Talk:Campus sexual assault/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Would be good to have a definition of sexual assault in the lede

Since this article has move into broader territory (sexual assault vs. rape), it would be helpful to provide a reasonable definition. Since schools vary in their definitions, it might be good to use a survey definition - possibly the NCVS and attribute it as such (ie, the NCVS defines.....). User:Nblund, since you're active and contribute here, what do you think?Mattnad (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

„ There is a lot of variation when you get in to the specific details of those terms, and the National Research Council has said that the current NCSV definition is somewhat narrower than the legal definition used by most states. Their proposed definition, which includes some slight alterations from the NCSV (additions in bold, removals are struck through) is below, along with the CDC and DOJ definitions.

NRC definition (page 172. Modified from NCSV)

"Rape—Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion, as well as physical force, and the victim’s inability to consent. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape Sexual assault -A wide range of criminal victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling. Sexual assault also includes verbal threats and situations where the victim does not have the capability to consent."

CDC definition (page 17 sidebar)

Rape is defined as any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.

• Among women, rape includes vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.
• Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object

Unwanted sexual contact is defined as unwanted sexual experiences involving touch but not sexual penetration, such as being kissed in a sexual way, or having sexual body parts fondled or grabbed"

Justice Department definition

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.

I think keeping it simple may be best, and it seems like "sexual contact that occurs without the consent of the victim" would be the common denominator in all of these. Nblund (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

"Rape" is a more serious form of sexual assault than touching. I wonder if we explain that definitions vary, ranging from non-consensual penetration (with source), to any form of unwanted sexual contact (source). The reason I'm in favor of the range is that surveys we cite for incidence and prevalence also depend on narrower or broader definitions. We can then make that point. For the lede, a sentence or two on that helps explain the very large section we have on stats. The CDC and Justice Dept. definitions actually covers all of the bases, in that they explain "unwanted sexual contact" vs. "rape".

As I think about it, some of the variance between studies also has to do with consent. This article actually has a hole in it. We should have a subsection on what constitutes consent, which seems to be the locus of some activity at schools.Mattnad (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that we link to the Sexual assault article in the lead and that definitions of sexual assault can vary, I don't see why we should include a definition of sexual assault in the lead. If it's truly necessary to address defining sexual assault in this article, then create a Definitions section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I think its fine to say the definition includes everything from non-consensual sexual touching to rape, and either the CDC or JD definitions seem reasonable, even though the CDC definition is a bit wordy. I don't support using this definition to make any additional arguments, or to imply that definitional differences are the primary source of variation between surveys.

I'm not sure what you have in mind for a discussion of consent, but the research indicates that the primary difference between the NCSV results and the results of public health surveys (like the CSA) is that the public health surveys use behaviorally specific questions while the NCSV uses the term "rape" and "sexual assault" without providing an explicit definition.

Flyer22, I think you raise a valid point, but I wouldn't be opposed to a short sentence. If we want a more detailed discussion, a table might suffice. Here's an example. Nblund (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That table has gotten me thinking. We have a whole bunch of disparate estimates on the prevalence and incidence in a large section, but surveys have different scopes and definitions. I'm up for creating a table that lays out certain factors, definitions etc, and we can populated it. Items include what what covered, how the define assault/rape, sample size, point estimate or longitudinal, survey type (self-selected vs. phone) and the various findings for women (and less commonly men).Mattnad (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm down with that, and I think we might improve the section by removing some of that information from the body of the paragraph and placing it in a table. If there are specific aspects of the definitions that you think are important to highlight, that seems reasonable, but the full text definitions are really long and wordy on some of these. The more important differences are in the measurement: the time period studied, the use of explicit question wordings, and whether they included questions about incapacitated assault. Below is an example for a couple of the surveys.

Study	Population	Explicit question wording?	Asks about incapacitated sexual assault?	Measures	Results
Campus Sexual Assault Study (2007)	Random sample of enrolled students at two unnamed mid-western universities	Yes	Yes	completed/attempted rape or sexual assault since the start of college	19% of women experienced completed or attempted SA. 11.9% experienced rape or attempted rape. 6.1% of men experienced completed or attempted SA.
Koss (1987)	Nationally representative sample of currently enrolled students	Yes	Yes	completed/attempted rape or sexual assault since age 14	25% of women experienced completed/attempted rape. 54% experienced completed/attempted SA.
NCWSV (1999)	Nationally representative sample of college students	Yes	No	completed/attempted rape or sexual assault since the start of the semester (7 months)	2.8% women experienced completed/attempted rape in the previous 7 months. 7.7% experienced an attempted or complete SA.
....

Nblund (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Nblund, thanks so much. I really appreciate your contributions. While we don't always agree, you definitely step up and do actual work here. Other column items that might be useful for a table (or if we have two many we could do two tables) would be to show male vs. female rates (if captured), sample size, response rate (if available) and how they defined assault. Koss is an example of where they used explicit questions, but when they asked women later whether they thought they had been raped, the women didn't interpret their experience that way, which can indicate how women (and men) don't always report etc, or that study methodology can impact findings. Likewise, when the BJS analyzed the NCVS, they provided a helpful table for why some other studies differed in the rates. Since I deal with data a lot, we also look for self-selected vs. random surveys as an indicator of reliability.Mattnad (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

On a related item, the CSA was not really random. They sent out emails to a random sample, but those who chose to respond were not which is why they tried to control for response bias, and had a lower response rate (33% to 43%) than the NCVS which is north of 80%. I'm working on a verision of the chart for review in my sandbox. Will share.Mattnad (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

No problem! As for the CSA: they recruited students randomly, they refer to this as a random sample and other sources refer to it as a random sample as well. Its possible that there may have been a response bias, but that's true of essentially all surveys, including the NCVS and every other study here. Nblund (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at how the NCVS is conducted. They had an 88% response rate based on telephone surveys. That's much less random. The thing about email is that users can ignore it. Also, when you look at the response rates between men and women on the CSA, men were much lower than women which is evidence of self selection.Mattnad (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The 88% is higher, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of response biases. The 88% figure is the response rate for all participants who answered at least some portion of any of the 12 waves of the NCVS. Younger people and single women (who are a big part of the population we're interested in) were less likely to respond to the NCVS, and the National Research Council report (chapter 8) concluded that the NCVS may have an item non-response bias specifically related to questions on sexual victimization. The in-person/telephone method of administration has actually been cited as potentially exacerbating some of the biases because it doesn't give sufficient privacy for respondents to answer honestly (see 145-147 of the NRC report).

I get what you're saying, but a randomly recruited sample is commonly called a "random sample" even though its virtually never true in the strict mathematical sense of that term. Participation in all of these surveys is voluntary, and all of them are subject to response biases, so I don't see the point in singling out the CSA. Nblund (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me read up a bit in my statistics books on that. My goal is really to help the reader on measures of reliability. If we were being thorough, we'd provide the confidence intervals, but most readers won't understand that. The CSA was just an example, but compared to NCVS, it has more response bias, which is why the researchers noted they tried to control for it.Mattnad (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrator demographics

I added a bit more detail to the section. Unfortunately it has as little to do with demographics as what was there before. Does anyone have sources for actual perpetrator demographics, or if that is unavailable, a better idea for the name of the section? DPRoberts534 (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd expect that demographics would closely match the student population. Ideally if we have it, we'd want to index it. But I've never seen that data, probably because of the reasons I mention.Mattnad (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

There should be some mention of the suspect characteristics in the Clery Act disclosures -- if someone can track those down. I haven't seen much research suggesting that there are major differences in terms of race, income, nationality, or age of perpetrators.

This section could be combined with some of the material in the "risk factors" section and placed under a "perpetrator characteristics" section -- the research does indicate that there are certain attitudinal and behavioral characteristics that are correlated with committing sexual assault (alcohol use, fraternity membership, attitudes toward women). This RAND report is a few years old, but section 3 has a fairly detailed literature review on the perpetrator risk factors. Nblund (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that's fair, although I would characterize those as behavior rather than demographic. So in the one study we have of African American schools, the rate of SA is lower due in part (according to RS) to lower drug and alcohol use. Mattnad (talk)

I agree. Does lumping the behavior and demographics together under "perpetrator characteristics" work, then? Nblund (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep. And thanks for the Wikitable tip.Mattnad (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the RAND report link. The chapter on perpetrators indexes many studies on the subject. It does note that fraternity membership was correlated in some studies but not in others. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement

The "Student and organizational activism" section links to The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement, hereafter referred to as TNCARM. TNCARM is book-title-capitalized because it is a specific term used by Caroline Heldman, professor of politics at Occidental College. But the article isn't about Heldman's lectures. Instead it summarizes the contents of the campus sexual assault article, adds in a few well-referenced sentences about campus groups working together, and then completes its thesis with some original research and speculation. Then a criticism section, obligatory for this topic. In my opinion, if it isn't a straight-up example of a coatrack, then it is likely to become one in the future.

I bring this to you for three reasons. First, I am interested in hearing other points of view about the quality of the article from folks who may have more insight into campus activism. Second, if my assessment is correct, what is the correct venue for resolving the problems listed? Solutions I see are: deleting, merging, renaming, and/or rewriting the article so it stays on its topic (Heldman's published work).

Third, this serves as notice that unless anyone objects, I am going to move the well-referenced sentences about campus groups working together into this article's activism section and then turn TNCARM into a redirect. DPRoberts534 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick search on "The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement" in quotes on Google and found 741 results. It seems to be a real thing, but the problem I see with the article, is that the news sources cited by the writers don't support the existence of the "The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement" as a "thing". I think this article could be saved, and I think that the people who originally worked on it deserve some time to fix the problems. I'm not an expert on the subject, but I've done some style and wording improvements and fixed some errors. I think we should give the article some time to mature—or at the very least—run a formal AFD so people who are passionate about the subject can have a chance to argue their points and make improvements. Carl Henderson (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your cleanup work. I agree that it is a term that generates search results. All results that I saw were either links to Heldman and Dirks' lectures and publications, articles/blogs about those publications, or the Wikipedia article. So, that means notability is debatable, which is half of the problem. The other half is that the article does not even mention Heldman and Dirks, their book (previously titled TNCARM), or Heldman's lectures. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think a merge is in order. I had the same thoughts a while ago, but then forgot about it. It's relevant only in the context of the broader topic and the current spin-off article is a stub, and has been for months. Mattnad (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I do think it might be a good idea to let the move discussion ripen for a little while and see if anyone else has any specific objections or if there is important additional material that could be added to the entry.

That said: while I see your point on the issue with TNCARM, if a merge occurs, it seems like it would be merged with the existing entry on the existing Anti-Rape Movement page rather than with this entry. By my reading, TNCARM is about the movement itself, whereas this article is primarily about the crime of sexual assault on college campuses. Hedlund seems to be arguing that the "New Campus Anti-Rape Movement" represents a new "wave" in a movement that dates back to the Civil War era -- akin to the idea of waves in the feminist movement. It makes sense to put all of that under the general heading of anti-rape activism. Nblund (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Merging to Anti-Rape Movement seems better than merging it here. DPRoberts534 (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Would it be a problem to post a notice about this discussion to the talk pages of the people who initially created/expanded the article, or to Wiki Project Feminism? Carl Henderson (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with that. The more the merrier. As I reviewed the article again, most of it is set-up (explaining the problem of sexual assault on campuses) and then criticisms. The real meat of the article is actually mostly examples of activism, some of which use source articles that make no mention of the "movement" per se. Right now, it seems more like a concept that a few people have heard about, but has not become a mainstream expression. So really it's more about increased activism around campus sexual assault, which makes more sense here IMHO.Mattnad (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there are many reliable sources that have covered the resurgent campus anti-rape movement over the past few years.

@DPRoberts534: I object to redirecting the other article here — while the topic ought be mentioned in the campus sexual assault article, there is easily enough material to support a stand-alone article for the new movement. That article could use some work though. It should definitely include mention of Heldman (who places the new movement's beginning in 2013) and should perhaps be renamed to a generic title. The surge in anti-rape activity on campuses has been documented by many sources besides Heldman, and includes art/activism like the Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) as well as 'yes means yes' affirmative consent campaigns. gobonobo ^{+ c} 21:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gobonobo: what do you think about Nblund's proposal to merge it with Anti-Rape Movement? DPRoberts534 (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The anti-rape movement article already has too much emphasis on US examples, so merging content there would exacerbate that particular problem. I think the crux of the issue is whether the modern campus anti-rape movement can be considered discretely as a valid spin-off article. There seems to be enough sourcing out there to turn it into a robust article. I don't think Heldman was to first to recognize the resurgence of anti-rape activism though and question whether the movement coalesced as late as 2013. So maybe a name change and slight adjustment in the scope of the article would be in order. There are other possibilities as well, such as creating an article for Campus anti-rape movement or forking the US content into a dedicated article. In any case, I think a decision to delete/redirect/merge should come from an AfD rather than an unrelated talk page so as to maximize community input. gobonobo ^{+ c} 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on the new AfD (for TNCARM, not Campus sexual assault) discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Campus Anti-Rape Movement. DPRoberts534 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

There have been some reverts to eliminate some of the nuance of the recent studies:

• [1]: Well, here's the quote from the Washington Post that supports that, "Researchers acknowledged the possibility of an overstated victimization rate because there was evidence that hundreds of thousands of students who ignored the electronic questionnaire were less likely to have suffered an assault." I'd be interested in how what was written is not supported by the source. If it is not, then how? We can edit accordingly rather than eliminate it.
• [2] This change was made because an editor didn't like the source, arguing it's editorial. So here's the same information from the study itself. On page 110, which itemized why someone did not report an incident, 58.6% indicated, "I did not think it was serious enough to report". It's not an editorial statement. It's right from the study. I can provide a citation for that and will if that will satisfy, but Wikipedia does not have a prohibition on article or editorials just because an editor doesn't like the source. What we require for is verifiability. Unless someone can say it's not verifiable, then it's POV to exclude.
• [3] removes a concurrent 2015 survey. It was presented as a different survey, and if the editor had looked at the title of the section, it falls under that section nicely (2015 Campus Surveys. If he or she wants to qualify it with more information, that's fine, but anyone who does survey work knows that low sample rates can lead to reporting bias and that highlights the differences. Removing it because it's different is not supportable given the topic.Mattnad (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding point 1: I missed this. I self-reverted, but reworded a little to attribute the statement to researchers, and to avoid too closely paraphrasing the source.
• Regarding 2: I agree that this is giving undue weight: this is a major academic study, the criticism being cited applies to every sexual assault survey discussed in this section. The consensus among researchers is that this really isn't a problem with the surveys: people often downplay even very serious sexual victimization because of guilt, fear, or embarrassment. The implication that this invalidates the surveys is just not supported by existing evidence.
• Regarding 3: Perhaps I'm misreading this, but according to the link they cite in the article the 5% figure for Kentucky is the number of students, both male and female, who were raped in the current school year (see: link). This is actually higher than the comparable finding in the AAU surveys (3.2% vs 5%) and the CSA. Nblund (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for self reverting the first. On the second and third items, your reasoning is different from the other editor's (which suggests that his or her reasoning was reflexive), but let me address each:

On the Majority of respondents not thinking their assault was worth reporting, this is not a criticism at all. It's a detail from the survey that's not presented anywhere else in the article. We are often told that the majority of assaults go unreported (true), and include that as some indictment of the state of current affairs, but we never the reason, or at least not in a quantified way. This is actually good news in a sense, since we now have a quantified level that most sexual assaults in these surveys did rise to a level of seriousness for the respondents to report. It's not WP:Undue per the guidelines: It's neither a fringe source nor presented as an opinion: it's coming from the same survey that you have no issue including high level numbers. That it has not been detailed in some news reports (although it's covered in one newspaper and several other sites) is no more of a fringe idea than the many stats you have added in the lede that were never reported by secondary news sources and come from more obscure sources than this survey (and are not even explained at all in terms of what they are measuring and where).

