Talk:False accusation of rape/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about False accusation of rape. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Figures without citation

The sentence that said that the US justice department estimates 2% of rapes to be false is not cited in the overview or in the body of the article. In fact, quite the contrary, the article cites a source where the Justice department cites the FBI figure of 8%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.129.113.158 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

FBI says 8% are unfounded, but that's definitively not the same thing. I think we could allude to the issue of different definitions in our lede, but inclusion of the FBI figure must necessarily take into account, and clearly state, that not everything in that 8% is actually false. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

So I'm still blown away that this Michelle Anderson quote is in the overview. There is 0 justification for it. You are practicing disinformation because you don't want it to be true. Once again you restored this DOJ 2% figure WHICH HAS NO SOURCE AND IS ENTIRELY MADE UP. In any case 8% of rape accusations are deemed unfounded whereas only 2% of other felonies are deemed unfounded. Still 4 times the rate of other felonies. The fact of the matter is False accusations of rape are much more prolific than that of other crimes and you merely not wanting it to be true because it's not politically correct is absurd. I will change the word to unfounded but the Michelle Anderson quote and the 1.5 to 8% (which you mistakenly wrote as 1.5 to 108%) have no merit whatsoever and are anecdotal and anti-scientific. 142.129.113.158 (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The DOJ figure is in the cited source. I can see that you're taking this personally, but there's no need to do so - instead, let's respect reliable sources and report their content correctly. I suggest that you undo your unconstructive edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The US Department of Justice report in the Cambridge University Law Journal article dates to 1997, when what actually constituted rape was understood differently by different jurisdictions (forcible? by a stranger? By an acquaintance? etc). The article also states that at least one police department (specifically the Philadelphia Police Dept for at least two decades) dumped information to create better crime statistics. Though the article itself dates to 2006, I am wondering if there are any more recent US government/statistically valid studies to cite for this article re the percentage of accusations being false? Also, if we are going to use this article and cite the US stats as being 8% or whatever, then keeping in mind that Wikipedia has a worldwide readership, we should also include the Denmark figures for 1.5% plus the issues with police/reporting bias that the article mentions, etc. Shearonink (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, certainly we could do with updated numbers, if they're available. Shearonink, re US-centrism and issues with police, what do you think of the previous lede before the IP's changes - what is good and how would you improve it? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Shearonink: - looking at your edit, I think that given the low number of studies per most geographical distributions, we'd want to avoid implying that the rate is different in these countries, as opposed to these countries happening to be the location of some of the studies. Perhaps "Other studies" rather than "Other countries"? I think we could also foreground the definitional issue if you're going to invoke it in the first statistic you cite (the previous lead had the range of "unfounded, unproven, or false", but I think keeping the IP troll's conflation of "unfounded" with "false" is unhelpful even if the clarifying statement is added afterwards). Something like, after the first sentence, "While it is difficult to assess the prevalence of false accusations due to such accusations being conflated with non-prosecuted cases as 'unfounded', the FBI..."

