpoint that rape is entirely a patriarchy problem of male sexual violence against women (as if lesbian rape, male-on-male rape, and sexual assault of children by women didn't exist; I've done some copyediting about this, but it needs more). Among other issues. A common one throughout the text is calling these assumptions and stereotypes "myths" in Wikipedia's own voice; we can't do that per WP:NPOV (and it's also a misuse of the word "myth", which properly means a story in a religious narrative cycle, i.e. in a mythology). In Wikipedia voice, we should refer to them as assumptions, stereotypes, beliefs, claims, or some other term that doesn't project the cited authors' viewpoint that they're all totally false. They probably are, but it's not our job to say so – it's to dispassionately present who is saying so in what reliable sources, and (should that ever come up, in actual RS) any contrary viewpoint, within WP:UNDUE constraints.

And there's excessive reliance upon and quotation of a single author and work (Asking for It by Kate Harding). This is WP:UNDUE promotion of a book and writer.

Also flagged the one-sentence LGBT section as needing expansion.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC); revised: 14:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I've done a bit more work on this but it needs extra.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  14:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
These problems happen with WP:Student editors/newbies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
And with people pushing a viewpoint; I detect a lot of that in this article and related ones. It's not even that the viewpoint isn't true; it's simply a viewpoint and we can't non-neutrally promote is just because most workers on and watchers of this and similar pages are socio-political progressives. When the truth is clearly, it is never necessary to present encyclopedic material in the loaded phrasing of those advocating that truth against naysayers.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
If the literature on rape myths is clear that these are all myths, I don't see it as a WP:UNDUE violation to state that they are myths in Wikipedia's voice, however. It's actually in line with WP:DUE if that is what the literature calls it through and through. Think of our comments at the Race (human categorization) talk page. It's not a WP:UNDUE violation to state that race is a social construct or that scientific consensus is that race lacks a firm basis in biology. Giving WP:In-text attribution can cause a WP:UNDUE violation because it can make it seem like it's only according to that one author (or a few authors) that the aspect is a myth. As for what a myth is, we can only go by what the reliable sources state. Celibacy syndrome is not an actual syndrome, but we still call it "celibacy syndrome." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Because it's a value judgement held by a particular subset of people with essentially the same viewpoint. Virtually all Christian sources agree that Jesus is observing your day-to-day activities and thoughts, and with prayer and faith can directly intercede in your life, but WP cannot say this is true in its own voice. And the word itself is PoV-laden and a misnomer. It qualifies as WP:COMMONNAME for the article title, but that is all. Keep in mind that the social "sciences" are not sciences in the sense that physics and chemistry are. If there's any doubt at all of the neutrality of a term, and other more neutral ones are available, we should not use the questionable one in WP's own voice. This article is already directly quote so much material that the "excessive attribution can be UNDUE" concern doesn't arise anyway.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
If virtually all, or the vast majority of, reliable sources on the topic of rape myths classify these aspects as myths, it is perfectly fine to call them myths in Wikipedia's voice, just like the title of this article does. Or to at least state "The literature has identifiied the following as rape myths.", or something like that. That is WP:DUE WEIGHT. This is not the same thing as stating that "Virtually all Christian sources agree that Jesus is observing your day-to-day activities and thoughts." Religious beliefs, which are commonly disputed by science, is not the same thing as reporting on misconceptions about rape and including those misconceptions as the facts that they are. That the majority of rapes go unreported is also a social sciences matter, but we don't need to frame that matter with in-text attribution as though it's controversial or contested by a number of valid sources to state so. A lot of research on rape is social sciences; this doesn't make the content any less factual than "hard sciences." We don't report on a lot of that with in-text attribution. We report on it in Wikipedia's voice, per the literature. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
You appear to be simply restating your same argument after I refuted it without rebutting my refuation (proof by assertion). There are only a very small number of sources involved, they do not agree at all on what all the rape myths are, nor do they all use the same terminology, so this "If virtually all, or the vast majority of, reliable sources on the topic" argument has no substance. You also seem to be not distinguishing between a) whether we have sufficient sourcing to include something in an article on the topic (we do seem to, for what's in there now, including what someone tried to remove – see thread below) and b) whether that sourcing forces us to use a particular word, which it certainly does not. I think I'm going to ask WP:NPOVN for some input here because this discussion has foundered on circular reasoning.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't see that you refuted it, that's the thing. And "proof by assertion" is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. WP:Due is a policy. I pointed to an RfC where a number of editors (including me) where very clear that we should not give in-text attribution to the fact that most rapes go unreported. I am arguing similarly in cases of rape myths that are well-supported as rape myths, such as "she asked for it." Nowhere did I state that all reported rape myths are well-supported. I am stating that we should not make well-supported rape myths look like WP:Fringe views or similar and that there is nothing wrong whatsoever with stating that well-supported rape myths are rape myths in Wikipedia's voice. As for what you think I am distinguishing, I'll just state that my words should be taken as written. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
No one suggested anything like "making well-supported rape myths look like WP:Fringe views". The issue is that particular authors using the term "myth" doesn't mean WP should use it as a label. It represents a particular point of view, and each of them can be more neutrally described as an assumption, stereotype, misconception, rationalization, etc., as the case may be. Especially since none of the sources agree what the "rape myths" are, and they do not all use that term. I don't know how this can possibly be any clearer, but I've asked for input from two noticeboards of people who understand our policies, including the WP:UNDUE one your argument keeps referring to but does not seem to be extracting the full meaning of in this case. I don't want this to get into a personality dispute. It's just about (in this section) tone and PoV wording, and in the ones below about novel, personal reinterpretation and reanalysis of the sources (by someone else).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't want it to be a personal dispute either. I do understand our policies. And one topic I understand very well is the rape literature. You stated, "It represents a particular point of view." This makes it seem like there are valid counterarguments. Where are the valid counterarguments to "she asked for it" for being a rape myth? It is indeed absurd to state that a woman should be raped because she was dressed sexy and/or behaved in a promiscuous manner. And this narrative is described as a rape myth by numerous reliable sources, such as this 2007 "Issues in the Psychology of Women" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 98, and this 2016 "Sexual Assault Prevention on College Campuses" source, from Psychology Press, page 99. Same goes for a lot of other reported rape myths. If the well-supported rape myths were validly contested, I would see an issue with calling them rape myths. By all means, challenge the less supported rape myths. Use in-text attribution for them if needed. But I see no issue with calling a narrative a rape myth in Wikipedia's voice when it is widely noted as a rape myth in the literature. The literature gets to decide on what terms to use and what terms are valid, and, unless it's WP:Fringe (which in-text attribution can imply) or counter-argued in the way that religion is, it is our job to follow it with WP:Due weight. Not question it because we don't like how the word (in this case, myth) is being used. As for you asking for input, I know that you have. But we both know that our experienced editors don't always agree on the interpretation of our policies and guidelines. Happens all the time, just like it is happening in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not my job here, or yours, or Wikipedia's to make value judgements about the validity of the arguments, but to represent them in proportion to reliability of sources and frequency of appearance in them, on their own terms and without editorial reinterpretation. My OR concerns are again raised by "one topic I understand very well is the rape literature". It's almost entirely written from one point of view; that PoV is probably correct, but that's immaterial. This is not a matter like real physics versus allegation that Insert Random Mountebank Here can levitate people with his mind. Some stuff can be debunked concretely by experiment; social "science" is forever subjective.