On the third revert, this article is about Campus sexual assault - not Campus sexual assault of women only. If you want to add a breakdown of the Kentucky University stats, you can, but as presented made no suggestion that it wasn't the overall numbers. Unlike many surveys in these areas, Kentucky actually got a large sample which is also very notable and makes the results more reliable in comparison to the AAU. If you want to elaborate more on the details, fine, but eliminating a documented and topical survey from the article seems excessive. Mattnad (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

A majority (58%) of women who gave a "not serious enough to report" response said that they were victims of forcible rapes. We're talking about violent sex crimes here, they're clearly serious from a criminal justice standpoint. Numerous academic articles have looked at the way victims of crimes minimize including serious violent crimes (examples: here and here). This is also true for victims of incest, domestic violence, and child victims of sexual assault. If we want to include some discussion of the subjective experiences of sexual assault by victims, we should do it using good quality material and we should make it clear that this "not serious" response isn't something unique to this particular study. It is UNDUE to have coverage of an important topic in the study of rape and sexual assault be limited to a single editorial from a right-leaning paper.

Regarding the Kentucky survey: Kentucky doesn't provide that breakdown. I'm not saying it should be excluded because it measures sexual assaults against men, I'm saying that it is misleading to present it as though it contradicts the findings of the AAU surveys. If we use an apples-to-apples comparison and look at the combined rate since the start of the school year for men and women experiencing rape, that is actually higher than the comparable rate reported in the AAU surveys, not lower (see table 3-11 on page 67 of the full report)Nblund (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

On your first point, I'm not depending on an editorial (it's actually a news report). I'm looking at the study, as have you. On adding qualifiers, you'd be veering into original research citing sources that do not mention this study or come from it (and the study did not say it was forceable rape, you did). BTW, only 0.3% of college women and 0.2% of men reported coercive penetration since enter college according to table 3-14/15 on pages 73-74 which I think I'll add to the section. That written, let's see what you have in mind as a qualifier including the source. I'll add that when you look at other categories of assault like touching (nearly twice the reported rate vs. penetration), the "not serious enough" reason goes up to 75%. I bring that up because the 20% overall stat for women is presented in the article includes touching. On your second point, the section is not just the AAU study but recent campus surveys. So Kentucky presents another study at a college (with a better sample size at that). If you want to make it easier to compare, then you can add the combined Male/Female assault rates to the AAU study section (note that Table 3-11 you bring up is only sexual penetration from the AAU study, not Kentucky, and does not include touching).Mattnad (talk) 00:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The study does call it rape (see page VIII of the introduction) so does common sense. This is a stat that is included in the AAU report, but the conclusion you're drawing isn't something that comes from that report, it comes from an opinion piece. Its also not a conclusion supported by the existing consensus among experts in this field.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting this argument just needs caveats. This isn't a critique unique to this study, so it doesn't make sense to present it as though it is. Its a fairly well-researched phenomenon, the same question is presented in the NCWSV and the CSA, and the results are similar in both. This exact criticism has been cited previously by critics of this sort of sexual assault study, dating all the way back to Christina Hoff Sommers in the 70's. Researchers generally view it as a product of minimization. I'm open to including this discussion in the entry, but it shouldn't ignore the findings of experts in the field or obscure the reality of the debate.

The 5% stat from the Kentucky study also doesn't appear to include non-consensual touching: page 4 of the executive summary states that " UK Students (n=1,053; 4.9%) reported unwanted sexual experiences (vaginal, oral, or anal sex)..." -- it appears they're discussing penetration exclusively. I think the documentation here is kind of lacking, but, if anything, it appears to be higher than the comparable AAU estimate. Nblund (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm just for providing a detail from the report that puts the numbers in better context per the study and not some unrelated original research coatrack. So, based on your reading, does the AAU study not report that most respondents that were categorized as victims who did not report answered because they didn't think it was serious enough? I'm not understanding your objection to the source. Do you think that the AAU is lying? And yes, Kentucky used the same definitions of sexual assault as the DOJ and Harvard School of Public Health. If you want to add that (per the source) we can.Mattnad (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The statement that was removed was sourced to the Washington Examiner. Its almost a verbatim quote from that source, and the wording appears to imply that the researchers characterized things as sexual assault when they weren't. The consensus among researchers is that these are serious crimes that respondents downplay out of guilt or shame. If you want to include a statement about the reasons people choose not to report sexual assault to the police, that sounds fine, but it should be done in a way that accurately characterizes the views of experts in the field.

I cited previous research on this topic by BS Fisher, who is one of the most recognized experts in this field. I don't think you're going to get very far arguing that this study is coattrack while simultaneously claiming a story from a relatively obscure conservative paper warrants inclusion.

What, exactly, would you want to say with the inclusion of the info from Kentucky? The previous version seemed to imply that the findings contradicted the findings of the AAU study, but, if anything, the resulting estimate is higher, not lower. I'm not opposed to including it as long as it is accurately characterized -- but it kind of seems pointless. Nblund (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about using the survey as the citation, not the Examiner. I think you don't like is that the majority of women didn't think their experience was that serious and you want to keep that out of the article, or try to suggest that all of them might in retrospect realize they were horribly assaulted via qualification. That's OR when attached to this particular survey since Fisher didn't review this particular work. For an example of how your approach could be used in a way you'd dislike, what if we followed every marcro assault rate report with research on false reporting, etc. There's research out there that tracks that, and if someone is biased enough as an editor, they could insist on it. But it would be POV, OR, and rightfully removed. If you want to include Fisher, we can bring in a comment about Fisher's findings where appropriate separately.

About Kentucky, I want to include their findings since they are topical. The original sentence is a good start, and we can qualify it based on differences in approach. And for the record, your concerns about differences in methodology and scope did not prevent you from adding this line, "Other research creates estimates ranging anywhere from 10%[1] to as many as 29%[7] of women having been victims of rape or attempted rape since starting college" to the prevalence section. Neither of those stats are qualified in the least. We have no idea what they are measuring (including definitions), when, where, or how. It would seem you have differing standards when it comes to detail in the article. It's a source of frustration for me here.Mattnad (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're not attributing it to another source, then its a novel synthesis: you're emphasizing an aspect of the study that is not emphasized by the authors themselves, in order to imply something that the authors would probably dispute.

I think I've been fairly clear that I'm not saying that we should keep this out of the article, I'm saying we should present as a common complaint among critics of these kinds of surveys that dates all the way back to the work by Koss ( example), Cathy Young made the same criticism of the NCWSV a year ago (here).

These sorts of responses are frequently cited by critics of these studies to suggest that the incidents being measure are relatively benign, but experts doubt that is the case. From the previously cited article by Fisher:

First, a salient research issue is what students mean when they define incidents as not serious enough to report. For conservatives, the phrase "not serious" is taken in a strictly literal sense as meaning that the incidents were unimportant. For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable. It may also reflect a rational assessment in which female victims decide that reporting coerced sexuality is not worth turning in fellow students when such an act may incur negative reactions from their peers and no real action from the criminal justice system. That is, the events may be appraised as lacking seriousness not according to an objective standard but relative to what reporting the incidents actually entails. In any case, before definitive interpretations can be ventured, detailed qualitative studies need to be undertaken of women’s cognitive understandings of sexual victimization incidents

Your example isn't really analogous: there really isn't research that tracks false reporting of rape in surveys, and researchers don't generally believe that these surveys contain a large number of false reports. If those materials existed, I would support presenting these criticisms in a separate section.

The original statement about the Kentucky surveys made an invalid comparison, I don't really think its a good starting point. It seems extraneous, but, if you want to include it, it should be compared to the analogous finding in the AAU report. 20:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I see the source of your thoughts - so Fisher is presenting a feminist interpretation of these common findings and as I read it, it's an opinion rather than a simple NPOV presentation. You've made a big deal about article from the Washington Examiner, and are using that to disqualify what the study found. The same article provided the overall rates - shall we say those are opinions too and use that to disqualify the study findings? The study didn't emphasize the rates of coercive penetration either. Are those disqualified from the article? Shall we only include what news reports find? Then that would eliminate most of the article that refers to study and book details. You see where this can go.Mattnad (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Fisher is pointing to reasons to doubt the claim that these were not serious events and calling for more study. Its a view from one of the most respected experts in the field, which happens to be shared by most other experts in the field, and one which has a substantial amount of empirical support. The overall rates appear to be sourced to an article in the Washington Post, not the Washington Examiner. Its not a problem to point out something in a book, but its pretty clear from your previous statements that you want to highlight this fact because you believe it indicates that these are not particularly serious sexual assaults. That's not a view that appears to be supported by the authors of the study, nor is it one generally supported by most experts in the field. Nblund (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Fisher seems to be highlighting a fringe theory that's you'd like to attached to study. The passage you cite says "may" over every counter explanation. It's very tenuous vs. the simple, straight forward results from the study. Perhaps it's not fringe to you, but it's pretty out there for an encyclopedia. So on three points you shouldn't add this qualifier a) it's OR on your part - the Fisher passage is not related to this study by any reliable source, b) it's WP:Fringe. Perhaps it pains you that the study captured this, but your argument that the researchers didn't highlight this is nonsense. They asked the question and published the results.Mattnad (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Her work is already cited in the entry: she's the lead author of the National College Women Sexual Violence Study. She's written dozens of articles and has been cited thousands of times on the topic. How are you defining "fringe" exactly? What do you mean by "out there"? The notion that this is original research is absurd: previous research has asked literally this exact same question and received roughly the same result, and these findings have been addressed repeatedly in multiple published reports. Its not original synthesis to make a patently obvious connection.

You've made it clear that you want to report this finding in order to imply something that isn't supported by a reliable source. As I've said multiple times in the past: I'm not suggesting that we ignore or not report this, I'm saying we should discuss it in detail -- acknowledging that its been a source of criticism in the past. Aside from being based on a dubious interpretation of the rules, it seems to fundamentally go against the spirit of Wikipedia to mislead people about the scholarly consensus. Nblund (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The author may be mentioned often, but the paragraph as written represents other people's views and includes opinions of others (with no attribution). Furthermore, the statement as written is speculative, with every possible reason as "may".

As for what you think I'm trying to say, I'm doing my best to quote from the survey. So, does that stat (page 110), sourced from the survey, imply something that's not from the survey? Is the study not a reliable source? What exactly, without your own reinterpretation, does that published statistic say? I'd really like you to read it, and tell me exactly what it says. To me, it provides detail to the higher 1 in 5 stat from the perspective of the victims. So here's how I interpret it: according to the survey results, when asked the majority of respondents indicated they didn't think their experience was serious enough to report. Is that incorrect based on the survey? How?

I will add, quoting a recent articles from: the Washington Post, "the vast majorities of poll respondents who said they had not reported to campus authorities the events that the AAU classified as sexual assaults — 'the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough,', Chicago Tribune, "More than half of those who didn't report a rape said they didn't think it was serious enough to report.", NJ.com "The most common reason cited by students for not reporting an incident was that they didn't consider it serious enough", CNN "More than 50 percent of the women who reported some of the most serious incidents, including forced penetration, didn’t report it because they didn’t think it was “serious enough,” according to the survey.", The Daily Toreodor "More than 50 percent of the victims of even the most serious incidents, such as forced penetration, said they did not report the event because they do not consider it “serious enough,” according to the survey.", Michigan Daily, "Of University students who experienced nonconsensual penetration involving physical force, 76.8 percent of them did not report the crime.", Campus Safety Magazine, "When students were asked why they did not report incidents of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, the most common reason was that it was not considered serious enough.", My Fox 8 "More than 50 percent of the women who reported some of the most serious incidents, including forced penetration, didn’t report it because they didn’t think it was “serious enough,” " These are all secondary news sources that found that it notable to comment on students not reporting. None of them qualified that stat the way you want to. Mattnad (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You previously quoted from an editorial criticizing the report. Some of the quotes you're providing now are substantially more nuanced. The quote from the CNN article, makes it pretty clear that these "not serious enough" responses happen even with fairly serious incidents -- including forcible rapes -- and includes a quote from an leader of an anti-rape group that notes that this may be the product of a "victim blaming mentality". I don't think the notion that this is a fringe view really even warrants much discussion. Fisher is laying out the arguments, its pretty clear where she stands. Here's a more direct quote where she discusses reasons to doubt your interpretation:

Recall the study of college students who found that robbery victims also did not report their victimization because it was “not serious enough” (Fisher & Cullen, 1999). It is doubtful that critics would conclude that robbery victims were a methodological artifact created by politically correct researchers. Second, we need to probe more deeply into what seriousness means to victims. It appears that it involves suffering an injury and the presence of a weapon. Acquaintance rapes do not typically involve these features. Third, the female students did not say that their victimization was not serious but not serious enough. This standard suggests that reporting a sexual victimization to the police involves a cost—a loss of privacy, potential embarrassment, having to “deal with” one’s parents, rejection by friends of the perpetrator one accuses, the necessity to perhaps leave the campus and drop out of college, and having to testify at a college disciplinary hearing or court case. In this context, the harm experienced—especially in the absence of visible physical injury—may not seem serious enough to pursue an assailant legally.