Do you have full access to Rumney's paper? I'm not sure I do, but that could be useful in summarizing the statistics (relatedly, it seems like our citation to Forensic Victimology is only nominal at this point). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I found a complete copy of Rumney 2006 here: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/6478/1/Download.pdf . Not sure what you mean about the "Forensic Victimology" book, but I found a least a preview Google version online that had many pages available:https://books.google.com/books?id=OAVjnpqx2zUC&dq. I agree my wording is clunky but think it is important to make it clear that "unfounded" doesn't mean "false" (for instance "not guilty" is not technically "innocent" and "nolo contendre" does not really mean "guilty"). The years for the statements in the lede are important, otherwise there isn't any context, just an assumption that the FBI/DOJ/whatever says This is So. And, therefore, it is so. I think if the lede is going to mention US sources then it should also mention information from other countries, perhaps studies of statistics from other countries exist that examine larger pools of data...I don't know. I am concerned that the lede is too US-centric if it only uses sources/data/surveys/information from the United States to make blanket assumptions for a world-wide readership. I'll trim some bits - just noticed the page cite was incorrect on something in the lede - but I don't really have the time to do anything more right now. Shearonink (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for the paper! And no, I totally agree with you that it's important to make it clear that "unfounded" != false - what do you think of my wording, proposed for inclusion before the first "unfounded" statistic? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. And I have no objections to that - I just don't want these various yearly studies to be cited as if they were written in stone and true forever. Shearonink (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese There is no cited source so I don't know what you're referring to. Once again I cited the DOJ and their 8% figure, where is this DOJ 2% figure? If you're referring to the not publicly available book cited after the statement "Scientifically etc." I find that rather dubious i.e. "trust me it's in there". As for the US bias that can be corrected but the fact remains this is an English wiki and the world's largest English speaking country is the United States. Moreover these are the largest and most authoritative analysis. Furthermore the largest study in Britain also confirmed an 8% false report rate as cited later in those article. These sources are somewhat authoritative though there is criticism on both sides (i.e. the true number is much larger or much smaller). One could argue as one does in the body of the article that the definitions of false accusation is too broad and includes accusations that are not truly false. Personally I believe that 8% is MUCH smaller than the true number because every accusation that "could be true or could be false" as defined by the police, is in these numbers considered to not be a false report when in reality at least some of them are. In the case of the FBI only cases in which officers demonstrated though evidence that the report was extremely unlikely or in cases where the accuser recanted did the cases amount to "Unfounded Accusations". For example if a woman and man were in a room on Tuesday together and a woman reports on Friday she was raped by the man and no injuries are present and no DNA evidence is intact, the only way to consider her testimony false is if she admits she was lying. In every other case her testimony stands. The only study in which every case was investigated until it's completion found that 41% of rape accusations were false as defined by the accuser admitting they lied. I don't think that readers will be misled by thinking the FBI and DOJ numbers apply across the world. As mentioned Law Enforcement can't determine what happened if there's no evidence and they don't have the resources to fully investigate every case. However the FBI's standard for determining if an accusation is false is the same standard they apply to ALL other crimes and the fact remains that in rape cases, accusations are 4 times as likely to be found unfounded. For this reason I think the FBI numbers are the fairest. No need to mention specific criticisms of figures in the overview since those are dealt with in the body. It wouldn't be right to include the arguments that make 8% smaller if you'll exclude those that make it larger and if you're going to include both you may as well write the whole article in the overview!142.129.113.158 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This stinks of WP:POINT. Personally I believe that 8% is MUCH smaller than the true number... and there I think is the motive behind these edits. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Wait so instead of responding to valid criticisms, edits because of misinformation (DOJ says 2%) and edits because of false information, you revert to the old edit and say it's biased of me to request accurate properly cited information because it reflects poorly on women. The article as is houses false information. The Michelle Anderson quote which is an anecdote of an anecdote and a plethora of biased PC motivated editing. Wikipedia is worthless if you can just post anecdotes and say they are the scholarly consensus and falsely report DOJ figures (reducing their numbers by a factor of 4) it's like what's the point of information then? Just believe whatever you want to make up numbers and live in lala land. 142.129.113.158 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

So properly cited figures aren't allowed only made up ones that fit with your narrative and if I try to edit a page to remove claims with no sources I am engaging in an edit war. Aren't you engaging in an edit war? My side has justification and reasoning. Yours is because you're sensitive. Meanwhile you're not responding to the discussion on the talk page or the questioning of your bullying on your talk page. You're the information police who try to silence dissent that doesn't fit in to their world view. Then you report me? The liberal Gestapo at its best!142.129.113.158 (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese - this your first time being called Gestapo? It's mine... Anyway, assuming bad faith on this user. Can't revert page as I'm at 3 reverts, but this user is POINT and NOTHERE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If anyone is POINT it's you. His figures are supported by the FBI and DOJ, yours are fabricated out of thin air. 108.251.172.19 (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The latest edit seems to address everyone's concerns citing proper statistics, qualifying the FBI's 8% figure and including international rates as well. Should satisfy all but extremists on both sides 108.251.172.19 (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Do not sockpuppet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

DiCanio

Why is the DiCanio citation being removed? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for asking and discussing. My reasons were given in my edit summary. The main reason is that it is strongly contradicted by the cited table from Rumney (2006); note that Rumney is a research article in a respected journal, and that the WP article has a whole section devoted to Rumney. The other reason is that, in my experience, Facts on File is not the best in terms of reliability (though it is not bad either).