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: I feel like this is turning into a "last word" contest, so I'm just going to stop. I really hope the invitations at NORNB and NPOVB produce some additional input here because this 3-party circular argument is not so useful.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  00:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Representing the arguments in proportion to reliability of sources and frequency of appearance in them is exactly what I have been arguing. As the two sources I included above indicate, "she asked for it" is one of the known rape myths. In terms of Wikipedia content, it is not for you to state that material such as this is "almost entirely written from one point of view; that PoV is probably correct, but that's immaterial." It is up to you to show that some conflicting POV exists and that this conflicting POV should be represented as well. If you have no sources challenging the well-known POV, then we do not cater to some would-be alternative viewpoint. We follow the literature. Your view that social science is forever subjective, as though it is unknown whether any of these or other social science matters are facts, is your view and it holds no weight on Wikipedia. Numerous reliable sources, including medical sources, are clear that there are a lot of misguided beliefs about rape and that some of these misguided beliefs are myths. There is nothing at all that can counter the "she asked for it" aspect. Nothing. Me stating that I know the rape literature very well is simply me stating that I know what I am talking about. It is not WP:OR. And, regardless, the WP:OR policy is clear that WP:OR does not cover article talk pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, the rape literature, including that concerning rape myths, is written from many POVs. It just so happens that some of those POVs have significantly more support than others, especially the ones based in fact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
OK. Just offhand I think part of the issue here is that "rape literature" has some underlying vocabulary and assumptions, and thus the professional work that uses this shared language will share those assumptions. I think it is important not to give equal weight to people who saying that it wasn't rape if she got pregnant (and I am a little alarmed at the comments about social sciences) but really, no, you cannot attribute all rape to male violence, no. And to the extent I have a bias going in, it's to make sure marginalized voices are heard. But you're arguing with quite an experienced editor, whose name I have seen many times, who seems offhand to be correct in telling you that less emotion would serve your purposes better. Elinruby (talk) 10:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Elinruby, see the #Saw request to help elsewhere but this is complicated section below for more comments. I am also a very experienced editor and rape topics are one of the topics I'm very familiar with. I have considered what SMcCandlish has stated, but I've also considered what the literature states and our rules. This certainly is not about me being emotional or personalizing the issue. And I don't think the topic is about attributing all rape to male violence; it largely concerns males and male violence, for obvious reasons, however. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Look, you aren't the only experienced editor in the conversation and I agree the topic is important. And *guaranteed* to be trolled so let's make sure the thing is properly cited because oh by the way it isn't. Wikivoice is for the blindingly obvious like the sky is blue. No matter how true the statements are they still need to be attributed and cited if they can be challenged at all, and much of this is definitely not blue sky type stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talkcontribs) 10:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Elinruby, where did I state that I am "the only experienced editor in the conversation"? You stated "But you're arguing with quite an experienced editor." I argued that I am also quite an experienced editor. And my point was that I don't see what the other editor's experience editing Wikipedia has to do with the matter since he is no more experienced than I am. And as for your comment about Wikipedia's voice, I'll just state that I stand by what I stated above. We don't use in-text attribution simply because something can be challenged. Editors challenge what the literature states all the time. We don't go by what our editors personally challenge; we go by what can be challenged via reliable sources that are directly about the topic. If something cannot be challenged with reliable sources, we are not going to use in-text attribution just for the sake of using it. Not unless it is actually necessary. For example, although the scientific community is in general agreement that global warming exists, we still attribute the fact that it exists to the scientific community. We do this because of the significant debate on the matter. By contrast, no one has provided reliable sources challenging these rape myths. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Fine, we're all experienced editors in this conversation. If you say so. You still need attribution and citations, even though you seem to think that what you are saying is self-evident. I find it a bit surprising that an experienced editor would question this, is the only reason I made the remark. I repeat, the "the sky is blue" is the standard for not needing attribution, and although I agree with much of the article, it is imho overly facile to claim that these statements are on that level. Elinruby (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Elinruby, I'm thinking you have not reviewed the matter. I am arguing with sources, including above in this section. It's the "Oh, it's contentious to call these rape myths." side that is not arguing with sources. You know, your side. I suggest you actually read the literature and what Fyddlestix stated in the #Saw request to help elsewhere but this is complicated section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
You might want to take the time to actually read WP:In-text attribution as well, especially what it states about how WP:In-text attribution can give WP:Undue weight, since your WP:Sky is blue logic is off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Kindly refrain from ad hominem attacks that put words in my mouth, particularly words that are offensive. I am saying that the article as I reviewed it is vague and insufficiently cited, period end of statement, and your unwillingness to hear this give me no confidence that you've improved it since. You seem try to be saying that your vast knowledge of the topic and the sterling quality of your prose (cough) mean that the article doesn't need to meet normal standards, and that's what I am taking issue with. Elinruby (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Elinruby, do cease with the "you are attacking me" bit. I could state similarly, given your condescending tone and your "I find it a bit surprising that an experienced editor would question this, is the only reason I made the remark." silliness. As for my supposed unwillingness to hear you, no, you are unwilling to actually hear me. You came back with the attitude, talking nonsense, and clearly have not sufficiently reviewed the matter. Otherwise, you would not be arguing that this is my about vast knowledge or making ridiculous comments like "sterling quality of [my] prose (cough)." A simple check shows that I have barely edited the article. So whatever prose you are referring to as far as the article goes is not mine. I have listened to you. I do not agree with you. There is a difference. There is no basis for your "Wikipedia's voice" argument, per reasons I've already stated. There comes a point when editors should know to drop the stick and move on, especially when the literature and Wikipedia's rules do not support their viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Elinruby, I know that you are concerned about the quality of the article. We both are. The bickering isn't helping anything, which is why I scratched out my most recent comment before this one above. For now, we can simply leave the matter at "agree to disagree." This is not an article that I edit much. Like you, I'm just giving my views on issues concerning the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't consider it bickering to say that an article, as written, does not meet standards. (Based on the talk page it seems to have seen some work since I saw it). I suspect a remark was taken personally that wasn't intended to be, but don't have the time or inclination to investigate what or why. If I somehow offended you, then sorry, but this is an issue independent of whether the article needs help. I have noted that it still does at the NPOV noticeboard, and will try to do another pass when I take a break from the fish I am frying elsewhere. Elinruby (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Elinruby, of course that's not bickering. Other things we stated to each other clearly was bickering, however. But I'm not going to argue with you over what is and isn't bickering, especially when I'm certain that other editors would agree that we were indeed bickering, given the tone of some parts of our comments that are very clearly less than WP:Civil. As for everything else, I repeat that I disagree with the "Wikipedia's voice" argument, and that I and others have been clear why we disagree. I don't have anything else to state on that matter that would not be me repeating myself. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I feel like this discussion has kind of run its course - the article has been substantially modified since it started, and you two are arguing about generalities rather than a specific issue. I suggest letting this drop for now, and starting a new talk page discussion about specific issues that anyone has going forward. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Badly redundant structure[edit]