You earlier stated that this was "good news" and suggested that these weren't actually serious attacks, but that interpretation isn't supported by existing research. Its pretty clear from the citation you used (which you reproduced almost verbatim), and from your previous statements that you want to present this in order to suggest these are mild incidents. My interpretation isn't really important. The interpretation of relevant experts is that these responses don't necessarily mean that these incidents were any less criminal or less damaging for the victims. The statement you offered is not incorrect, its just misleading and lacking in important context. You say your goal is to provide more detail, but you seem to be arguing against including a whole lot of important information from reliable sources. Nblund (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"Forceable Rape" is your interpretation - not necessarily that of the respondents. Furthermore the vast majority of the survey classified incidents didn't fall into that category. See how your own biases intrude on what should be a neutral presentation of the findings? Can you even concede that some lesser incidents like touching may also not be that significant to the respondents? I think my proposed language is neutral, conforms to what are in several reliable sources (nuanced or not) and doesn't fall prey to POV editorializing that you propose. As I already stated, not one of the sources commenting on the survey include your interpretation. Frankly, I think I've done enough to justify reinserting that sentence and will provide a few news reports as sources. If you disagree, take it up with the RSN.Mattnad (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Forcible rape is defined elsewhere in this article -- these respondents said that someone used physical force or the threat of force to sexually penetrate them. This is rape by any definition, and the majority of these victims said it was "not serious enough to report". Other sources, including academic ones and the popular sources you just cited, have noted this fact in their reporting that state, and one source even noted that it might be a product of "victim blaming". Multiple reliable academic sources have provided exactly that interpretation of this exact same survey question.

I think an RfC would make sense here -- the problem isn't really with the reliability of the sources, its with the neutrality of your proposed edit. You've turned down what seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise with essentially no justification, just summarily re-adding the information seems pretty tendentious. Nblund (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Well on that we can disagree (neutrality and tendentiousness). What I've proposed is virtually the same as what many news sources have written. You've claimed that it was not notable or opion, but as demonstrated it's a very common point that reliable sources bring up. You've fixated on the original source as a means to suggest I have some POV motive, but have no answer to how it's violating neutrality when it's commonly presented and consistent with the survey as well. And where you and I also differ, is you want to add something that's not mentioned by any of the reliable sources in relation to this survey and is WP:Undue and arguably WP:OR and WP:Fringe.Mattnad (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not really true: several of the sources point out that this "not serious" response was common even in the majority of rapes, and several of the news articles include a discussion of barriers of shame, self-blame and embarrassment posed by reporting -- they're still imperfect for an encyclopedia, but they hint at exactly the scholarly consensus I've pointed to here.

You're adamant that this particular fact must be included in response to this particular study, but you still haven't explained why we shouldn't mention that the same criticism has been applied to other research. Why not cite the previous statements from other critics of this type of research, and also cite the academic response? Your formulation gives the misleading impression that this is new, unusual, or unexplained, when, in fact, its a very unsurprising result that is consistent with previous work. Why do you think this is more informative than my proposal? Nblund (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The barriers to reporting for some doesn't negate the responses of others who didn't think it was serious enough to report. However, we can include that roughly 35% (if memory serves me) in the article if you like since it was brought up in a couple of reliable sources.

Now, you've said I'm trying to bring in a criticism with this stat of the non-reporting finding. It's not. That's your interpretation. I'm going to guess here, but I think you feel that way because it makes the 1 in 5 less impactful. To me, and many reliable sources, the non reporting reasons reflect how the men and women felt about the incident. The qualification you are proposing comes from a POV perspective. To whit, your sources explicitly mention the "feminist" reaction; per Fisher, "For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable. ..." If the news reports had brought this up in regard to this study, I'd say we can include it, with qualification on who's making the statement (as an opinion/theory). But none did, which to me suggests your proposal is just as POV as something that comes from a right wing think tank. But I'll stress again this particular detail you don't want is very common in non-partisan coverage of the survey.Mattnad (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You're fundamentally misunderstanding what NPOV means: it doesn't prohibit us from mentioning the views of experts, even if those experts happen to be feminists. In fact, NPOV requires that we mention the relevant views in a dispute. And yes: I'm concerned that it makes the findings appear less impactful by misleading people. I'm not quite sure why you think this isn't a valid concern.

This is now the third or fourth time that I've said this: I'm not calling for excluding this detail. Quite the opposite: I've said we should discuss it in detail, and in relation to multiple studies. If you can't accept this compromise, or just want to continue arguing without acknowledging that its been offered, then I think its time we called for an RfC. Nblund (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

New article in Huffington Post Blog noting the discrepancy between the claims made by the AAU researchers and the mainstream reporting on the study. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Earp, Brian D. (29 September 2015). "1 in 4 Women: How the Latest Sexual Assault Statistics Were Turned into Click Bait by the 'New York Times'". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 29 September 2015.

Kentucky finding

Regarding this series of edits:

This presentation is highly misleading -- it gives the impression that Kentucky found a lower level of sexual assault than the AAU survey. As we discussed previously, the Kentucky Survey asked about oral, anal, or vaginal sex that occurred as a result of force, coercion or incapacitation (bottom of page 5). They found a low rate because they simply didn't ask about far more frequent forms of sexual assault (such as groping). If we make an apples to apples comparison, the 5% finding is higher than the comparable finding on the AAU survey (page 82).

Regarding the claim that it is OR to call this "rape": forced/incapacitated penetration is essentially synonymous with rape. The AAU authors note this in the study (page V). Further, paraphrasing or contextualizing sources by using commonly accepted terminology is not original research. I changed the wording to be slightly more specific, and I'm open to a discussion about the precise wording of that section, but, claiming that Kentucky measured "all forms of sexual assault" is flatly dishonest. The goal of Wikipedia is to inform people, and this seems inconsistent with that goal. Nblund (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

"Commonly known as rape" was not in any of the sources. You seem to want it both ways in this article. You've argued at times in favor of presenting sexual assault more broadly but now insist on a narrow term it when it wasn't described that way by the source. This is classic WP:SYN to pick one source, and apply it another. Source A describes "rape" as X, source B describes "sexual assault" as Y, ergo X=Y. These studies often purposefully stay away from the term, and use "sexual assault" broadly. Either we rely on the sources, or we don't. Wikipedia favors the latter. I'll add that the deliberate sloppiness of these kinds of studies leads to this challenge. Mattnad (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Again: the study authors make this connection on page V of the study. "One type focused on nonconsensual sexual contact involving two behaviors: sexual penetration and sexual touching. Respondents were asked whether one or more of these contacts occurred as a result of four tactics: ... The first two tactics generally meet legal definitions of rape (penetration) and sexual battery (sexual touching)."

I'm not quite sure I see the connection: I think I've repeatedly said that we should be clear in our use of terminology, and that we shouldn't conflate rape and sexual assault. I think you have shared that view in the past as well. Nblund (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Use of advocacy orgs as sources

Per WP:RS, biased sources are not to be used except when attributed by name. Recent large scale additions have been presented without such attribution, and there's an undue weight issue. I've opened up a discussion on WP:RSN here.Mattnad (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The policy doesn't quite say that. To quote:

However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective... Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

So editors should consider whether to use in-text attribution, but it is not a necessary a hard requirement. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No attribution, AND overweight in the article. But really, it's an option on the definitions which differs from the studies that are cited in the article, criminal definitions etc. Anyway, let's see how RSN rules on this.Mattnad (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If you think the RSN "rules" on anything, ever, then you misunderstand the purpose of the noticeboard. As I implied above and as I noted at the RSN, this is an editorial decision not a WP:RS issue. VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms in the lead section

I'm open to a brief, neutral mention of the controversy over the measurement of sexual assault being included in the lead paragraph -- something modeled on the stuff presented at the start of the Prevalence and Incidence discussion. That said, I don't think this edit really works for several reasons.

• The critique that the 20% finding comes from a study of two colleges is misleading. The results of the CSA come from two colleges, but those results have been supported by multiple subsequent (and previous) studies. It seems like an oversight that these other studies weren't incorporated in the the lead paragraph already. I can't see an argument for mentioning only the CSA in that section.

• The response rate critique is something that seems like it warrants mention in the body of the entry, but survey methodology is a science and Christina Hoff Sommers has no background in any relevant field. I certainly see a case for including a discussion of prominent controversies in the lead section, but it gives undue weight to present the critiques of a columnist as a counter-point to scientific research. The questions about response rates are valid, but whether or not they cause a sampling bias is an empirical question that ought to be addressed by experts.

• Last: As we've discussed many times in the past, there are ample criticism of the BJS findings, and BJS itself has acknowledged deep problems with the methodology they use for measuring rape and sexual assault on the National Crime Victimization Surveys. Presenting only criticisms of the surveys with higher prevalence findings paints a misleading picture. Nblund (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Mary Koss, whose study is prominently presented in this article, is quoted by Politifact regarding the CSA as follows, "Mary Koss, a professor of public health at the University of Arizona, agreed that the Campus Sexual Assault Study 'is not the soundest data (the White House) could use'" when citing prevalence rates. Nblund, stop pushing this. You are going so far off what even noted experts in the field say about the CSA.Mattnad (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

As for the BJS, the only people complaining about come from a specific POV. Whereas Mary Koss, someone who agrees that sexual assault is a problem on campus, disagrees with your position.Mattnad (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, I understand that you disagree with me, but it seems like you're not really reading me: I didn't say that criticism of the CSA was invalid, I just pointed out that other studies have found the same result using different methods. I cited those studies in the lead paragraph. The Politifact article you link to also notes this:

Other surveys asked the question in different ways, and some focused on different definitions of sexual assault. Overall, though, the general trends were relatively consistent with the Campus Sexual Assault Study.

I'm not sure what you're referencing in terms of POV critiques of the BJS. The criticisms that I cite in the body of this entry come from an extensive report published commissioned by the BJS itself and conducted by the National Research Council. Are you really suggesting that it isn't a reliable source?

I'm curious about the wording of this edit: it seems like you want to imply that the BJS stat is a superior measure. You changed "multiple" to "some" and described the studies as "smaller". I'm curious as to why you think these changes are necessary. They seem to imply that these measures are inferior to the BJS stat. Nblund (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to surveys sample size and period matter. Smaller, non-random short-term surveys are not considered as reliable as random, larger, long-term studies as a matter of statistical science. As for the critiques of the BJS that you refer to the presentation is making a mountain out of molehill. But I come back to Mary Koss - she doesn't thing the CSA is representative, and even its author doesn't think it should be used for a national sample. Those are pretty valid reasons to provide that context. "General trends" by the way, does not mean the numbers are correct. It's that there are other studies that generally trend that way. Mattnad (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, “Smaller, non-random short-term surveys are not considered as reliable as random, larger, long-term studies as a matter of statistical science” sounds like you’re admitting to pushing your own POV rather than citing what the surveys say and leaving it at that. Those who disagree with the study should be placed into the criticism section, especially if their criticism hasn't been enough to invalidate the research they criticize. All studies and surveys have their critics, but putting undue weight on those criticisms seems agenda-pushing. Especially when quoting biased opinions from non-experts like CHS and Emily Yoffe. These women are not experts, they’re giving their opinions and nothing else. I’m surprised to see their names added to this article, as if their opinions are considered as important as the studies they're critiquing. Saying some surveys are not as reliable because of their scope or methodology is a POV statement which should be backed up by solid non-editorial sources if it's to influence this article. Your edits and their focus on doubting the information given by multiple reliable sources are coming extremely close to making this article non-neutral, if it can be considered neutral at this point.Ongepotchket (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

It still doesn't really seem like you're reading me: I'm not discussing whether or not the CSA is nationally representative. I'm pointing out that criticisms of the CSA don't apply to all surveys of sexual assault, and so it doesn't make sense to cite a specific criticism

Okay, so it sounds like you want to imply that the BJS study is more reliable than other surveys. I don't think you don't have reliable sources for that. In fact, smaller surveys can be more reliable than large ones, and non-random designs are sometimes more accurate than random designs. The BJS survey, for what its worth, also suffers from fairly well-documented issues with response biases. These are discussed at length in the NRC report I referenced earlier. Here it is again. This is, again, just sort of your view that you're inserting. Nblund (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing sourced content that adds dimension.

Nblund, your recent revert seems excessive (and the RFC is inconclusive, dormant, and months old). However the whole section seems balanced, and captures reasons you've supported for non-reporting as follows, with the new, well supported material in italics.

Many victims completely or partially blame themselves for the assault, are embarrassed by the shame, or fear not being believed which may lead to underreporting. As remarked in one study, "Women generally do not report their victimization, in part because of self-blame or embarrassment,"[3] but another also found that many "didn't think is was serious enough" to report.[4][5]

It's well balanced with reasons for not reporting that you've long supported, plus what the AAU study has published, and was picked up by many reliable sources.Mattnad (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

You're right, the RFC is inconclusive. Edits are made by consensus -- not by fiat. I have a hard time believing that you could possibly think that it was consistent with collaborative editing to simply re-insert the material in the lead paragraph.

To clarify: I argued in favor of a detailed discussion of that finding which offered context for why researchers believe that women offer that response. Introducing it in the lead paragraph doesn't quite meet that criteria. The word "but", by the way, is a coordinating conjunction that usually indicates negation or contradiction of the previous statement. E.g.: I thought x, but y turned out to be the case.Nblund (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'll edit it to show separation. We had a detailed discussion already (very detailed). But in the end, even you can agree that some men and women can decide for themselves whether or not something like unwanted touching is serious enough to call the police or report it to a college authority. Some do not, and not all of those are brainwashed into denial. They may very well understand what happened, and didn't care to report it.Mattnad (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

We did have a detailed discussion, which you appear to be ignoring in favor of just putting the content that you wanted in to the article. There are a variety of methods for resolving disputes if an RfC fails to end it, this isn't one of them. We can take it to mediation or dispute resolution, or to a noticeboard, or attempt to hammer out a compromise here. Regardless: if you insist on sticking stuff in the article that clearly violates consensus, I think this probably needs to be taken to a incident noticeboard. Nblund (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad, I made an attempt at compromise and moved the discussion in to the body section of the entry where it could be treated with adequate depth and context. Please: either remove it from the lead paragraph, or try to find a method other than edit warring to get what you want. Nblund (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to then remove your preferred content from the lede as well? It seems you want to highlight that which you agree with there, and suppress that which you do not, despite it being well documented. I could have added 10 more sources that restate that finding, except that the don't say "many" but indicate "most" didn't think it was serious enough. I understated the finding as an effort at compromise.Mattnad (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