I do not feel strongly about removing DiCanio. If DiCanio is kept, however, then I feel strongly that the article should deal with the contradiction with Rumney.

My own preference would be to remove that entire section, including the citation of Greer. EllieTea (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not for us editors to resolve contradictions in data. The DiCanio piece is a tertiary source in an encyclopedia. Rumney is a secondary source and a literature review. Both are decent sources so I see no reason to remove either.

What exactly do you see as being contradictory to Rumney? I don't want to assume. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Dicanio is cited as saying that researchers generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%. That is contradicted by Rumney's table (in the WP article): the table has a majority of research studies finding a figure greater than 10%, and close to half the studies finding at least 20%. EllieTea (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We'd need a reliable source to point that fact out. Otherwise it would be WP:SYNTH. I don't have access to DiCanio, but they could be considering more sources than Rumney. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a copy of DiCanio readily available either. There is a strong contradiction with Rumney, though, and I feel strongly about addressing that.

Regarding SYNTH, see WP:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not a rigid rule, which states "Never use a policy in such a way that the net effect will be to stop people from improving an article"; addressing a strong contradiction improves an article. Additionally, SYNTH is "when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis"; it seems arguable that pointing out the contradiction is a new thesis. In any case, though, there might be a way to address the contradiction that sidesteps this issue, e.g. "DiCanio (1993) claims that while researchers and prosecutors do not agree on the exact percentage of false allegations, they generally agree on a range of 2% to 10%; the range claimed by DiCanio can be compared with the rates reported in Rumney's survey of the research literature". EllieTea (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's also ignoring Rumney's own observations, which noted that a lot of the estimates are overestimates due to police skepticism of accusations, and singles out a few of the higher numbers as coming from particularly flawed studies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I have looked through Rumney, and I did not find enough to resolve the contradiction. Moreover, I found the following two statements.

... quote one police officer thus: "If rape was treated as any other crime you would probably no-crime a lot more. But because rape is treated as something special, and indeed it is a serious crime, it is much more difficult to no-crime it".

Smith notes that it was not possible to tell whether reports that were not recorded because of insufficient evidence, may in fact, have been false.

Those statements indicate that the police might well be underreporting the true rate of false rape accusations.

Additionally, the WP article cites a (valid) problem with Stewart (1981), but fails to note that Rumney also tells the following.

Stewart examined 18 allegations of rape and concluded that 16 were false. Of these 16, it was claimed that the complainant admitted to making a false complaint in 14 cases.

Thus, the WP article seems to misrepresent the issues with Stewart.

Relatedly, Turvey (2014) states the following.

Unfortunately, it is common for even seasoned investigators to accept an alleged victim’s statement or story without question or suspicion. This uncritical aspect may arise out of a fear of disturbing the alleged victim, being viewed as politically incorrect by victim advocates and colleagues, or a lack of knowledge about the investigation of potential false reports.

... an overall political environment that sanctions such identifications and investigations can promulgate a fearful investigative mindset. This fear of political reprisal routinely provides for the failure to correctly identify and investigate false reports to their fullest conclusion. As discussed in Palmer and Thornhill (2000, p. 160), “To some feminists, the concept of false rape allegation itself constitutes discriminatory harassment.” It is not unreasonable in such an environment for investigators and forensic examiners to be concerned that the investigation of a false report, and even the consideration of false reporting as a viable case theory, will result in negative consequences from colleagues, superiors, the media, victim advocates, and the general public.

Again, it is being argued that the police underreport false accusations.