This article confusingly presents three lists of myths about rape. These should be combined into a single list, citing the appropriate sources for each list item.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As someone pointed out, this happens when students write wikipedia, without reading it first I would add. Anyway the good thing is more content, and it is old-timers' job to sort the mess out. That said, IMO there are two lists to merge. The third one (from IRMA) must be handled more carefully. Since the statements are from the questionnaire, the exact formulations must be moved into quotes in the footnotes, while in the text they must be replaced with the definitions from our "consolidated" list. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

In order to merge the first list into second, the first one musty be "deciphered". In particular, "he didnt mean to" doesn't sound like a myth, but rather as a common excuse. Of course, often he didnt really mean to, but this is because he was under an influence of a real myth, eg that previous sex means perpetual consent. I cannot help that the author was under the influence of the magic of number 7. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not our "job", per WP:NOR, to try to interpret the "myths" reported in the sources we consider reliable, to determine on our own whether they're right or whether they're mislabeling something as a myth. The reader will determine on their own whether they agree with a particular formulation, and how many sources converge on which alleged myths helps them do that. That said, anyone tracking this issue in the real world knows full well that variants of "he didn't mean to" is a very frequent defense of the accused offered by "rape skeptics", and is central to the "boys will be boys" mentality ("he couldn't help it", "girls send mixed signals", "no doesn't always mean no", yadda yadda yadda; there are dozens of variants on this theme). Further, "a common excuse" or justification or rationalization is what pretty much all of these things are; the distinction you seem to want to draw isn't evident in the material or its sources.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes it is our job to summarize what is written in reliable sources. One and the same myth may be indentified by 4 words in one source ("She asked for it") or in gazillion of words ("Victims only have themselves to blame, when they are asking for it") in another source. Are these two myths or one? I highly doubt there will be sources which tell us. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
whether they're right or whether they're mislabeling something as a myth You probably took my words out of context. I was referrin to sloppy addition by a newbie, who merely dumped a 7-item list of buzz-phrases. And my text "he didn't mean to" doesn't sound like a myth refers to an observation of the possible reader of our article, who will probably say "WTF? They all say "sorry I didn't mean it". How in hell it is a myth? They do say so every time!" Obviously the source author went into detail to explain what they meant, but our article misses this and hence is a confusion. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I challenge that you are summarizing the sources rather than providing your own novel re-interpretation of them, as already explained above. Treating "she asked for it" and "they're asking for it" as equivalent enough to treat in the same section (or same DLIST item) is within the range of summarization and non-novel interpretation we can do; let's not be silly. It's just basic parsing of English. You know we can do that and you must know that I'm not talking about that in the above; I said nothing about that, and if it were not a permissible level of parsing and organizing we could not write an encyclopedia. The problem is "he didn't mean to' doesn't sound like a myth" and other personal assessments on your part, second-guessing the sources. If (in whatever exact wording) that's what the sources are telling is one of the "rape myths" (of not using that phrase, but "false assumption about rape", "rape-excusing stereotypes", etc., etc. – the stuff we're grouping together under the WP:COMMONNAME "rape myth", and the sources seems reliable, just include it without fighting against it, and let readers exercise their own hearts and minds. We're not here to tell them what's true and right, but what the sources are saying, within the overall scope of the topic. FFS.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  00:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem is "he didn't mean to' doesn't sound like a myth" and other personal assessments on your part, second-guessing the sources. --The problem is that here you are not discussing our article text, while I am. My point was, and I am rephrasing it for the third time, the phrase in quiestion is ripped out of context and therefore looks weird in our article. Sorry, I would not expect from a seasoned wikipedian to write "but this is what source says". Also, you failed to notice that in my "deletion spree" I did not delete this line; I am merely discussing it in talk. And let me rephrase for the fourth time: nothing it this phrase and around it explains why it is a rape myth. A proper explanation would be, kinda, "he said he did not mean it; but ignorance is not an excuse and does not change the fact that he committed rape", or whatever the actual source says. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"Real victims report rape immediately"[edit]