There's a clear lack on consensus for including this material in the first place, its not a compromise at all, its just edit-warring. I don't know what content you're referring to, and it seems beside the point. If you have issues with other content, you should start a discussion about that content, not engage in hostage-taking. The problem isn't the number of sources, its the adequacy of the coverage -- we discussed this at length in the RfC which you posted. If you're unsatisfied with the progress on that end, then we can take it to another venue or we can discuss an actual compromise here, but what you're doing right now isn't going to fly. Nblund (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You are the only editor who seems to be really against including this information despite it being widely reported and present in a study you have copiously quoted from. Here's the content you are OK with in the Lede "Many victims completely or partially blame themselves for the assault, are embarrassed by the shame, or fear not being believed which may lead to underreporting. As remarked in one study, "Women generally do not report their victimization, in part because of self-blame or embarrassment,".[3] According to other research, "myths, stereotypes, and unfounded beliefs about male sexuality, in particular male homosexuality" contribute to underreporting among males. In addition, "male sexual assault victims have fewer resources and greater stigma than do female sexual assault victims."[4] All I have done is append another reason per the sources. My point is that you have a double standard as it pertains to the lede. And frankly, it's a bit bloated right now anyway. I'm sorry for you the AAU asked the question, and people answered, but "didn't think it was serious enough" is one of the reasons people didn't report. What you seem to want, based on your editing, is to paint the most severe impression of sexual assault on campus. But it's more nuanced than that, and censoring the article is not the way to go.Mattnad (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any attachment one way or another to the other statements you mention, and I agree that the lead is bloated. -- we could remove all of them and include them in a discussion in the body section. Would that work? Nblund (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• I think this is clearly WP:UNDUE for the lead. It's taking one figure from a very large paper and highlighting it; unlike the other bits cited, this isn't part of the conclusion or a complete or accurate summary of the paper in question -- it's one figure taken out of context. As far as I can tell from the sources, the only person who thinks it's particularly important or telling is Stuart S. Taylor Jr; and I don't think he's a significant enough figure for us to devote text to a random opinion-piece by him in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Aquillion, I didn't bother putting in all of the sources that cite this, but here are a few below. It's pretty widely reported, and far more prominent that the other items in the lede according to reliable sources:

• Washington Post, "the vast majorities of poll respondents who said they had not reported to campus authorities the events that the AAU classified as sexual assaults — 'the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough,'
• Chicago Tribune, "More than half of those who didn't report a rape said they didn't think it was serious enough to report."
• NJ.com "The most common reason cited by students for not reporting an incident was that they didn't consider it serious enough"
• CNN "More than 50 percent of the women who reported some of the most serious incidents, including forced penetration, didn’t report it because they didn’t think it was “serious enough,” according to the survey."
• The Daily Toreodor "More than 50 percent of the victims of even the most serious incidents, such as forced penetration, said they did not report the event because they do not consider it “serious enough,” according to the survey."
• Campus Safety Magazine, "When students were asked why they did not report incidents of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, the most common reason was that it was not considered serious enough."
• My Fox 8 "More than 50 percent of the women who reported some of the most serious incidents, including forced penetration, didn’t report it because they didn’t think it was “serious enough,” "

However, since Nblund is now willing to permit the lede to be trimmed, and even allow this finding in the article, then we can move forward. Mattnad (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mattnad: I just reverted this because it didn't appear supported within the article body (which the lede summarizes). I would take no objection to it being in the body somewhere with two or three citations max (see WP:OVERCITE). VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This material doesn't belong in the lead; it's one figure within a much larger study that is addressed in detail in the main text.

Frankly, the authors of the AAU study (and other reliable sources) interpret "not serious enough" differently than you do. They seem to see it as consistent with the other concerns raised in lead re: shame, disbelief, self-blame, etc. Conversely, your push to include it in the lead is to argue that the assualts weren't a big deal. It's borderline OR to keep pressing this point as if your interpretation overrides the researchers in question.

Mildly annoyed that the RfC comments don't seem to have informed later edits… --Carwil (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, the overciting seemed necessary because Aquillon stated in the edit summary he or she could not find it anywhere else beside the Washington Post and the study. I'd be happy to have it in the body copy, if permitted, but one editor kept on reverting that. Carwill, several other very mainstream reliable sources found this detail important, as did other RFC commenters. It's hardly OR, and you are free to read the citations above. It's not that sexual assaults are not a big deal, but that some of the assaults were not as serious as the high level statistic alone indicates, which is exactly why news reports and opinion pages called it out. I'll volunteer that some of those in the "not serious enough" answer group may have been in denial, not all of them were.Mattnad (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Experts don't share your view that these are actually "not serious" assaults. I think this statement makes it fairly clear here your motivation here is to push a particular interpretation of this stat which is not supported by reliable sources, and which the authors of the study themselves would dispute. That is OR. Nblund (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Not OR. The Washington Post made exactly that point. Or do we only accept sources you agree with?Mattnad (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Just so we're clear: are you saying that you want to include this argument that is attributable to the Washington Post op-ed by Stuart Taylor Jr? Nblund (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Nope @Nblund:. I was thinking of this, "The dominant reason for why students who didn’t tell authorities: They said it wasn’t serious enough. “That will stimulate a lot of discussion,” said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Westat consultant. “We as researchers don’t know a lot about this — it hasn’t been measured in the past.” [4]. Since we're on the topic of OR, you've often cited Fisher's work from 1999 and 2003 as a reason to downplay this current AAU study. I thought your approach was OR in trying to tie the two together, and Fisher's recent quotes indicate this is a new finding. You've cited Fisher as an expert. Shall we ignore her comments now, in context, in a major reliable source?Mattnad (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so you are attributing the view that "some of these assaults are not as serious at that high-level statistics indicates" to Bonnie Fisher? Nothing in that quote suggests that, and we know from her other work that Bonnie Fisher believes just the opposite. How do you figure that this is Fisher's view? Nblund (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Those links don't support your assertion that it's prominent, no. They mention it as one of the many things in the study, but nothing there supports the way you're pulling it out and drawing attention to it as particularly significant, and certainly not sufficient to put it in the lead itself. What I'm looking for is not offhand mentions; what I'm looking for is multiple reliable, mainstream articles (preferably not opinion pieces) about that aspect specifically. The rough estimations of the frequency of sexual assault clearly belong in the lead (if you feel those studies are being given too much weight, we could consider others and weigh them against each other, but I think it's unequivocal that we need to include some sort of general summary of what the reliable sources say about how common it is, since that's central to the topic), but I don't think you've shown that this part is something that many people consider important enough to put it in the lead. Most of the sources you cited put the frequency figure in the headline; the mention of the data-point you're talking about is always much further down amid a list of numerous other assorted factoids from the study. I stand by what I said above; Stuart S. Taylor Jr seems to be the only source you've cited that thinks that it's particularly telling or important (relative to anything else in the study). Looking at how they weighted relative aspects, the links you've provide only seem to reinforce my position that this is not a significant part of the study and not worth putting in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you OK with it as part of the AAU study section? My plain reading of the many sources do not support your interpretation. Which other sources are you referring to? As for the authors of the AAU study, of course they would downplay anything that diminishes their headline. But it's not an either or situation. We have their headline stat, and several reliable sources also provide a detail on the non-reporting rate. Mattnad (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's in the body of the page, but it doesn't belong in the AAU section because it's not unique to the AAU study. Most victims gave this same response on the CSA (exhibit 5-8, page 87), the National College Women Sexual Violence Study (exhibit 12. page 26), and Kilpatrick et. al's 2007 study exhibit 42, page 48. There is nothing unique about this finding, and it seems misleading to insist that it should be included in one particular section. Nblund (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

So it's a common finding, that you have tried to keep out or minimize.... So common, but it shouldn't be in the lede. So common, that .... news papers made a point about reporting it. I just can't keep up with you.Mattnad (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't really seem like a response to what I said. I made a point about why this didn't belong in the AAU section. Do you think that it does belong there, and why? Nblund (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, news coverage of an academic study does not outweigh the study itself. This is doubly true when they misrepresent study findings. In the list above, only the Washington Post correctly reports that the "not serious enough to report" response was an answer to a question only asked of those who already said the didn't report the issue to law enforcement.

Leaving aside this single polemical issue, we should be asking what other "dimensions" of campus sexual assault might be most encyclopedic: the nature of the assaults (through force or incapacitation, rape or other forms of sexual assault), the perpetrators (acquaintance, partner, stranger), how many women sought help from sources other than law enforcement. All of these questions figure prominently in the executive summaries of these research reports, yet don't make the lead. As an outsider to this page, it seems this is due to this "serious enough" data being taken up by some with a POV to argue that campus sexual assaults are unimportant. But the main job of the article is not to cover that debate but rather to comprehensively describe Campus Sexual Assault.--Carwil (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "most reliable source" but the many news reports do not misquote the survey. They just point it out. And per another Washington Post Article on this, "The dominant reason for why students who didn’t tell authorities: They said it wasn’t serious enough. “That will stimulate a lot of discussion,” said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Westat consultant. “We as researchers don’t know a lot about this — it hasn’t been measured in the past.” [5]. I would seem the Fisher sees this finding as new, important, and worthy of "discussion". Nblund has argued it's old hat, and not worthy of mention in relation to this study and would like it suppressed. Ms. Fisher, an expert according to Nblund, disagrees with that view. This is precisely why it's received so much coverage. The "debate" about how sexual assault is measured, and what the numbers mean is already part of the article. It's particularly central to why and how campuses are reacting to this. I'm fine with it not being in the Lede, but Nblund has worked pretty hard to keep it out of the entire article, and specifically the AAU study area itself. Mattnad (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Mattnad: I haven't argued that this should be suppressed, I wrote the finding in to the body of the article, so I think you're fighting for something you already have here. I hadn't seen Fisher's quote previously, but I don't think it changes much: Fisher is speaking off-the-cuff to the press, but here's what the study says: "When asked why the student did not report an incident, the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough. This is also consistent with prior research (e.g., Fisher et al., 2003).", it seems pretty obvious that this isn't a new finding, regardless of the quote, and I think Carwil's point -- that we generally favor studies over press coverage of those studies -- is relevant here.

Since you are okay with this being in the lead, is the main sticking point just the placement of the finding in the AAU section? I'm not opposed to the finding being mentioned in relation to the AAU, but it shouldn't be in the AAU section because that gives the inaccurate impression that the finding is unique to the AAU study when it isn't. 15:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

So Fisher was mistaken when discussing the finding, when she said "We as researchers don’t know a lot about this — it hasn’t been measured in the past"? Nblund, your personal opinion that this finding is "not unique" not supported by the source, Bonnie Fisher, an "expert" you've quoted in the past. This same expert worked on the AAU study. Also, you guys want to do your own interpretations of the primary source (the study) rather that what reliable sources say about this. Per WP:RS "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." Nblund, it's time to drop it. Your POV is showing.Mattnad (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There's no prohibition on using primary sources, and I don't think there's any interpretation going on: the AAU says explicitly that this finding is consistent with previous research. Further, Fisher's comment to the Washington Post about this study is just as much a "primary source" as the AAU report itself, it's not a matter of the number of links in the chain, and the mere fact that she was quoted in another outlet doesn't mean that the claim is independently verified.

That said: We do have secondary sources that discuss the fact that multiple studies have reported the "not serious enough to report" finding: Fisher's 2010 book Unsafe in the Ivory Tower (which I quoted in the RfC) contains a meta-review of women's reasons for not reporting, and cites multiple other studies that included the "not serious enough to report" finding. If we used that source, would it solve the issue for you? Nblund (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to add the 2010 details to the prevalence opening if that suits you (within reason) since it's a general overview. However, you ARE interpreting what was meant by quote from the AAU intro as a justification to ignore what secondary sources say about it. We have no detailed idea what is meant by "consistent with" the 2003 book by Fisher, but it certainly doesn't mean it should be ignored or barred from the AAU section. I will make some edits now. I think it's pretty clear that adding some of this to the AAU section is consistent with wikipedia's preference for secondary sources, and is not OR.Mattnad (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The news articles are simply repeating the topline AAU findings, without offering any analysis. From Wikipedia:LINKSINACHAIN "If the book merely quotes the proclamation (such as re-printing a section in a sidebar or the full text in an appendix, or showing an image of the signature or the official seal on the proclamation) with no analysis or commentary, then the book is just a newly printed copy of the primary source, rather than being a secondary source." I think it's a stretch to call the AAU a primary source for the statement that this is consistent with previous research, but the other sources you have cited are no less "primary" than the AAU source. Either way: I still don't see any evidence of a consensus favoring those edits, and it seems like this would interfere with the ongoing dispute resolution process that you initiated. Nblund (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I thought you'd have many objections to articles that provide analysis, such as Slate's take on this and the other WP article that provides an opinion on what this says about the survey design. And I thought Fisher's comment that this is a new finding was salient. But if you're OK with those, so am I.Mattnad (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The Fisher quote seems like it would also be at least as much of a "primary source" as the statement published in the AAU. The columns are, arguably, secondary sources for some things, but I and other editors have raised neutrality and due weight concerns with citing those articles. Particularly if they are cited without in-text attribution or in a way that seems to place them on equal standing with the views of most experts. I think that point should be fairly clear to you by now. Nblund (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So you're OK with in-text attribution then? I'm good with that. I do think you're being a little tendentious on keeping Fisher's words out the article when she's quoted, but not when it's her own book and really distorting wikipedia's guidelines. So if I have it right according to you - we can quote Fisher, but only if it's a book she's written. If a news article quotes her, we cannot. Correct?Mattnad (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I think providing in-text attribution would certainly help assuage some of my concerns, but it might not really address the due weight concerns others have mentioned. Those arguments would still need to be presented in proportion to their prominence (which is fairly low) and it should probably be acknowledged that this is an argument that dates all the way back to the earliest surveys on this topic. I think Carwil's suggestion of including a short section that dealt with non-reporting might be a good option.

And, no, that really isn't correct. I haven't said there's a blanket prohibition on quoting Fisher's statements to newspapers. To restate: where there's a discrepancy or ambiguous statement, it seems like we should favor the explicit statements in the text of the survey over off-the-cuff statements in a newspaper, especially considering that it's demonstrably untrue to say this is a new finding. Nblund (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Why does the criticism section list so many individual cases?

They're giving undue weight, since we don't list cases brought by individual victims of assault as numerously. Propose to remove some of the cases and focus on the criticism itself. The examples may be sourced, but they're also gratuitous for the purpose of making the point. Anyone object to trimming it down a bit? Ongepotchket (talk) 09:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This was discussed in the past. The short details on the cases provide better context and meaning. However, you are correct that we should bring in some of the instances where colleges treated accusers poorly as well. My view is that this is an emerging issue and illustrations help readers understand the scope and quality better than simply a sentence that says there have been some lawsuits. Also, in terms of balance, we have thousands of words on the assault rates and types, but far less on quasi-judicial college processes which are really at the center of the issue for victims and the accused.Mattnad (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ongepotchket: I agree. I think a general description is probably more useful here than series of bullet-points. Aside from a balance issue, it's going to be nearly impossible to keep that list up-to-date, avoid overemphasizing some cases, and offer sufficient detail while avoiding BLP and neutrality issues. If you're willing to take a crack at doing that, I say go for it. Nblund (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised. Just now it's urgent to removed examples because it's "impossible to keep the list up to date" and BLP issues (but nobody was concerned about that until this very moment, after those had been like that for months). May I point out that while you're intent on removing these details, we're keeping the vast, repetitive presentation of other sections such as expansive details on very similar surveys. Now, to quote Ongeptcket, "they're also gratuitous for the purpose of making the point" could readily be applied to the many surveys presented in the previous section. Mind if I trim those down too given the logic? We could have 1 to 2 single lines about each which would fit neatly in one paragraph.Mattnad (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I posted a request on your talk page where I asked you to trim this section. I actually agree that the survey section is repetitive and too detailed, and would support summarizing it, but I think that's probably an issue that needs to be addressed separately from this one, and maybe would be something that we should leave to an un-involved editor. Nblund (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC on recent AAU campus climate survey

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus. It's a shame to close an RfC like this, but despite a lot of time and noticeable effort at getting participation, there have been only 3 users that actually support either option. --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

---

There is a debate on how we should include a widely reported statistic relating to the percentage of victims, who when asked why they didn't report the incident, answered they didn't think it was "serious enough" per the study and news reports.