EllieTea (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to conflate false with withdrawn

There have been some serious POV changes in the last few days. User:EllieTea wrote that it's "misleading" to describe what RS say about false accusations. Instead, he adds and re-adds content about withdrawn accusations, thus implying that they're the same. Please follow the WP:BRDC cycle instead of just reverting, especially as a "new" editor. --SonicY (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Where have I said that withdrawn allegations are conflated with false allegations? I do not believe that and cannot see where I said that. EllieTea (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You added and later re-added information about withdrawn accusations, accusations that resulted in formal charges and a host of other related but still off-topic stuff. This article is about false accusations. Yet you insist on your sentence about withdrawn accusations, clearly in an attempt to conflate the two. --SonicY (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The reason was explained in the Edit Summary. Here is the relevant quote from the WP article.

the contested claim by psychologist David Lisak that only 2%-10% of sexual-assault reports are false. This statistic is misleading. Mr. Lisak’s 2010 study (like others often cited by anti-rape activists) treat as presumptively true all sexual-assault complaints that authorities have not formally labeled either true or false (the vast majority), including most of those dropped for insufficient evidence.

To only give the "false" figure is misleading, because many people will assume that all the non-false cases are true. In fact, only a small percentage is known to be true.

The word "withdrawn" is currently only in the section on the Australian study; so I assume that is what you are referring to. We know that 2.1% were false and 15% were very probably true; we do not know about the rest. What do you recommend as an alternative wording to the present text? EllieTea (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No, to give the false figure is perfectly acceptable because this article is about false accusations of rape. By contrast, to give the withdrawn figure is misleading because it suggests that they were withdrawn because they were false. User:EllieTea: In fact, only a small percentage [of rape accusations] is known to be true. It's a good thing that you expressed your POV so openly just in case anyone should doubt why you need to refrain from editing this article and others like it. --SonicY (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If only 15% of people were charged, then those are the only people we can be reasonably sure truly committed the crime (assuming the charges are proven in court). This is how the justice system works: under the principle of innocent until proven guilty. If you believe in some other principle, then you do not fit well with our society. EllieTea (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

By the same principle, neither researchers nor the justice system can assume without any proof that someone has made a false report, which is a crime. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is of being misleading—as per the quote above about Lisak. We know 2% were false and 15% might be assumed to be true. We should not make assumptions about the rest. Thus, out of 17 rape reports whose final status is fully-determined, 2 are false: a false rate of 11.8% among fully-determined accusations. The quote above was given for a reason: we should not "treat as presumptively true all sexual-assault complaints that authorities have not formally labeled either true or false". EllieTea (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The term "withdrawn" is used in the original source. If you find the term problematic though (I do not), then replace it with something else. For example, maybe change the current "the remainder of the accusations were withdrawn (15.1%) or concluded with no further police action or were still be investigated at the time of the study" to "for the remainders of the accusations, no final determination on truth or falsity was made". That would still deal with the issue and does not mention "withdrawn". EllieTea (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

While considerable changes have been made, I'm seeing no issue with EllieTea's edits to the article. ― Padenton|✉ 20:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

British Home Office study (2005)

The section contains a quote from the study. The quote was brief, and omitted sentences that I think are important. Hence, I have expanded the quote.

The study is based on this data: 2643 sexual assault cases, of which 2284 were reported to the police (with the remainder reported to Sexual Assault Referral Centres only); of those, 216 were classified as false. The study includes the following statement.

There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as a proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 per cent; as a proportion of the 1,817 cases not proceeding beyond the police stage it is 12 per cent (see Table 4.2).

The WP article previously cited the 8% but not the 12%. The police can only classify something as false if they have received a report about it: thus, the relevant percentage is neither 8% nor 12%, but rather is 216/2284 = 9.5%. The source Cybulska (2007) states that the relevant percentage is "about 9%"; so I have changed the article to cite that, as well as to give the actual data.

The WP article rightly cites the study as saying that the relevant percentage is reduced to 3% after applying the Home Office counting rules for establishing a false allegation. That 3% figure is calculated via a basis of 2284 (not 2643). Thus, the 9% rate is directly comparable to the 3% rate (unlike the 8% and 12% rates). EllieTea (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, you have misrepresented the source (again). The source is quite unambiguous in stating: There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 percent (p. 47). It's obvious that 216/2,643≈8.17. The source repeats this in the sumary: Eight per cent of reported cases in the sample were designated false by the police (p. 52). What's also obvious is that the 355 cases (2,288+355=2,643) in the comparison areas were also reported to the police: In the Comparison areas all cases were (n 355), by definition, reported to the police, making a total of 2,643 reported cases from all sites (p. 41). So not only did you misrepresent the percentage of cases classified as "false" by police but you actually misrepresented the number of cases that were reported to the police. And it's not the first time that you blatantly misrepresent sources. --SonicY (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

First, you might consider WP:FAITH. You might consider that especially given that the change was from 8% to 9%—which is hardly a major change.