Someone has to double check the refs cited. IMO today it is well-known that a large number of women do not report rape, so I doubt there is such a myth.

On the other hand I can understand where it comes from, bearing in mind recent scandals with movie stars accusing agents and directors of rape 30 years ago. While not exonerating sexual predators in film industry, it is well known that starlets willingly jump out of their dresses o get a role; heck, where all this porn industry comes from? No wonder common people do express a good deal of skepticism.

Therefore the discussion of this myth must be placed in a better context. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

There is still a lot of doubt among the general public that women do not report rape or report it immediately. With regard to the Harvey Weinstein scandal, I've seen a number of ignorant people acting like the women could not have possibly been sexually harassed, sexually assaulted or specifically raped since they waited so long to come forward. They were either disregarding the power Weinstein held (meaning that he could literally break one's career and that a lesser known person could easily be disbelieved and/or dismissed as being after his money) or they were defining rape narrowly (automatically thinking that it must involve physical force). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I said this must be placed into proper context. Moreover, it now comes to my mind that this in fact coincides with the next item titled "Women are likely to lie about rape". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it does go along with that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd already flagged that sections content as not matching its label; the content is more about whether they'll report, not whether the report it accurate.
Also, I'd rather formulate the Weinstein issue like this: "If a woman benefited from a sexual intercourse, it was not really a rape", i.e., this merges with the misconception that there is no rape if there was no violence. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
What's the source for that formulation? I reiterate my OR concerns from the previous thread. We're not here to engage in WP:AEIS (novel analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis). We can paraphrase and organize, but not completely reinterpret the source material. It's perfectly fine if some of the sources identify alleged rape myths that are dubious; the fact that some of them are dubious, have become dubious over time, or are poorly formulated, is part of the topic, not something to hide or wish away. Same goes for the fact that not everyone who works academically on this topic is in lock-step agreement on what all the rape myths are. We should be presenting them as the the sources do, short of plagiarizing them or going into excessive detail about tiny nuances between one researcher's version and another's. The progressive impulse to present a unified-front, "corrected" narrative is not applicable on this project; presenting the facts about the topic and its background, warts and all, is what we do here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  10:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
What's the source for that formulation? - I am not putting this formulation into the text. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion spree[edit]

This deletion spree] is exactly what I mean in two threads above about original research; it's a single editor's judgement that these "shouldn't" qualify as "rape myths", in contradiction to the cites sources that do classify them that way whether we'd personally agree with them doing so or not. I think most or all of that should be reverted as novel analysis and interpretation, and non-neutral approach to the topic.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  11:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I've WP:BRD-reverted this mass change [1]. We should or at least can discuss this item-by-item, and must stick to sourcing and policies, not opinion and personal analysis of whether we agree with the sources.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  11:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

There was no "deletion spree", nor "mass change". There were several edits, each with edit summary for this particular non-mass change. Some of them were indeed deletions:
  • (cur | prev) 10:34, 7 November 2017‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (21,634 bytes) (-1,215)‎ . . (→‎Myths surrounding the victim: rm text which was irrelevant to the myth footnoted) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 10:29, 7 November 2017‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,849 bytes) (+19)‎ . . (→‎Myths surrounding the victim) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 10:17, 7 November 2017‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,830 bytes) (+32)‎ . . (→‎Myths surrounding the victim) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 10:15, 7 November 2017‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,798 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (→‎Myths surrounding the circumstances) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 10:15, 7 November 2017‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,795 bytes) (-507)‎ . . (merged two pairs of myths from second list) (undo)
  • (cur | prev) 09:50, 7 November 2017‎ Staszek Lem (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,302 bytes) (-803)‎ . . (→‎Myths surrounding the victim: rm incorrect entry about a drunk women: this is for victim blaming subject, not from rape myth: an intoxicate person cannot control anything, not only rape, this is so evident that cannot be a myth) (undo)
Please explain what exactly was wrong with each edit separately. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. I am not against discussing my edits, but I would humbly ask for a bit of respect to fellow wikipedians and do not describe their work in derisive terms. Please let me remind you that it was me who started this long-neglected topic, so for me it is weird to see the description of my work as "deletion spree". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not deriding your work; I'm questioning your deletion of other's work without clear explanation. The onus is on you, to provide a clear rationale, on a per-item basis, for deletion of sourced material like that, and get consensus that you're correct to remove it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes you are deriding my work describing it as "deletion spree". Do you want reliable sources for this? My rationales are in edit summaries, on per-item basis, listed above for your convenience. There are only two deletions. I explained myself for both; separately. Now, please prove that I was wrong. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Repeat: I'm not deriding your work; I'm questioning your deletion of other's work without clear explanation. We can do this circularly for the next three days if you like; I have better things to do, really. Please respond substantively.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Repeat: My explanations are in my edit summaries, listed above. If you do not want to "do this circularly", please comment on them instead of defending your rudeness. I have better things to do, really, as well. Please respond substantively, otherwise I am reverting your revert. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"A victim, irrespective of the state of sobriety, can avoid rape"[edit]