The section leads with a high level statistic for the rates of all types of sexual assault and misconduct, "The 2015 Association of American Universities (AAU) Campus Survey on Sexual Assault, one of the largest studies ever of college sexual violence, drew responses from 150,000 students at 27 schools, including most of the Ivy League. It found that more than 20 percent of female and 5 percent of male undergraduates said that they were victims of sexual assault and misconduct".

The AAU study, Table 6-1, page 110 contains the following:

Percentage reporting or not, with reason	Penetration by Force	Penetration by Incapacitation	Sexual Touching by Force	Sexual Touching by Incapacitation
Contacted at least one program in university list	25.5%	13.3%	7.0%	5.0%
Did not contact any programs reason: "I did not think it was serious enough to report"	58.6%	62.1%	74.1%	75.6%

Several news reports that covered the high level findings in AAU survey also included the following details from page 110. I have provided a few samples (with direct quotes provided):

• Washington Post, "the vast majorities of poll respondents who said they had not reported to campus authorities the events that the AAU classified as sexual assaults — 'the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough,'
• Chicago Tribune, "More than half of those who didn't report a rape said they didn't think it was serious enough to report."
• NJ.com "The most common reason cited by students for not reporting an incident was that they didn't consider it serious enough"
• CNN "More than 50 percent of the women who reported some of the most serious incidents, including forced penetration, didn’t report it because they didn’t think it was “serious enough,” according to the survey."
• The Daily Toreodor "More than 50 percent of the victims of even the most serious incidents, such as forced penetration, said they did not report the event because they do not consider it “serious enough,” according to the survey."
• Campus Safety Magazine, "When students were asked why they did not report incidents of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, the most common reason was that it was not considered serious enough."
• My Fox 8 "More than 50 percent of the women who reported some of the most serious incidents, including forced penetration, didn’t report it because they didn’t think it was “serious enough,” "

Looking for input on two approaches discussed in this talk page to handle this:

1. In the 2015 Campus Climate Survey section, add language with some of the multiple cites including the AAU study along the lines of, "The survey also reported that the majority of students whose responses were classified as sexual assault did not think their experience was "serious enough to report"."
2. Only include this finding in the 2015 Campus Climate Survey if it includes criticisms/counterpoints to these kinds of finding about surveys in general, making points like, "First, a salient research issue is what students mean when they define incidents as not serious enough to report. For conservatives, the phrase "not serious" is taken in a strictly literal sense as meaning that the incidents were unimportant. For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable." (a partial quote from an academic source provided by Nblund).Mattnad (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• CommentMattnad, this seems to mis-characterize my perspective. I did not say we should leave this statistic out. What I said was that we should mention it alongside the previous research on this topic. Importantly, we should explain how social scientists generally interpret that result, and explain that researchers doubt that this finding indicates that these are not serious sexual attacks. I would appreciate it if you would edit this down for brevity (maybe put the citations and other commentary in the section below) and clarify the wording of option #2 to more accurately reflect what I proposed. Nblund (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think editors can sort it out with the citations since you several times argued that it was WP:Undue because there was only one source and you insisted that the Survey authors didn't highlight this, so it was not relevant to use it either. I think it's important to demonstrate how common this detail is given your past statements so other editors can see what's been going on here. I don't think option 2 misrepresent your position at all.Mattnad (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but yes, it does misrepresent my position. I don't think we need to exclude this detail. I do think we need to contextualize the detail along with past research. I think it would waste people's time to request an RfC in which an option is offered that neither one of us supports. Change it please. Nblund (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Change has been been made.Mattnad (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC comments

• Approach #1 is neutral, reflects both the study and multiple reliable sources that covered this particular survey. Approach #2 comes from academic sources that do not specifically discuss this survey, and are grounded in POV that's WP:Fringe. Not a single news source I could find on the AAU survey addressed this counterpoint and to create a separate discussion would be WP:Undue. I will add that Nblund's reasons for objecting to this detail as part of the AAU study is that "I'm concerned that it makes the findings appear less impactful by misleading people". This concern was not considered material by professional news services covering the survey, or a plain reading of the survey itself. My take is Nblund would like to avoid reducing the perceived impact of the numbers by discounting or eliminating what survey respondents themselves stated.Mattnad (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Approach #1 I agree with Mattnad in his thorough analysis of the different approaches. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Approach #2 provides greater context by explaining different interpretations of the finding. It does so in an even-handed manner, presenting the perspectives of both sides. I am mystified by the suggestion that it includes a fringe POV - how can a substantial body of academic sources (which are recognised as top-quality sources by policy) can be regarded as fringe? Neljack (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: For context, its important to note that this particular finding is not unique to this survey. This exact question has been asked on previous studies of sexual assaults, and the result is consistent with previous findings. Researchers generally attribute the response to minimization on the part of victims, and note that victims of even very serious attacks sometimes decide it isn't worthwhile to report the attack to the police. (see: Fisher, Daigle, Cullen & Turner 2003) Some critics of these studies (such as Christina Hoff Sommers) have suggested that the "not serious enough to report" response indicates that the concerns about sexual assault on college campuses is overblown, but that view is not supported by the empirical evidence, and experts like Bonnie Fisher are generally skeptical of this interpretation (see the quote below)

B.S. Fisher:

Recall the study of college students who found that robbery victims also did not report their victimization because it was “not serious enough” (Fisher & Cullen, 1999). It is doubtful that critics would conclude that robbery victims were a methodological artifact created by politically correct researchers. Second, we need to probe more deeply into what seriousness means to victims. It appears that it involves suffering an injury and the presence of a weapon. Acquaintance rapes do not typically involve these features. Third, the female students did not say that their victimization was not serious but not serious enough. This standard suggests that reporting a sexual victimization to the police involves a cost—a loss of privacy, potential embarrassment, having to “deal with” one’s parents, rejection by friends of the perpetrator one accuses, the necessity to perhaps leave the campus and drop out of college, and having to testify at a college disciplinary hearing or court case. In this context, the harm experienced—especially in the absence of visible physical injury—may not seem serious enough to pursue an assailant legally.

Again, I'm not saying we should exclude this finding, I'm saying we should cite it alongside the previous findings and alongside previous research on the topic. If this particular detail is important enough to mention, why isn't it important enough to mention the views of experts on the topic? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, or a random collection of events. The goal here is to inform people, and the notion that we should suppress obviously relevant, reliably sourced, information strikes me as fundamentally anathema to that project. Nblund (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

While critics may point to this, Approach 1 makes no statement about the whether or not the survey was overblown. And CNN, NJ.com, Campus Safety that include it do not either. It's a neutral presentation ideally using the survey itself as the source. I think your concerns are political rather than encyclopedic.Mattnad (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: What a shame this study's question was worded so poorly. "Not serious" could have been taken by respondents as meaning "not something that bothers me" or as "not something anyone else would take seriously if I reported it" (or more narrowly as "not something authorities would take seriously if I reported it") or any number of other interpretations. And it's impossible for anyone to know what the women who took part in the study thought that vague phrase meant. If previous studies used the same poor wording, that wasn't sufficient reason to repeat their mistakes... but that's outside our purview here. Coverage of the study in reliable sources should of course be included, but effort should perhaps be taken to find an examination of the study's methodology in a reliable source or sources so that this issue can be included in the text of the article as well. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 18:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of these kinds of studies. This isn't the only example of ambiguous questions. In regard to this particular study, there are direct criticisms of the questions used to capture sexual assault as well. In the interest of parsimony, we haven't included those either.Mattnad (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: 1. The long list of news articles demonstrates the notability of the study, but Wikipedia shouldn't be summarizing the news article, but the published researchers' published findings. ("For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." WP:NEWSORG) The researchers' summary is on page iv:

A relatively small percentage (e.g., 28% or less) of even the most serious incidents are reported to an organization or agency (e.g., Title IX office; law enforcement); More than 50 percent of the victims of even the most serious incidents (e.g., forced penetration) say they do not report the event because they do not consider it “serious enough.”

2. As a side point, the percentages reported here are fractions of those who "Did not contact any programs." They do not represent fractions of the number reporting assaults. (see p. 112)

3. The researchers publishing this report observe, "When asked why the student did not report an incident, the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough. This is also consistent with prior research (e.g., Fisher et al., 2003)." (p. 36) So I think that Fisher 2003's explanation for this reporting (as quoted above) should be summarized and cited first. It can probably stand on its own, but following up with point-counterpoint a la version 2 isn't unreasonable either.

4. In my opinion, provinding greater detail about the other survey findings (as highlighted on page iv) is more encyclopedic, and a higher priority than a deep dive on this unclear "not serious enough" qualifier.--Carwil (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I re-posted the RfC tag for this discussion, since there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus still. Carwil correctly notes that the AAU authors note that these findings are consistent with Fisher et. al 2003 -- which is the source of the quote mentioned in the original RfC post above. I think this should resolve Mattnad's stated concern that adding this material would constitute original research. Given that the authors directly contextualize their findings in light of previous work, it seems fairly clear-cut that the additional context and critique from Fisher ought to be included. Nblund (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Fisher (1999) is not the same as Fisher (2003), p. 36. So whatever they are referring to in the study (Fisher 2003), it's not the quote provided by NBlund (Fisher 2009). Perhaps there's a linkage, but two different books are not the same book.Mattnad (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've cited two different Fisher quotes. The quote you paraphrase at the top of this RfC is from Fisher et. al 2003. That 2003 paper is the same one cited by the authors of the AAU study. The other quote comes from Fisher's 2009 book, Unsafe in the Ivory Tower. That book is not cited in this paper, but it's a discussion of the same topic by the same (highly respected) author cited in the AAU report. It's really tough for me to see how it would be undue to cite the research that the authors themselves discuss. Nblund (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I feel a little silly for not noticing this earlier, but I just saw this: Bonnie Fisher is actually on of the lead authors of the AAU report (left column, second row). So it really seems like her views are pretty clearly relevant here. Nblund (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how that on its own justifies bringing in her other, and very separate, opinions on the topic.Mattnad (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Wording Kentucky finding

Regarding this. I left out "attempted" but the wording should be something like: "A separate, mandatory, survey conducted by the University of Kentucky found that 5% of college undergraduates experienced completed or attempted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration while unable to consent due to drugs or alcohol, or by force".

The placement of the sentence and the emphasis on the higher response rate seem to imply that it was somehow methodologically superior to the AAU, but that's not necessarily true: low response rates don't necessarily indicate bias, and high response rates don't necessarily indicate a lack of bias. More importantly: simply saying they measured "sexual assault" is misleading. They only measure completed or attempted penetration in the last year. The 5% finding is actually higher than the most directly comparable finding from the AAU survey: (table 3-21, page 117 of the pdf) an average of 3.1% of undergraduates experienced completed or attempted penetration using force or incapacitation in the past year. As it stands, i'm not really sure why this finding is important, or why it belongs in the AAU section. It's not very well-documented beyond the brochure, and it seems sort of irrelevant to the AAU survey itself.

This edit is essentially a word-for-word reproduction of the same as the material I have objected to in the past. Reasonable people can disagree, but it's tendentious and time-wasting to keep re-introducing disputed material without making an effort to resolve the issues. Nblund (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's problematic that we lack access to the primary source and newspaper wording seems to have a bit of a willy-nilly attitude about conflating different terminology. The statistic appears to count attempted, but not completed assaults, as well as cases of intoxication which might not meet the legal definition of sexual assault. I would suggest not including it unless we can find the original study, or at least making sure our wording closely matches what's written in the brief summary that U Kentucky made public. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but that approach may receive some pushback from others. The full report was supposed to come out in December, but it still hasn't been released as far as I can tell. Based on their public statements, it sounds like they used questions similar to the ones used to measure rape on the Campus Sexual Assault study. If that's the case, their questions about incapacitated rape would conform to the legal criteria for most states. Still, I think you're right that, without access to more information, there's a risk of mis-characterizing things. Nblund (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is what I am reading in the linked brochure: "[4.9% of UK students] reported unwanted sexual experiences (vaginal, oral, or anal sex) that occurred because: they were slipped drugs or alcohol and unable to consent; they were unable to consent due to voluntary drinking or taking drugs; they were threatened with physical harm; or they were physically forced. This percentage also includes individuals for whom someone attempted to force them to have sex, but they were able to escape." I agree with more specific wording, as opposed to "any sexual assault", as the more details provided the better the context for the reader. However, I would even suggest we change it to "unwanted sexual experience" so as to match the text and so there are no squabbles over the definition of sexual assault. Also, it doesn't seem necessary to round this number to 5% if I'm reading the relevant content, as often these numbers have already been rounded from a more specific decimal. The second sentence does indeed seem lax in its wording, but I think it's enough that we mention that this includes attempted. Given all that, my personal wording for this sentence would be "...encompassing 80% of students (24,300 respondents) found that 4.9% of that school's students in the past year were victims of unwanted sexual experiences, including completed or attempted oral, anal, or vaginal sex without their consent." I hope that helps. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I just realized that "including" may be contentious phrasing, but I have no objection to "defined as". Scoundr3l (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this is exactly the point. It should state clearly exactly what is being measured, and this is required by WP:PRIMARY. Your abbreviated wording, omitting e.g. "unable to consent due to intoxication", is original research. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand where your objection lies. My statement mentioned exactly what the text said was measured and mentions that it was without their consent. The various methods that may produce a lack of consent seem unnecessary to that point, but you're welcome to include intoxication if you like. Surely some amount of content can be reasonably omitted for the sake of WP:PARAPHRASE, so I'm not sure what you qualified as OR, but otherwise we might as well make it a direct quote. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Because differences in operational definitions and standards of consent are key to this topic, it's critical to completely describe them. Otherwise meaning is lost. This would be a very bad use of WP:PARAPHRASE (which is an essay, not policy). The situation here is closer to the sort of thing WP:MEDRS was written to deal with. In medicine, epidemiology is a notoriously fickle subject, which is why MEDRS warns against using primary sources at all if it can be avoided. Although sexual assault poses serious dangers to physical and mental health, this is arguably not a topic where MEDRS applies; nevertheless, we are dealing with similar sourcing issues. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you objecting to the source or only to the paraphrasing of the source? If the latter, what else would you include that would be an accurate representation of the source, in your opinion? Scoundr3l (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If we are including this survey, I would prefer to be explicit about what was measured. My concern is that it looks like we're making a comparison between Kentucky's findings and the findings of the AAU, even though those results really aren't comparable because they measure different types of sexual violence. Nblund (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be a two way street then. Nblund wants to be explicit about the Kentucky Survey, but wants to minimize the detailed findings of other surveys that tout higher numbers, including how often the "victims" don't think it's serious enough. Here's the theme - report high level numbers (per the lede), with no attribution about what and how they are measuring it. Also, try to argue that surveys that have very high rates are just as good, no, better than surveys that indicate lower rates. See the theme?