Second, the figure of 216 is given on the page cited in the reference: page 40. That figure is clearly based on 2284, not 2643. You do not seem to address this in your comment. The report also states "Cases with missing data at the police (n=299) and CPS stages (n=60) are, again, removed, making a base sample of 2,284". You seem to ignore this.

EllieTea (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Compare what the source says (There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 percent) and what you say (That figure is clearly based on 2284, not 2643). Notice anything? Yes, the figure 216 is given on page 41. But the total number of cases reported to the police is also given on that page: 2,643. And 216 or 2643 is 8%, not 9%. I suggest that you stop misrepresenting this and other sources now. As you know this article is subject to both the men's rights article probation and discretionary sanctions. --SonicY (talk) 12:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Following WP:BRD, I am not reverting your last edit on this. I note that you have still not really addressed my point, nor considered that I supplied a separate Reliable Source.

The difference between 8% and 9% is bordering on negligible, though. Much more important is that you also removed my extension of the quote. Moreover, you did that without any explanation.

For convenience, here is the quote as it was, and now is again.

The interviews with police officers and complainants’ responses show that despite the focus on victim care, a culture of suspicion remains within the police, even amongst some of those who are specialists in rape investigations. There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated.

Here is the quote after my extension—there are three additional sentences at the end.

The interviews with police officers and complainants’ responses show that despite the focus on victim care, a culture of suspicion remains within the police, even amongst some of those who are specialists in rape investigations. There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated. These perceptions and orientations are not lost on complainants.

International research contains salutary lessons about the ease with which cases are dismissed as ‘false’. In her analysis of 164 police files in New Zealand, Jordan (2001b) found 3 cases that had been designated false, which subsequently turned out to be early reports of serial rapists.

What is your justification for reverting my extension of the quote? (In reply, perhaps you could strive a little more for WP:CIVIL.) EllieTea (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So this is your excuse? That the difference between 8% and 9% is "negligible" and that your misrepresentation was only a "negligible" one? What about the difference between 2643 and 2288? Also "negligible"? Or is it possible that you still don't understand that 2643, not 2284, cases were reported to the police and that of those 2643 cases 8%, not 9%, were considered false by police? As for your completely unnecessary "extension" of the quote, Wikipedia isn't Wikiquote. The additional one or two sentences you added offer absolutely no additional relevant information. But my problem with your edit isn't that you unnecessarily extended an already longish quote, my problem is that you have demonstrably misrepresented the findings and the sample of the British Home Office study. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of your misbehavior on this page. --SonicY (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I gather that your striving for WP:CIVIL is proving difficult.

If there are no records for the 2643-2284 = 359 cases, then presenting the percentage for those cases seems to me to be misleading.

Your claim that the last three sentences "offer absolutely no additional relevant information" is not comprehensible to me. Those sentences conclusively demonstrate that the police sometimes classify a true rape as a false rape. EllieTea (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, there were 355 cases in the three comparison areas in addition to the 2288 in the three SARCs. The total of cases reported to the police was 2643. Again, from the source: In the Comparison areas all cases were (n 355), by definition, reported to the police, making a total of 2,643 reported cases from all sites (p. 41). Yet you misrepresent the source and claim that only 2288 cases were reported and that 9% were designated as false. Now that is misleading! I think that the quote is overlong as is and that it already expresses that police officers and prosecutors over-estimate false reports and are suspicious of rape victims. Feel free to restore the longer quote but do not restore your misrepresentation of the sample and findings of the study. --SonicY (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Forensic Victimology

The edit at 17:08 by User:Sonicyouth86 changed "The reference work Forensic Victimology (second edition, 2014), reviews several studies on false rape accusations" to "Brent Turvey and Michael McGrath". The Edit Summary gives this reason: they did not review "several studies", they extolled kanin and mcdowell (shows the quality of research here) and dismissed brownmiller

I have some questions/issues about this. First, who is Michael McGrath?