I find it hard to believe that there is a myth that a drunk woman can avoid rape; just the opposite: it is well-known that a drunk woman is an easy prey for sexual predators. The supporting text makes me no wiser. It only speaks about consent issues, which are covered in the corresponding article. The sources cited are not easily available. The person who added this seems to abandon this article, since they do not respond to tags. Therefore I am about to remove this item until clarification. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Saw request to help elsewhere but this is complicated[edit]

I saw the request for help at the noticeboard but this one is complicated. Maybe my 2 cents on trying to sort out a few things might help. First, IMHO there are numerous concepts or assumptions about rape situations that happened which are seldom true but which that have some acceptance which are of the type which would tend to narrow the definition of rape, or place at least partial blame on the rape victim. So advocates who want to remedy this came along and, as a part of that effort, assigned the pejorative term "rape myth" to these particular concepts and assumptions Since some of these concepts may occasionally be true, the word "myth" if parsed out may not be absolutely correct. But this is a two word term and a common meaning for the two word term has been created, which is roughly the italicized meaning. Next, instead of being an article about a subject that innately exists independent of any terminology (the classic Wikipedia situation), it is really inevitably about:

  1. The term
  2. The concepts and views that are a part of that widely-accepted advocacy
  3. The numerous concepts or assumptions which are the target of that term and the related advocacy, as defined by the lens of that term and advocacy.

IMO, if the above framework is recognized, it might help sort a few things out. One particular thought is to not try to use the definition of "myth" parsed out, but instead the common meaning of the two-word term.

Well, ther's my 2 cents....please free to ignore. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I myself was thinking about renaming the article into a more neutral title, Misconceptions about rape, as well as to add some healthy criticism. For example, one must draw a clean line between blaming the victim, i.e., transferring the blame from perpetrator onto victim and a healthy criticism of victim's behavior. "Don't drink heavily at a frat party", "Don't you wander in "da 'hood" at night, you'll get mugged", "if you do not put a lock on bicycle, it will be stolen", "don't stand under the stacker crane" (wow! a redlink!), etc. etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
IMO, if you want to cover the innate subject that is targeted by the term, I think that the title change would be a good idea. IMO if you stick with the current title then the article should acknowledge that the term itself is an pejorative term used in advocacy type initiatives and that the article is also covering the term and related concepts & views. North8000 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to see the sources about "advocacy type initiatives". Is this somehow related to political correctness run amok in the US? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Certainly there is a wide range within this topic, and some of that range may cross that line. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I also saw the request for input and have been watching the debate/reading up on the topic. The article is poorly organized and needs some cleanup right now but I am finding very extensive, high-quality RS on the subject of rape myths. So to be honest I'm finding a hard time seeing what all the fuss is about: based on the RS I'm finding there is no need to change the topic or title of the article (although I would suggest moving it to "Rape myths"), it just needs some cleanup (which I'm happy to help with, though it may take some time). I am not finding any basis in RS for some of the complaints/criticisms being raised here on the talk page (eg, the idea that there can be "healthy criticism of victim's behavior," which sounds way more like perpetuating a rape myth than writing about rape myths), so my question for those of you who have a problem with the articles tone/focus is: what RS would you base your suggested changes on? There is way too much griping along the lines of "in my opinion..." and "it seems to me..." here but with zero engagement with RS. We should refocus on what RS actually say about the topic. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: If you look at these disputes (and the still-ongoing rather massive changes to the article, mostly by a single party, after objections were raised to the changes), the entire point is that there are no lack of sources, and that the issue is personal re-intepretation/re-analysis of those sources (OR). I've already said my piece above and find it too frustrating to continue when the other parties will not hear a word of it and think they're Right because of their backgrounds (= credentialism) or "just because", basically, in the other editor's case. I have better things that to bash my head against two brick walls at once.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Above, North8000 stated, "Since some of these concepts may occasionally be true, the word 'myth' if parsed out may not be absolutely correct." No one has presented any reliable sources showing or indicating that some of these rape myths may be true. I made this clear in the #Improper tone and approach discussion above. North8000 stated, "One particular thought is to not try to use the definition of 'myth' parsed out, but instead the common meaning of the two-word term." This is similar to what I argued in the Improper tone and approach discussion above. This is also why I feel that the current title of the article is fine. It is also the WP:Common name. As for North8000 stating "if you stick with the current title then the article should acknowledge that the term itself is an pejorative term used in advocacy type initiatives," where are the sources for that? What WP:Reliable sources call the term a pejorative? Who is it a pejorative in regard to? The rapists? If so, one comparison is the topic of racism and noting what is racist. So I agree with Staszek Lem on challegning North8000 about seeing sources for the "advocacy type initiatives" claim. I also agree with Fyddlestix.
SMcCandlish, my issue with your arguments is obviously not removal of WP:OR. If WP:OR is in the article, then it should be removed. And nowhere have I argued that I'm right because of my knowledge on the subject. I'm right per the literature and the WP:Due weight policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Already responded to your claims in that regard, in above thread, and decline to recycle it again, lest {{Round in circles}} be applied to this page.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I feel like at least three of us are in agreement about removals and criticisms that appear to be motivated by OR, so that's something at least? I have to side with Flyer on the issue of weight though, I don't see where anyone advocating the "rape myths as advicacy" or "rape myths as just one viewpoint" (eg, the" gender feminist" angle suggested here) has produced RS that would support that approach. I am finding discussions of rape myths in a wide range of legal, sociological, psychological and other academic literature (including other tertiary sources) so I see no issue with describing these as myths in wiki voice and I see no need to qualify or attribute that. Coverage in RS appears to be very broad. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
See all the cleanup work I did on the article several days ago to see the GF bias I removed, and which is likely to creep back in. And it's wrong for WP to use "myths" in its own voice because a) not all the sources agree on this term, b) among those that use it, they don't agree what it means and what is encompasses, and c) it wrongly implies that there's "a mythology" at work here, which there is not, even in the in slangish/jargony sense. There may be some danger of 4Chan Trumpoids creating one, mind you, but we have no evidence this has transpired. It's a loaded and potentially confusing word, with different implications depending on who reads it. If I still don't get traction on this, I give up, and will relegate this to one of those articles that's always going to be a coatrack for someone's ideological posturing instead of neutrally covering the topic. See also North8000's comments higher up: that editor's 3-point list is what we're failing to do here, and I've tried all week to even get the two dominators of this page to even consider for a moment this issue, and they just will not. So, oh well. WP has lots of non-encyclopedic, advocacy-laden pages, and one more won't bring the whole system down, I guess.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
One thing you've said that I agree with strongly, SMcCandlish, is that the structure is quite poor/redundant. I support the idea of making a single list of the most common/widely cited rape myths (well cited, of course) and discussing how these myths have been categorized in a separate section of prose. This would be a good place to start if we're to make the article more encyclopedic imo. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Gahhh! I just looked at the page again for the first time in a while, and not only has the problem not been resolved, it has literally doubled. I'm just going to unwatch this page and pretend I never saw it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Will you stop talking about "two dominators of this page" as if we are WP:OWNING the page? We are not. In fact, comparing this to this, you have edited the page far more than I have at this point in time. All that I have done is challenge your arguments that are not based in reality or our guidelines or policies, and I did it with two reliable sources thus far. I considered your arguments and I disagree with them per the literature and Wikipedia's rules. If you don't want to talk to me directly because you don't want to repeat, then don't repeat to others by mentioning me in ways that you know I disagree with and is nothing but repeating anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