Regarding Nblund's queries about the differences in methodology between the AAU and Kentucky studies, the AAU study used responses from non-random and voluntary sample with a low participation rate. This creates the risk of Sampling bias. Per the AAU study itself, "An analysis of the possibility the estimates were affected by non-response bias found that certain types of estimates may be too high because non-victims may have been less likely to participate." The Kentucky survey represents nearly the entire population, was not voluntary, which means it's more representative of the student body.Mattnad (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is exactly what I think we should avoid trying to imply. A sample with a high response rate can potentially be less representative than a sample with a low response rate and vice versa. Whether or not a response bias exists is actually a pretty tricky empirical question: notice that the AAU report dedicates about 30 pages (appendix 4) to analyzing the sample for bias. The KU survey may be worse, or better, but they either didn't check for bias, or haven't released those results. It's really speculative to say that the survey is of better quality. It certainly isn't something that you could cite a reliable source to support. Nblund (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's more than an implication. It's a basic fact about surveys and sampling and it's overtly stated by the AAU study designers themselves. I'm confident you know the difference, but let me explain to other editors. The closer the sample is to capturing the entire population the better. If you can poll everyone, then the results reflect the entire population. If you cannot capture the entire population, you then need to control for sample bias. One way this is done to is make sure the sample is random. Kentucky does a good job because it captured more than 90% of the population, and did not have any issue with self-selection bias because it was mandatory. AAU is closer to 15%, and was not random. So 85% of students did not respond to the survey, and of the 15% who chose to respond, the AAU itself states they may be more inclined because they had been assaulted. I don't think you really believe the two approaches are equivalent, but you want readers to think they are. You carefully avoid the Complete Sample, vs. Random Sample vs. Self-Selected Sample issues to make your argument, and that's just misleading. Mattnad (talk)

Yeah, it's not true that higher response rates are always better. There's actually quite a bit of recent research on this topic that suggests that bias can be the same or even higher in surveys with very high response rates. The AAU authors cite some of this literature in the report (footnote 1 on page vi of the introduction). The AAU does say that there is evidence of a response bias on their survey, and that is noted in the entry. However there are no indications of the quality of Kentucky's data, and the claim that one is superior to the other doesn't appear to be something that you can support with a reliable source. Nblund (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's a very specific source commenting on the KU survey which I quote:

"Until now, the school has had to rely on information that was volunteered. Follingstad explained that volunteered data is not always representative. “A survey that goes out to a campus is relying on whomever is willing to complete it,” she said. “There is always a concern that samples are skewed.” That’s why campus officials decided the survey should go out to entire student body."

Can we drop this now? AAU study was voluntary. Kentucky was not.Mattnad (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say that the data quality is superior to the findings from the AAU? Where does it say that they have empirical evidence of reduced response bias? That statement explains Kentucky's reasoning, but it doesn't say anything directly about the quality of the current data, and it certainly doesn't offer any support for making a comparison across data sources. This is a very complex statistical question, it's not really something that we can reasonably speculate about. Nblund (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Now you're just being difficult. The AAU designers say their study is skewed. The KU say theirs is not, with the same reasoning.Mattnad (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult, but it seems like you're putting words in the mouths of these researchers. The AAU says they have some indications of a response bias. They draw this conclusion after running some fairly rigorous empirical tests. KU says that volunteered data isn't always representative, but they don't actually assert that their results are free of bias, and they absolutely don't make a comparison between data sources. Doing so would be pretty irresponsible, because they don't appear to have analyzed the data for response bias -- at least not yet. Again, this is a question that requires some fairly sophisticated statistical know-how and technical skills, it would be pretty clear-cut OR to assert something like this without a reliable source. Nblund (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Again quoting, "There is always a concern that samples are skewed.” That’s why campus officials decided the survey should go out to entire student body."" What part of that do you not understand? How about I add what KU and the AAU people say about their own studies then, with quotes? Or will you object to that?Mattnad (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It would depend on the wording and arrangement, if you arrange the quotes in a way that appears to be making a comparison between the two, I would say that still poses the same problem. Others are questioning whether this belongs here at all, so maybe you should propose something above and see what others think.

The AAU is making a statement based on a fairly rigorous response analysis. Follingstad, on the other hand, is discussing how KU's novel approach might alleviate the issue, but it's not something that has empirical support, nor does it suggest anything about the AAU. I think this comparison is also a stretch, but KU does compare their results to the Campus Sexual Assault study. Their findings actually indicate a higher rate of sexual violence than the CSA (5% in the last year vs. 3.4% since entering college). Nblund (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The AAU study is clearly flawed due to the low response rate, while we just don't know enough about the U Kentucky study. There are problems with mandatory surveys too, such that some students may not read the questions and just try to get it over with. I don't think we can reasonably compare the results unless we know that the methodology was similar, and I'm bothered that we don't seem to have access to the original study, just the summary of results. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, there's also the problem that the 80% completion rate appears to include students who completed the survey but selected "prefer not to answer" for certain questions. The number of valid responses for each item is probably lower than the total participation rate. Again, this is something that would probably be laid out in the full report.

Looking over the entry, I think the section on "prevention efforts" probably should contain some information on the strategy of using climate surveys, and I do think some info on the Kentucky, Michigan, and Yale approaches (as well as the AAU) might be useful there. Kentucky did get some press coverage for the idea of making this survey mandatory, and I think that approach is noteworthy even if we're unsure about how to deal with the results themselves. Nblund (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A whole lot of speculation going on. How about we use what's stated by the survey designers themselves as it relates to sample. There's this thing called WP:RS that Wikipedia is founded on.Mattnad (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have an RS where the survey designers say anything about the item-by-item response rates or state the number of students who gave valid responses to the sexual assault questions? Nblund (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not required since we're not citing a source that makes any points to that level of detail. Simply put, we have the AAU (and others) stating there's selection bias in their survey, and we have Kentucky saying they decided to go with the entire student body to avoid that issue. It's sourced. Your speculative opinions on why this is not valid is not supported by any source you've offered. So I put it to you - do you have a sources that says the AAU study was more rigorous, or better executed than Kentucky? If so, how? Also, you previous asked me for a source regarding Kentucky, I provided it, and now you're shifting the goal line.Mattnad (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked for a source that supported the argument that the KU survey was better than the AAU, and you haven't provided that. I really doubt you can. For my part: I don't know whether the AAU is more rigorous, and I would oppose suggesting that in the entry. My view is that we lack enough information to make a comparison and so we should avoid implying one. Like I said: maybe you should propose a wording above so we have something more concrete to work with. Nblund (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

According to Diane Follingstad, director of the Center for Research on Violence Against Women at UK, who was quoted extensively in a reliable news source, KU made the survey mandatory to avoid problems of skewed responses. That's the comparison in the passage and according to her, the KU study is unique. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. We rely on reliable sources. Your POV is showing, and if you keep it up, this might have to go to ANI.Mattnad (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Mattnad, and I have explained at length why a comparison is still not really okay. You might not agree -- but there is not a consensus for inserting this material in the way you have worded it, and you're not really engaged in any effort to create consensus. You absolutely should take that accusation to ANI. It's uncivil and disruptive to keep making the accusation on talk pages. Either take it to ANI or stop saying it. Nblund (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090829131749/http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us:80/CPD/reports/1997/rape.html to http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/CPD/reports/1997/rape.html

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Minutiae

The UK study which is being pushed by Mattnad is a somewhat flimsy primary source that may not belong at all. But I'm also a bit perturbed by edits like this by Nblund. While the edit summary is accurate in a sense - this particular source doesn't make the specific claim that the BJS criteria were narrower - we also all know this claim to be true, and it can be sourced elsewhere. On both sides, there is an effort to control almost every word in this article, which is going to preclude it from being developed. I would suggest you stop arguing over these small issues and instead open a (hopefully friendlier) discussion about how to significantly restructure the article. It needs work one way or another. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As you previously noted, the AAU doesn't even purport to measure sexual assault at all, so the comparison seems a little problematic on its face, but I don't think that the claim is true at all. Different surveys use different definitions, and some surveys (NISVS, for instance) measure other types of sexual violence in addition to rape and sexual assault, but I don't see reliable sources that claim that they define sexual assault more or less "narrowly" from any other data source. The National Research Council Report on the NCVS methodology actually conducts a pretty in-depth review of the definitions used by different studies. They do note that the NCVS definition needs improvement, and say that needs to explicitly include sexual assault by incapacitation, but they don't reach the conclusion that any particular definition is "narrower" overall.

More importantly, the statement gives a misleading impression that isn't supported by reliable sources: definitions vary, but no scholarly source supports the notion that differences in definition are the primary reason for differences on the "not serious enough" response, or on any other measure. Indeed, the distinction generally portrayed as more important for differences across surveys in the scholarly literature is the wording of survey questions. Surveys that use behaviorally specific questions (like the CSA and AAU) generally find more sexual assaults than studies (like the NCVS) that ask respondents whether they were raped without defining explicitly what that term entails. This discrepancy holds true in controlled experiments, where the only difference between two studies is the wording of the survey questions themselves (see the results of the "quasi-experiment" here)

I agree that there are problems here, and the best solution is to avoid a deep dive in to particular study, but I'm not just quibbling about minutiae here: statements like the one I removed mis-characterize the science in order to make arguments that aren't supportable by a reliable source. It's a Trojan Horse for introducing a bit of editorial, and it's a persistent problem. Nblund (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You wrote, "the AAU doesn't even purport to measure sexual assault at all" and yet the article states, "The 2015 Association of American Universities (AAU) Campus Survey on Sexual Assault, one of the largest studies ever of college sexual violence" If not sexual assault, then a) why is it even in this article, and b) what does "sexual violence" mean in this context? As for what reliable sources say about this, I've presented several newspaper accounts and even the survey itself. What do you have that refers to the AAU study?Mattnad (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sexual violence generally includes a wide range of non-consensual sexual conduct including harassment, sexual coercion, and forcible or incapacitated sexual contact. These are all measured in the AAU survey. It's in the article because its a study that measures -- among other things -- acts that generally fit the legal criteria for rape and sexual assault on college campuses.

The source you provided doesn't actually say that the NCVS definition of sexual assault is narrower than any other, nor does it say that differences in definition result in differences in the "not serious enough to report" response. It also doesn't make any comparison to the AAU (because it predates it). This is sort of odd, actually, given that you argued that citing past research to talk about the AAU violated SYNTH. I provided sources in the discussion above. Nblund (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC regarding AAU subsection.

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

---

There's an ongoing dispute over how to deal with an editorial argument in the subsection on the recent AAU report. Specifically, the section presents a statistic that most people who experienced a sexual assault who did not report the incident said that they did so because they "did not believe it was serious enough to report". It then presents this argument from an editorial by Stuart Taylor jr.: "Stuart Taylor, writing for the Washington Post, remarked "This most plausible explanation is that most of those classified by the survey as “victims” of sexual assault or rape did not really think that they had been sexually assaulted."" The question is over where/whether to include Taylor's comment, and over whether or not it is appropriate to note, in that section, statements from past research that challenge arguments similar to the one made by Taylor regarding the AAU study. A few solutions that have been proposed are:

• 1. Leave the entry as is, or use a similar argument from a different editorial such as this one by Emily Yoffe.

• 2. Move the quote and statistic to a separate subsection that addresses the causes of non-reporting, while also discussing past research on non-reporting, and the "not serious enough to report" response, and the criticisms voiced by people like Taylor.

• 3. Leave Taylor's argument where it is, but also cite past research that disputes Taylor's argument within the AAU section.

Please use the section below for comments. Nblund (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Nblund did not include what I had proposed several times, that the AAU section has what reliable sources say about the responses, and she can create an seperate of what some others say (per Nblund's sources) about these surveys in general. As written, this RFC forces an either/or dichotomy, which was is not a compromise or reflective of what multiple sources say in 2015, rather than opinions from 2003. This would be a 4th option.Mattnad (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying closely enough that I feel comfortable summarizing it above, but you're welcome to add it as a fourth option in the portion above if you just sign it. Nblund (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Option 2 Taylor is a columnist with no relevant research background presenting a viewpoint that has been explicitly rejected by experts. It seems to violate NPOV to grant article space to a minority opinion while leaving out the views of scholars. The argument is probably notable enough to warrant some mention somewhere, but it should also be made clear to readers that it's a view generally held by non-expert critics of these studies, and that experts view these results very differently from Taylor. Since Taylor's argument is one that has been made with respect to other studies discussed in the subsection (including the 2007 Campus Sexual Assault study and the National College Women's Sexual Violence Study), it's probably better to place the discussion in it's own subsection. Nblund (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Option 2 (though Option 3 would also be reasonable). I agree with Nblund's comment. As I said above, this approach "provides greater context by explaining different interpretations of the finding. It does so in an even-handed manner, presenting the perspectives of both sides. I am mystified by the suggestion that it includes a fringe POV - how can a substantial body of academic sources (which are recognised as top-quality sources by policy) can be regarded as fringe?"[6] Neljack (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment FYI: because of the low participation, I went ahead and posted a notice about this RfC on the NPOV and OR noticeboards, if needed, we might also post in the Wikiprojects for sociology or criminology/law. Nblund (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Option 1 or a 4th option. There are ample secondary sources referring to the AAU study in 2015: [7],[8], [9],[10],[11],[12], [13], [14], [15]. The survey was also different from any past efforts in that included questions around affirmative consent. There are no secondary sources that refer to this. Rather, there's a 2003 opinion that Nblund wants to apply to this survey. At most, we can discuss the opinions on this matter separately given the lack of specificity to the AAU survey. I had several times proposed we keep the AAU section as is, and Nblund can create a separate section on these topics in general. This is a pretty basic WP:RS issue. I will add that one of the sources Nblund has cited dwells on Feminist opinions about the matter, and presents their views as hypotheticals. Per Fisher, "For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable." Fisher is not referring mainstream research here, but Feminist opinions. Finally, Fisher herself sees the survey as breaking new ground. Per a Washington Post Article on this, "The dominant reason for why students who didn’t tell authorities: They said it wasn’t serious enough. “That will stimulate a lot of discussion,” said Bonnie Fisher, a professor at the University of Cincinnati and a Westat consultant. “We as researchers don’t know a lot about this — it hasn’t been measured in the past.” [16] Nblund has argued that Fisher, as originally quoted didn't mean what she said, but no matter how you slice it, the AAU study is different from past according to Nblund's preferred expert.Mattnad (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Option 1 or Option 3. You haven't linked the source in question, but I assume it's this? Taylor's qualifications are listed in that source, "Stuart Taylor Jr., an author, journalist and Brookings Institution nonresident senior fellow, is writing a book with KC Johnson about the alarm over campus sexual assault." I don't see in what way this would possibly make him unqualified to discuss campus sexual assault. This is a controversial subject and there are going to be opinions on both sides, as there have been throughout the article. Using a lack of opposing viewpoints as a reason to justify not including an opposing viewpoint would be manufacturing consensus by way of censorship. Taylor's views are in no way fringe or unqualified, so as long as they are presented and attributed as his opinion, they are as subject to additional support or criticism as any other statement in the article. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Scoundr3l, option 2 suggests moving Taylor's critique. None of the proposed options include removing Taylor's criticism, or treating them as fringe views. The question is whether we can also cite the views of people who research sexual assault who have previously disputed Taylor's argument. Nblund (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologize if I was unclear in my position or misunderstood the intention of option 2. My response was partially meant to address the concern that this is a non-expert opinion when I see no reason to treat it as such, based on the qualifications listed. To elaborate, based on the fact that it appears to be qualified commentary, I am generally opposed to moving the comment to a new subsection unless this subsection is for all second-party commentary on the survey data. The statement itself doesn't appear to be a direct interpretation of the survey results, so it doesn't necessary belong with other direct interpretations. However, given the qualifications, the brevity of the statement, and that fact that it seems to relate only to this survey (as opposed to such surveys in general) I believe a new paragraph would be sufficient in this case. Absolutely it should include relevant dispute to Taylor's views. If we're talking a substantial discussion, I could support option 2, but the majority of this article manages to discuss opposing views (even flip-flopping oppositions to the opposition) within the body of the particular section and I would think this comment could do the same. Scoundr3l (talk) 05:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We could do a "criticism" subsection, but my idea was to make a subsection specifically about reasons for not-reporting sexual assaults. That section would cite academic research on non-reporting, and then cite Taylor's critique alongside other authors who have made this criticism regarding previous studies. Taylor is specifically discussing the AAU, but the finding he is citing is consistent with past research, and the argument he is making is an old one that has been applied to other research discussed in that section of the entry. For example, Cathy Young makes this same point about the 2000 NCWSV study here, while Asche Schow makes this criticism about the Michigan study cited in the AAU section here. Citing it only in the AAU section can give the misleading impression that the AAU is unique in this regard, when it really isn't. We could cite those arguments, and cite the response from academics. Nblund (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm not sure I'll know exactly how strongly I can support option 2 until I see it, but I'm not opposed. It does appear to me that Taylor is not only providing commentary on reasons for non-reporting, but also criticism of these survey's results. For the former reasons, and because there are plenty of other such comments, I could conditionally support option 2 and see the value of that subsection. However, in the context of the quote as a criticism of the survey, I also feel that it belongs alongside other commentary related to the AAU survey, so I support including it there. Were the decision solely up to me, I would consider another option of including Taylor's commentary in both areas, though to avoid redundancy, I would suggest finding a different suitable quote from Taylor's article as it pertains to commentary on the AAU results. That's up to the editor. I hope that helps. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I see some serious problems with this section, which likely render this RfC irrelevant, and I recommend it be closed.

My first instinct on reading this was to say that, since Taylor's is an opinion piece, it probably doesn't deserve a place in criticizing a scientific study. However, on careful reading I found that most of the section is based on even lower-quality commentary from newspapers. Per WP:NEWSORG, caution should be exercised when using such sources, and I don't think that has been done here. Consider the following claim:

The AAU’s findings are roughly consistent with a Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation national poll, published in June 2015, that found that 1 in 5 young women who attended a residential college during a four-year span said they were sexually assaulted.

This is based on newspaper reporting making this connection. However, the AAU report itself explicitly cautions against making this claim. (Page v of the executive summary.) This is an example of shoddy reporting. I think you ought to take anything written in newspapers by non-experts with a grain of salt.

Another thing which raised my eyebrow was the way the primary source was cited. Particularly this claim:

The AAU surveys also found that, 3.2% of undergraduates were victims unwanted anal, vaginal or oral sex that occurred because they were forced, threatened with violence or incapacitated and unable to consent (commonly known as rape) in the past year.

Because this was cited without a page number, I had to search through the document for over an hour in order to figure out where this came from. My best guess is that it is derived from Table 3-21 on page 82. However, the data there don't quite support the claim above, which has multiple inaccuracies and WP:OR issues.

(1) "Unwanted". The actual wording, as you can see at the top of page A5-23, is "nonconsensual or unwanted". (Moreover, in an issue Taylor might criticize, neither term appeared in the actual questions asked.)

(2) "Anal, vaginal or oral sex". This appears to be original research. The actual definition includes e.g. penetration with fingers or an object, and does not make reference to these specific terms.

(3) "Commonly known as rape". This is the most egregious of the problems, and also the most subtle: the report never says this. This notion likely derives from the description on page 11, section 2, which asserts that violations made possible through physical force or incapacitation as operationally defined in the study generally meet the legal definition of rape. That's not at all the same as being synonymous with the legal definition of rape, and there is no claim to the effect that all of the "yes" responses represent a rape as legally defined. (As Emily Yoffe's analysis points out, there couldn't possibly be.) Moreover, this datum in the table also includes attempted but not completed forcible penetration, which I think is legally "attempted rape."

The final thing which I found very strange about this section was the way Stuart Taylor's criticism was cited. He is referenced only for a relatively mild criticism of the report's conclusions, when in fact both he and Emily Yoffe are essentially saying that the whole report is straight-up pseudoscientific bunk. If you are going to cite these people's opinions, you might as well faithfully represent the main point of what they actually said. In Taylor's words the study "was itself deliberately designed to exaggerate the number of sexual assaults on campus" and is "grossly misleading" in multiple respects. He points out multiple serious methodological flaws and notes that, if the number of persons who said that they reported a rape were extrapolated, the result would overestimate the total number of actual sexual assault reports (not just rape) by a factor of nine. Emily Yoffe echoes this and other criticisms of his. These are much stronger statements than the one which this RfC concerns.

Taylor is writing a book on the subject and it might be best to wait for his book to be published and see how it is received. For now, I can see two ways to go.

A. Dramatically cut down the section, removing claims cited to newspapers, and be very careful to ensure that citations to the study conform to WP:PRIMARY by refraining from any original interpretation of the study. Do not present this non-peer-reviewed study as though it had equal weight with the much better-established NCVS.

B. Present the whole controversy, with full discussion of the harsh criticisms of this study's validity, and place it in context of the political turmoil surrounding the campus rape issue. This means restructuring the article in a way that places primary emphasis on, for example, the Dear Colleague Letter, the campus anti-rape social movement, and the cultural significance of the "1 in 5" statistic (regardless of its validity).

Obviously B would make the better and more informative article, if done right, but it would depend on editors with deep ideological differences trusting each other enough to ensure that this doesn't remain the WP:BATTLEGROUND that it seems to currently be. I have no opinion as to which of these is a better course of action, and I personally don't intend to be involved in this article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR: Because of the fourth and fifth bullet points in WP:SCHOLARSHIP and the second bullet point in WP:NEWSORG, most of the contents of this section should be cut. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

What you've noted are changes made by Nblund that have distorted the text so it no longer resembles the sources. For instance, the AAU survey explicitly does not use the term "rape" or "sexual assault" in its questions: per this Slate article, "The report deliberately does not use the word rape, Cantor told me. This was at the universities’ request, because the schools are addressing conduct violations, not criminal matters." [17]. So here Nblund inserts "rape" despite the term not being in any of the sources. When I objected, on the grounds it was not in the sources, Nblund just rephrased it. It's pure POV pushing frankly. Nblund wants to equate the criminal definition with broader and far looser definition relating to conduct even though the definitions are different, as are the terms used by the sources.Mattnad (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

For context, in case anyone else wants to follow this discussion, the claims I specifically discussed above were subsequently removed in this diff. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, forgot to add the edit summary on those removals. Sammy1339, I think you raised a good point, and I went ahead and removed the portions tagged as dubious. I agree that the best option would be a rewrite of the section that avoided deep dive in to specific studies in favor of a substantially reduced version that laid out the relevant debates regarding measurement in brief and that placed the views of non-expert skeptics in a single subsection. I have an incomplete draft version on my sandbox, if anyone thinks this is a good alternative option, I'm down for it.

Yoffe's claim about the over-estimation of assaults is rooted in a misunderstanding of how Clery Act reporting works. I don't think that it really matters which specific argument from these op-eds that we use, because they all have the same basic problem. Yoffe and Taylor are generally skeptical of this entire line of research, not just the AAU, and I think it's a little silly to pretend that these completely untrained columnists are just motivated by a concern about sampling biases or survey methodology on any one particular study. Nblund (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC) Edit: I think I should note: the question about measuring rape and sexual assault is actually a scientific question, so making a major shift toward discussing the cultural importance of the stat regardless of it's validity seems a little like it strikes a false balance. It's really a debate between experts who generally favor the method used in the AAU study, and columnists who believe that the discipline is wrongheaded. Nblund (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comment about Yoffe is completely wrong. In the article where she comments on the AAU study, she does not mention the Clery Act reports, but refers to the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics findings which uses criminal definitions of sexual assault, "This is illustrated dramatically by the release last December of a special report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics...The report found that among women aged 18 to 24, those not in college were 1.2 times more likely to be victims of sexual violence than those in college. The good news was that incidence for both groups was far lower than anything approaching 1 in 5: 0.76 percent for nonstudents and 0.61 percent for students." [18]. You're pretty brazen with this misrepresentation given how easy it is to check; The Mother Jones article you linked to doesn't even mention Yoffe or the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The BJS report is based on an annually recurring, random phone survey which gathers the responses of victims - not what schools disclose under the Clery Act. Yoffe then goes on to comment on what the AAU survey stated - again not what the Clery Act reports disclose. Mattnad (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Taylor, not Yoffe, is the one making an argument rooted in a misunderstanding of how the Clery Act works. Nblund (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah! That does take a big bite out of Taylor and Yoffe's criticism. There was nothing to correct. @Mattnad: Look further down in Yoffe's article to where she writes " in a semi-annual report" - the link is to Clery Act data, and her subsequent argument is based on this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Not really. The fundamental gist of Yoffe's observation is based on BJS data vs. AAU which demonstrates a chasm between what federal government finds using the criminal definition, and what the AAU study reported using very a very broad and subjective funnel. I'll add that the survey the BJS used for their finding found only 10.6% of women who didn't report their experience, did so because they didn't think it was serious enough. That's very different from the 60% to 75% in the AAU study. Yoffe's comments relating to Clery Data is just another data set but it doesn't go to the reason why women don't report. For that, she cites the AAU study. Mattnad (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the AAU itself did not qualify the dominant reason in its highlight summary. All they say is "More than 50 percent of the victims of even the most serious incidents (e.g., forced penetration) say they do not report the event because they do not consider it “serious enough.” If the AAU didn't think it was important enough to qualify it the way that Nblund would like us to, why should we?Mattnad (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2, plus include additional sources as #1 said (I dunno about that exact source in particular). Opinion editorials/columns are primary sources even when published by newspapers. The idea that a newspaper is always a secondary source is patently false; primary/secondary/tertiary as defined on WP are contextual relationships between the exact piece of the source being used and the exact piece of WP content citing it in support. We don't trust primary sources for statistics or for other potentially controversial facts, but they're reliable for the fact that a view exists and has been published and who said it and exactly what they said (and for this we attribute them and often quote them directly). If the stats are real, quote the actual source of the stats, not someone trying to use them to make a point they fervently believe in, because we all know that people with that goal will mis-cite stats very, very frequently. Part of WP's job is to "teach the controversy", and the best way to do that, when it's not covered in great detail in lots of secondary sources is to present and attribute the subjective views controverting each other, and when possible use secondary sources that address those views and say what their strengths and weaknesses are (WP certainly can't do that in our own voice). If it's an outlying view that contradicts real-world consensus, or even way more reliable sources that don't have an off-WP consensus yet, we don't need to report on the primary-sourced view it at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I must disagree with your interpretation of PSTS. The policy text reads: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on" and "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.". As Stuart Taylor is providing his own interpretation and analyzation of the statistics taken from the study (the primary source) this would make his piece wholly a secondary source. Additional interpretation can be found at WP:PRIMARYNEWS which states "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events"and "Examples of primary information: A current news report that is reporting the facts (not analysis or evaluation) of an event.". Additionally, no consensus has been shown, so any argument to whether the statement is an outlying opinion or contradictory to real-world consensus should be supported. Otherwise, it should be treated as any other secondary analysis of the data, provided it does so in Stuart Taylor's voice and not Wikipedia's. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2 - We shouldn't be mixing research and personal opinion. Opinions and commentary, if they are presented at all, should be clearly separated from facts and statistics, not used to muddy the water, as is the case here. IMO, an individual person's opinion about a single report doesn't have enough weight to even be mentioned in this article. If the article were devoted to the report, yes, but we have a lot of ground to cover here. Stuart Taylor's opinion about a particular aspect of the AAU report is not particularly helpful for people who want to get an overview of the topic of campus sexual assault. Kaldari (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Undue weight for criticism section

The "criticism" section seems disproportionately large and it includes a bullet style list of specific cases where the university apparently treated the accused male student unfairly. But there is no bullet style list of notable cases in general, just a bullet list for cases where the male student was apparently treated unfairly. It seems wp:undue to give this sort of detailed attention to only one specific type of campus sexual assault case. I don't think the answer is adding bullet lists of campus sexual assault cases in general, because that would quickly overwhelm the article, and such details aren't really appropriate in an overview article anyway. It seems the criticism section should be trimmed to just overview information. Another option seems that a break-away article could be created to cover this specific type of case in this sort of detail-BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a "review" article. It's an article on the topic, and this section and content are topical. We have thousands of words over several sections dedicated to presenting the maximal interpretation of sexual assault rates, and you're concerned about a few examples of more recent mishandling of cases? Since this is evolving policy and law, the details help. If there's any undue weight, take a look at the preceding sections which present mainly one side of this.Mattnad (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and this is an issue that others have cited as well. Colleges have been criticized and sued by both accused students and their accusers for their handling of sexual assault cases. My preference would be to avoid mentioning specific cases all together, and to instead include more general statements about criticisms and lawsuits over adjudication of sexual assaults on campuses. Barring that, we at least need to avoid choosing specific cases that seem to imply something non-neutral or that only represent a specific set of criticisms. Nblund (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Are the examples inaccurate? Do they not help to illustrate the problem better than just saying "some students have sued their former institutions"?Mattnad (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Best practice is to incorporate criticism into the main text. This line of discussion does not seem like it will be fruitful, given that larger edits to the article are being discussed elsewhere which will hopefully make this issue irrelevant. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Mattnad: Bobo and I raised a question about due weight, not about accuracy. Even accurate statements can be undue if they give a misleading impression about the prominence of a specific viewpoint. See: WP:TRUE. As it stands, the section offers details on five lawsuits by accused men, and zero lawsuits by accusers. I think that's a fairly clear-cut case of undue weight.