My comments where just to try to discern and offer a framework. Regarding questions about sources, I was not suggesting content to be added. Regarding the term being a perorative, I mean that only to the extent that calling something a myth is pejorative. North8000 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Some editors have an issue with some religious articles using the word creation myth, but we still use it. As for use of myth in general, if things are myths, I don't see the term as a pejorative. Rape myth is only a pejorative in that it offends the rapists. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Myth as a term seems to be equated to "falsehood", while "The term mythos lacks an explicit distinction between true or false narratives." The equation with falsehood and the pejorative sense of myth derives "from labeling the religious myths and beliefs of other cultures as incorrect". I expanded the article on myth and what it actually means in ancient sources, and I am quite disturbed to see the pejorative sense being the one used in articles. Dimadick (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The following myths were part of various surveys.[edit]

This statement is much too vague. Which beliefs were measured in which survey? If you want to list these out they need to be closely attributed. And are the statements *all* myths? One survey T/F was "any woman can be raped"; isn't this considered true? Elinruby (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The last part of this has been addressed, and the first part is at least better Elinruby (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

A 2010 review article presents data on the prevalence of myths of this type, empirical research to confirim or refute[edit]

Please summarize the data or otherwise indicate why you are telling us this Elinruby (talk) 11:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Section about child sexual abuse.[edit]

Here . My addition was reverted as off-topic.

Some authors define child sexual abuse equivalent to statutory rape, while other define it much more broadly to include child grooming, exposure to sexually explicit materials, etc. I will try to find out what definition is used by the source authors and restore my text (or not) accordingly. The article is not in open access, so if someone can read it, please do. Because clearly statutory rape has its own specific set of myths. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I read it, and it seemed quite clear to me that the source's authors treat child abuse myths and rape myths as distinct concepts/things, which is why I removed it.
I'm curious, how/why are you using something that you aren't able to read as a source? Fyddlestix (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Parts of the source is visible. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
as distinct concepts, well dog and malamute are different concepts, but both bark. If you think Child sexual abuse myth is a strongly distinct subject, then the proper Wikipedia Way is to move my addition elsewhere in Wikipedia, rather than delete outright, because it is obvioulsy a notabkle subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The term statutory rape is more commonly used in reference to older kids, meaning those who are pubescent or post-pubescent (including Romeo and Juliet law cases). When it's a five-year-old, for example, it's not as common to see the term statutory rape. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
is more commonly used in reference to older kids More or not, statutory rape is sexual activity where one of persons is below the age of consent. I will not be surprized that your remark actually becomes a rape myth is you remove the words "more commonly" and "not as common as". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)‎
I'm not sure what you mean, but do see this 2015 "Laws Relating to Sex, Pregnancy, and Infancy: Issues in Criminal Justice" source, from Springer, page 10, which makes it clear that statutory rape is about a person above the age of consent being sexual with a person who is younger than the age of consent but is pubescent or post-pubescent, and that a person above the age of consent being sexual with a prepubescent child is a more serious crime. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

How many sourced do you want to be provide to prove my case?