I don't think it's particularly helpful to have multiple specific cases, and I think it likely raises some major BLP and neutrality concerns. I could be persuaded otherwise on this point, but it's very difficult for me how that section, as currently written, is neutral. Maybe you could propose an alternative arrangement since it's pretty clear that multiple editors share this concern.

Sammy: We discussed changes to the prevalence section, but the portion in question here is under "prevention efforts". Nblund (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, so the natural solution would be to add criticism by accusers, which I hope will be part of the general discussion about expansion of the article that you are discussing with Mattnad. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were considering shifting the focus more toward the political and social context, and away from placing the statistics front-and-center. Was I misreading the discussion on your/my talk pages? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The immediate concern was altering the prevalence and incidence section to make it shorter and more general. Changes to the other sections are probably something that should be discussed separately. One problem at a time.

I don't think, regardless of whether we change the focus of the article, that detailing a long list of college sexual assault cases is going to be helpful for the entry. I don't think any of the specific cases mentioned here are particularly notable, and this level of detail is probably already inconsistent with the encyclopedic purpose of Wikipedia. If we just did a fifty-fifty split, we would be detailing ten specific college sexual assault cases. How do we pick them? Which ones are notable? How do we avoid BLP issues and other points of contention? Nblund (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the accusers perspectives are more than well represented in the 1 in 5 stats that pervade the article, as well as the related Obama/OCR sections. The issue which has become more interesting is the recent shift by schools to follow OCR dictates, and the fall-out. Nblund and others have argued the challenges for schools handing of these cases should be limited in detail, but it's those details which provide texture to what would otherwise be a sentence or two. But the courts are weighing in here, as are legislators and this is all very new and not simply summed up by pronouncements about sexual assault rates. I'm strongly in favor of also capturing how schools and police have given victims short shrift which is a huge part of the problem here.Mattnad (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you're saying: you say that accusers perspectives are already well-represented, but you also say you're in favor of capturing how schools and police give victims short shrift. Could you be a little more specific about what changes you're suggesting?

I think you're misinterpreting me: I am totally in favor of adding more detail about the difficulties faced by schools, but I don't think we need to focus on individual cases in order to do that, and the specific cases presented in that section are clearly not representative. The courts and legislatures are weighing in, but there's no information on that in the article, nor is there any information on general questions that readers might have about these cases such as "how many cases have been filed?", "what are the outcomes?". Nblund (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. The article is top heavy on statistics, with emphasis on the findings from people who are in the business of pushing this issue for money or political gain (your "experts"). The 1 in 5 and related theory comes from this camp. That's fine to have, but it's overweight. However, what we are missing, nearly completely, is the failure of schools to take sexual assault seriously leading up to the OCR action (with examples) - and it's important as a lead up to the current debate, and the pendulum shift that has been noted in the last couple of years which has schools doing slipshod investigations and ignoring the rights of the accused which is far more in the press these days. This NPR article sums up the the parallels. As for the examples in the bullets, they are exemplary of the learning curve for schools and the challenges of taking a victim-centric approach. The article likewise highlights Emma Sulkowicz and other activists who are hardly representative, but included with the endorsement of Nblund and Bobomeowcat.Mattnad (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So are you saying we should only cover pre-OCR cases where colleges mishandled sexual assaults? I understand that you see these as exemplary cases, but it sounds like you want to use these examples in order to push an opinion that colleges have overcorrected, and that interpretation is really a matter of opinion that not everyone agrees with.

Are you open to: replacing specific cases with summaries, editing these cases to make them more neutral and less detailed (by reducing the coverage of the assaults themselves and focusing on the legal cases) or introducing some material about women who have sued colleges for mishandling sexual assault? Or do you have an alternate suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblund (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Side note: if you're unsure whether or not researchers like Bonnie Fisher qualify as experts, I'm sure we could request a 3rd opinion to clarify. They are experts by any standard, and their views are supposed to get more coverage. I don't think it helps your credibility to imply some sort of conspiracy or corruption on the part of respected academics, and this isn't going to be a successful article if you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the mainstream viewpoints, even if you disagree with them. Nblund (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that the colleges have over-corrected. It's the courts and the cases as covered in many reliable sources that cite them. Not all colleges have run roughshod over student rights, but we have reliable sources including NPR that are citing emerging case law in these matters. These are exactly the cases that you and Bobo seem to want to eliminate from the article. They sources as presented (and edited heavily by Bobo herself previous) speak for themselves. User:Sammy1339 has several time proposed we focus more on the controversy and that's my proposal. As for commenting on Fisher, I note that you've wholesale dismissed the perspective of Follingstad and insisted we remove any mention of KU's study that she designed, or quote her reasoning, because it doesn't support a narrative you prefer. She's a woman who is also expert in these matters, but you don't agree with her, so you've edit warred to keep KU's survey out.Mattnad (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It may not be your opinion, but it is an opinion -- this is also something that I think would be easily solved with a 3rd Opinion if you're sincerely unsure on the distinction. Some people think colleges have over-corrected, others do not. As it stands, the article strongly implies that opinion without stating it explicitly, and without really acknowledging that others might disagree. That's a major problem. Three editors have suggested that this section might be an issue, do you have any suggestions for improvements? Do you disagree with everything I suggested above? Nblund (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

We have multiple secondary reliable sources capturing the challenges of colleges balancing the goals of advocates (low threshold for findings of fault, limited rights for the accused) and the fallout being cataloged in the courts. Even Janet Napolitano has serious concerns about the current approaches by schools following OCR guidance. There are many, many articles on the tight spot schools are in on this, and how legislators and the courts are objecting to the OCR guidance and how schools are applying it. Now, you say there are other opinions. Who is voicing those opinions? Are they are neutral as the courts? Or are they advocates? There's a big difference between what an advocate who has a POV says, and what secondary reliable sources say. Mattnad (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I noted you completely dodged my point your preferential selection of experts, while excluding Follingstad. You continue to suppress her views, not because she's inexpert, but because you don't like what she has to say. If anything, her work is more focused on victims than Fisher, who you prefer. Of course Fisher explicitly states the some of the perspectives you like are derived from feminist opinions on the matter. Instead, you selectively pick aspects of her writings that not longer mention that, even though the cat is out of the bag. You must regret sharing that quote, particularly since other editors have not amassed your selective library of sources and "experts". 14:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not dodging, but I do want to stay on topic. If you have general grievances about me, you should put them on my talk page. Most of these sources note that the overwhelming majority of the most of the lawsuits filed by men have been unsuccessful. They also cite pushback from people like Kristen Gillibrand over attempts to push colleges toward using higher standards of guilt. There are clearly disagreements here, and they all come from opinion sources. Don't you think that should be acknowledged? Nblund (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat - These bullets are just presenting the recent trend in criticisms and failures, that in 2014-15 lawsuits and reports on college incompetence or motivation for PR and money swing to 'witch hunt' or 'abusing rights of the accused' after they lost some cases in 2013-14 for 'negligence'. I think that one of the UConn women who won their 2014 settlement even spoke up the following year about the University mishandling an accused man. For example see NPR or Google further like at insidehighered.com. The amount of criticism may actually be a bit low for WP:Weight, since weight is to represent all viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published reliable sources, and this seems where the criticism du jour is. (Again, weight is by the prominence, so compare it to how Rolling Stone rape hoax and the Duke lacrosse case gave a lot of prominence to False accusation of rape for example. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Nblund, they are not all opinion sources, but you say that frequently when you disagree with the content (but raise no similar objections to content you like). As for Gillibrand, of course we should include her views and we do already in the article. We should also include similar views from Dem. congressman Jared Polis' who sated "If I was running a (private college) I might say, well, even if there is only a 20 or 30 percent chance that it happened, I would want to remove this individual....If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people." Gilibrand and Polis represent one side of the debate and should be part of the article. We already have much of this anyway now.Mattnad (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Mattnad are you arguing that the view that "colleges have gone too far" is not an opinion? Also: are Markbassett and Mattnad arguing that we should make no changes at all to the list here? Are there any changes you would support? Nblund (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Mattnad and Markbassett: it seems like this might be something that needs to go to an RfC or maybe the NPOV noticeboard since multiple editors have mentioned it now, but I want to be sure I understand your positions first. Could I get a clarification on the questions above? Nblund (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Nblund - this thread is a question of due weight, and I provided Bobo with the nudge that due weight means prominence in publications. The section of focus seems the recent coverage in the same ongoing view for prevention subsection criticisms of 'colleges do lousy at handling these'. It wasn't a NPOV question, it's just conveying that the coverage for 'campus sexual assault' are just factually often about hearings being 'unfair' or 'improper' to men as well about the 'treatment' or 'abandonment' towards women. IIRC there are reflections in some of the writings about how the lawsuits are now all the other way and even a remark from one UConn woman of the 2013 lawsuit saying it was the same basic issue. Markbassett (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm still unclear: are you saying that you don't support any changes? Due weight usually is an NPOV issue.

I think we agree that most of the coverage suggests "colleges do a lousy job", but the examples given in the subsection appear to only mention cases where accused men filed lawsuits alleging unfair treatment. The entry doesn't really offer any specific examples of cases where accusers filed suits against their schools, even though that's a fairly common phenomenon. Do you think that is a problem?

I haven't found indication that many of the lawsuits filed by men are successful, if you can provide a source that would be helpful and might be something we could use to improve the article. Most sources I have seen say that these lawsuits have usually been unsuccessful in the past, but might be more successful in the future. For example, this column from Inside Higher Education quotes Barry Sokolow saying that: “These Title IX suits are not faring well so far, but all it takes is one good win with the right set of facts and the right attorney, and a whole new venue of litigation will open up,”. Nblund (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You haven't looked carefully. Here's a recent article [19]. Also, I've already proposed that we include lawsuits from advocates and victims, but Bobo insisted we should not, arguing this is a "review article". That's a an arbitrary pronouncement. It would also disqualify the many details that are also presenting the victim's arguments, but she has not only left those intact, but also fought to keep them in there in previous discussions. To me, the various arguments against this content are less to do with weight, and more to do with skewing the article towards a more uniform position that there's nothing wrong with how the colleges are handling these cases when it comes to getting tough on the accused. What I find ironic is that some editors champion opinion that rape is more rampant than what is determined in courts, but then use the argument that student complaints about bias are not relevant because they haven't won enough cases in court.Mattnad (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So, it sounds like we generally agree that we should include more information on specific suits filed by accusers, but that you are opposed to making any changes to the bulleted list or discussing these cases or discussing them using a summary style. So, you might support something like adding a roughly equal number of details from suits like the one recently filed against the University of Tennessee? Is that a fair characterization or no? Nblund (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

These cases provide a lot of nuance that's missing from the the rest of the article, so summary style loses that. The article is already biased towards a POV. The lede for instance has been restricted to present only summaries how how bad it is, with emphasis on the larger side of the prevalence ranges. We have a massive section on rape prevalence including studies that are decades old. Those are not at all summary style, and yet they remain unchallenged by you or Bobo. I've proposed a rewrite that captures the current debate and issue, rather than the talking points. So unless you're willing to balance this article better, this section is a) accurate, b) supported by reliable sources, c) far from overweight given the current discussion on and around campuses and in the article. But as I mentioned several times, I do think we should include notable cases where men and women who were victims, and ignored by colleges.Mattnad (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so you are opposed to presenting these cases in a summary style, but you would support adding a similar level of detail from cases where accusers have brought lawsuits? Nblund (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Victims advocates have good reason for raising concerns and illustrations here are helpful.Mattnad (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I don't think it's really a matter of whether or not they have "good reasons" but I think we have common ground there. Nblund (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The important thing, I think, is to focus on reliable secondary sources (ideally academic papers and the like that provide a survey of the situation). Stringing together a bunch of examples is original research; we could maybe cover a few editorials, but that risks giving them WP:UNDUE weight. We need higher-quality secondary sources on the subject (ideally, academic ones or books by established, credible, mainstream historians and sociologists, not just opinion pieces) to evaluate the relative weight this has in regard to the topic as a whole. I would definitely support removing the entire list following "other examples include"; as it stands, it's clearly synthesis, which means it's representing the criticisms put together by a Wikipedia editor rather than the criticisms leveled by reliable sources. It doesn't add anything legitimate to the article; it's just an editor saying "I'm criticizing this, and here are some points I feel that support my criticism." It has to go. --Aquillion (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So now the objection is original research? So first it was "This is a review article", then it was "Undue Weight" and now it's "original research" because and editor brought up examples as covered in secondary sources. But other point examples brought up in secondary sources about activism which are just fine even though they are not sourced to academic papers (and I wrote most of the activism section, by the way). I think this objections is to the content, not any wikipedia guidelines. However, I you think it's original research, take it to the OR noticeboard.Mattnad (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

OR/Synth and NPOV issues are closely related, and it's possible for there's more than one good-faith objection to an edit. The bullet-point style lends itself to lots of different objections (BLP, neutrality, recentism, etc.) as well as posing some more basic stylistic problems. That wouldn't be an issue if we just made some summary statements. e.g. We could mention a growing number of lawsuits have been filed by accused students against schools. We could note that a handful of cases filed by accused students have recently been successful, and that many more are currently working their way through the courts and may pose a major challenge to colleges. It seems like an RfC would be warranted here, given that multiple editors have objected on multiple grounds to this section. Nblund (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not buying it. The argument shifts constantly here. Here's what I thinkL There are some editors who do not want this at all, want to minimize it for POV reasons and will say and invent anything to make it so. So, if you think there's OR here, take it to the OR noticeboard for neutral opinion on the matter. I expect won't because the material is fully supported by reliable sources, and relevant. But go ahead, please, to prove you're not making it up.Mattnad (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the original assessment of undue weight. The criticism section is the largest section in the entire article, and consists largely of a list of specific incidents which have been criticized. The criticism section should discuss criticism of campus rape prevent programs broadly, and perhaps include a few examples, but it shouldn't discuss individual incidents in detail, as that gives them undue weight within the context of this article. Imagine, for example, that the "Prevention efforts" section described the prevention programs of every college. Surely, you would agree that that was undue. Listing every example of a program that has been criticized is also undue. Kaldari (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this has probably reached a point where an RfC is warranted, so I went ahead and posted one. If needed, we can post additional notices on the OR and NPOV noticeboards asking for feedback from editors on those issues. Nblund (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)