[1]

If child sexual abuse and statutory rape were automatically the same thing, we would not have two separate articles for them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Now if it's a matter of whether the term child sexual abuse encompasses statutory rape, it obviously sometimes does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not going to dispute or analyze your finding, but our "Statutory rape" article says in the first line exactly what I said which citing the very same source as yours. If it is incorrect, please fix it. But I am more inclined to think that the book you mentioned is sloppy in its wording, since I am more inclined to trust FBI: "In accordance with the FBI definition, this Bulletin characterizes statutory rape as nonforcible sexual intercourse with a person who is younger than the statutory age of consent". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
You stated that "Some authors define child sexual abuse equivalent to statutory rape, while other define it much more broadly to include child grooming, exposure to sexually explicit materials, etc." Our Statutory rape article states, "The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child (generically called child sexual abuse or molestation) is typically treated as a more serious crime." This not what you stated. I provided a reliable source showing that the term statutory rape specifically pertains to minors who have reached puberty, especially those who are post-pubescent. Rarely does it refer to prepubescent children. And I noted that the term child sexual abuse sometimes encompasses statutory rape, meaning that it may be used as an umbrella term for all sexual contact between a legal adult and someone significantly younger than the age of consent. My point, however, is that sources do often distinguish between child sexual abuse and statutory rape. And this 2016 "Sex, Sexuality, Law, and (In)justice" source, from Routledge, page 375, makes my point even clearer; it states, "Child molestation: A form of sexual assault committed against a child below a certain age. That age is usually set between 12 and 14 since such ages correspond to the onset of puberty, thereby differentiating the offense from statutory rapes (against post-pubescent adolescents) and various degrees of sexual assaults/sexual batteries against victims over the age of consent for sex." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I stated what I stated not off my head but from reading. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Your source (which I cited as well) used the weasel word "generally". So I see no contradiction. The same generic crime may be classified with various graveness. For example speeding may be either infraction or misdemeanor. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
"Generally" is not a WP:Weasel word. And do not go and add it to that guideline page as one. I and others will contest it. Here at Wikipedia, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state. We do not sit here and interpret them and apply or own thoughts to what is meant, as you are doing. And on a side note: Advocacy sources such as advocatesforyouth.org (the one you cite in your "21:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)" post) are not solid sources for this topic. Scholarly sources are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
OK not weasel, but pretty darn close. "Generally" implies that there are cases which are not the case and also does not preclude that there are narrower concepts covered by the general one. In other words, the term has a wide wiggle margin. Also kindly please avoid insinuations. I do not "sit here and interpret" either. If you think I do, please be specific. Because actually yes, we do "sit and interpret" the sources in the sense that we "sit and summarize" sources, otherwise it would be plaguiarism. As for "advocacy", I did not use it in the article, did I? In any case the source cited actually lists surprizingly numerous scholarly articles. (Please don't tell me they are cherrypicking because their website uses the word "advocacy" in the name.) If I need to support our article, I will go down to the roots. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Generally is not close to weasel wording in any way. It no different than stating "typically." And we use both terms on Wikipedia, including in our medical articles, often with no problems. Regardless of how you view generally and interpret it to apply to the matter at hand, we follow what the darn sources state, with WP:Due weight. Per WP:Due weight, we are supposed to give most of our weight to what the vast majority of the literature states. And tiny minority views need not even be mentioned. As for thinking that you sit here and interpret, this discussion is one example, per what both Fyddlestix and I have stated in this section. And the other example concerns your disputed editing at the Statutory rape and Child sexual abuse articles. As for all of us sitting here and interpreting, you know that is not what I meant. I don't interpret them in the sense of applying my own views to them; I follow them with WP:Due weight. I don't use one source to speak for the literature; I review the literature and use a source that reflects it with WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Generally, I don't need to review the literature on rape and child sexual topics, however, since I am very knowledgeable on them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Henry F. Fradella, Jennifer M. Sumner (2016). Sex, Sexuality, Law, and (In)justice. Routledge. p. 10. ISBN 1317528905. Retrieved November 13, 2017. Child molestation: A form of sexual assault committed against a child below a certain age. That age is usually set between 12 and 14 since such ages correspond to the onset of puberty, thereby differentiating the offense from statutory rapes (against post-pubescent adolescents) and various degrees of sexual assaults/sexual batteries against victims over the age of consent for sex.CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link)

I'm not sure it's necessary to get too lost in a debate over the exact relationship between statutory rape and child abuse here. As I see it the primary/operative question is: do reliable sources generally treat either of these things as part of or an example of "rape myths." So far I have not seen a source that does so, which to me suggests that these related topics are better treated through a "see also" link or something. We can't write about these things as examples of rape myths without sources that describe them as such. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Fyddlestix: I was no longer insisting it's necessary here. My next point you probably did not notice in this chaos a chat is that IMO the topic important enough to be covered in Wikipedia elsewhere. Yes or no? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
It's probably enough to hang a sub-section of child sexual abuse about "myths and misconceptions" on or something, yes. I don't normally watch that article so not sure what's already there on the topic. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Good work[edit]

IMO this version is a step well done. Of course, I am not saying it is flawless, but IMO it addresses much of criticism expressed in talk page.

Therefore I suggest to remove {{Tone}} tag. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the tag, although the article still needs considerable work. I will keep adding improvements over the next little while, pretty confident that we can have it looking pretty good soon. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Another issue is, as I tagged {{expand section}}, missing detail about the origins of rape myths. The (single) sentence on the issue is formally correct, but IMO imprecise. Yes, they originate from stereotypes, but not because of stereotypes per se, but because of the changes in the cultural perceptions (a common problem with stereotypes). An extreme example to clarify what I have in mind: when a wife was a property of a husband, forceful sex by a husband was not considered legally to be rape; see Rape#History for more. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge sections?[edit]

IMO sections "Problems arising out of rape myths" and "Social impact" discuss exactly the same aspect of rape myths. I suggest to merge them under a shorter title, "Social impact". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah those should be combined & expanded probably. I've got some good sources dealing with impact, importance, etc - will eventually get to adding some better sourced material there. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Page move?[edit]

Rape myths (plural) is pretty clearly the WP:COMMONNAME and the more correct title here. Does anyone object to moving the page there? Fyddlestix (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

That was the title, but it was moved by Staszek Lem. I don't object to either title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't care whether we use the plural, but the title and the intro should both do so, or not. Elinruby (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
See WP:SINGULAR. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

use of "is expected"[edit]

This is used in a couple of places where an expectation is described as a myth. I wonder whether this is the right word; I think there may in fact *be* an expectation, and the myth is that woman should know this, and/or that the expectation is somehow valid. I have not made any changes to these instances, as the article is clearly being worked on and the pass I just did was primarily to smooth the writing a bit -- I did make a number of small changes to improve readability which I don't believe affect actual meaning, but interested editors may want to review Elinruby (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

notability of authors[edit]

As a tangential issue, I note that many of of the authors do not seem to have wikipedia pages. I am not implying that they aren't notable, as I do see many mentions in Google that seem to lead to books and histories of, for example, the Berkeley School of Criminology, just suggesting that perhaps someone may wish to remedy the matter. Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that someone create articles about them? If so, you may want to make a request at Wikipedia:Requested articles. For female authors, you may also be able to find interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

That a writer has written a reliable or notable work on a topic, does not automatically mean he/she is a valid topic for a biography. We need multiple reliable sources about them and their biography. Compare for example the article on George Ostrogorsky. He was one of the key Byzantinists of the 20th century, and wrote extensively on the topic of his expertise. However there is a lack of sources on his own biography, and the Wikipedia article about him is a bare-bones stub. Dimadick (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

lead first line[edit]

Just a thought. The first line of the lead seems to perhaps oversimplify the topic. "Rape myths are erroneous, stereotypical, or prejudicial beliefs about sexual assaults, rapists, and rape victims, which serve to excuse sexual aggression" It includes both what rape myths are and what they do. I think this compression limits a more clear and complete summary of the topic/article. In particular with regards to what they do, the current version seems to me to not adequately summarize the article. Perhaps breaking the sentence into two, such as: "Rape myths are erroneous, stereotypical, or prejudicial beliefs about sexual assaults, rapists, and rape victims. They often serve to excuse sexual aggression, create hostility toward victims, and biases criminal prosecution."

I'm not active here but just an idea. Dbsseven (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Rape fantasy is a myth or a relativily common fantasy?[edit]

"That women fantasize about being raped" is listed in common rape myth. Some research found that is a common fantasy[1][2][3], but then it can also be a myth? Perhaps I don't really understand the concept :/. Of course it's obvious than it's a fantasy, and they don't want to actually be raped. So perhaps the myth is that "because some women have this fantasy they want to be raped"? Or perhaps those research are simply wrong... Gagarine (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bivona, Jenny; Critelli, Joseph (January 2009). "The nature of women's rape fantasies: an analysis of prevalence, frequency, and contents". Journal of Sex Research. 46 (1): 33–45. doi:10.1080/00224490802624406. ISSN 0022-4499. PMID 19085605.
  2. ^ Critelli, Joseph W.; Bivona, Jenny M. (January 2008). "Women's erotic rape fantasies: an evaluation of theory and research". Journal of Sex Research. 45 (1): 57–70. doi:10.1080/00224490701808191. ISSN 0022-4499. PMID 18321031.
  3. ^ Bivona, Jenny; Critelli, Joseph (January 2009). "The nature of women's rape fantasies: an analysis of prevalence, frequency, and contents". Journal of Sex Research. 46 (1): 33–45. doi:10.1080/00224490802624406. ISSN 0022-4499. PMID 19085605.
Two of your refs are identical, might want to double check you didn't leave something out. There are a lot of RS that list this as a common rape myth so I'm not sure that a few sources that might seem to challenge it (but don't do so directly) is much to worry about. I think you're probably right that the myth is probably the notion that women actually want to be raped, which is something quite different from thinking about being raped. I can double check the myth sources to make sure we're wording it as they do. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
When it comes to sexual fantasies, it's true that some women do indeed have rape fantasies. So it's not actually a myth/false to state that women have rape fantasies. Having read a lot on the topic of sexual fantasies, including those involving rape, some of the sources take the time to mention that women don't actually want to be raped. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
James Cantor might have access to some sources on rape fantasies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I changed it to "secretly want to be raped" - I looked and many of the higher-quality sources (including the Gerd Bohner piece that discusses this elsewhere but isn't cited for that myth) use this wording instead. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to sexual fantasies, I would suspect that there is quite a difference between a personal narrative or fantasy that turns you on, and being actually exposed to a harmful or potentially life threatening situation. Dimadick (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Title change[edit]

I was curious if anyone knows how to change the title of this article. I feel that 'rape myth' makes it sound like rape itself is a myth, whereas 'rape myths' would be clearer that it is about the myths surrounding rape.

Kyramaye (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Kyramaye, see WP:Article titles about a title being plural. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)