Second, they did indeed review several studies: MacDonald (1973), Haws (1997), Brownmiller (1975), Gregory & Lees (1999), Anderson (2004), McDowell (1985), Kanin (1994), as well as the FBI reports. I suppose that not all of those are full studies, but they are relevant works that are cited.

Third, the work of Kanin was reviewed in a single paragraph. Here is the paragraph.

Eugene Kanin of Purdue University in Indiana conducted one of the few published studies on false reports. Kanin studied all rapes (n = 109) occurring in an unnamed midwestern city with a population of 70,000 from 1978 to 1987. Kanin found a 41% false report rate (Kanin, 1994). It should be noted that in Kanin’s study a false report could only be identified by virtue of a confession from the alleged victim. In the same paper, Kanin also discussed the results of an unpublished study he conducted in 1988, which examined all forcible rape complaints during a three-year period on two midwestern college campuses. The false report rate in that study was 50% (1994).}}

That does not fit with "extol".

Fourth, the work of McDowell was similarly reviewed in a single paragraph. Also, what is wrong with McDowell?

Fifth, Brownmiller is also strongly criticized by Rumney (2006), and I know of no good reason to support Brownmiller.

Would you further explain the reason for the edit? EllieTea (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is Michael McGrath? McGrath and Turvey are the authors of the chapter "False Allegations of Crime", the chapter that contains the quote. How is it possible that you didn't know who co-wrote the passage that you quoted? McGrath and Turvery mention other studies when they discussed aspects of sexual assault, but their statements about the prevalence of false rape accusations are based on their review of Kanin, McDowell and Brownmiller and their "experience" (whatever that means). --SonicY (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The sources cited, in addition to Kanin, McDowell, and Brownmiller, include MacDonald (1973), Haws (1997), and Anderson (2004), as well as quotes from Spilbor (2003) and Fairstein. I think that the sentence as I wrote it should have "studies" changed to "sources". Otherwise, the sentence seems good to me.

I dislike saying things like "Brent Turvey and Michael McGrath" without further explanation. Who are they and why should readers trust what they say? The WP article has had this problem elsewhere as well. For example, the article previously referred to "Philip N.S. Rumney" with no explanation of who he is; so I added a sentence to give a bit of background on him.[1]

The WP article refers to the source as a book authored by Turvey; so I assumed that it was a book authored by Turvey. After seeing the book cited in the WP article, I got a copy: the cover of the book only says "Brent E. Turvey"—there are no other names and no "editor". To find things in the book, I used either the Index or Ctrl-f (I did not look at the table of contents). Hence, I did not notice that the chapter is by Turvey & McGrath. The WP article obviously has the reference cited incorrectly. I will fix that.

What are the problems with McDowell?

You seem to not believe that Turvey is a high-quality source. I disagree, but in the interests of fairness, will say that I have found one piece of evidence to support such belief. Turvey & McGrath claim this: "out of 2,000 uninvestigated cases in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from 1995 to 1997, investigators determined that “600 were false reports or allegations that did not amount to crimes”". In fact, that is a serious misrepresentation of what their reference says. The truth is revealing, and I think important. Hence, I added a paragraph about it to the WP article.[2]

EllieTea (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The sources cited in connection with the aspect of false rape accusations are Kanin, McDowell and Brownmiller. Why do you dislike naming the two authors who wrote the stuff you're quoting? Is there a reason why you claim that Turvey and McGrath's book chapter is a "reference work"? A reference work usually contains the scientific consensus view or confirmed facts. It's clear that Turvey's book is not a reference work and he doesn't claim that it is. In fact, he and McGrath seem eager to stress the fact that they're speaking from personal experience and belief rather than based on scientific evidence. Sentences like As those of us who work cases know from experience, the numbers [of false rape accusations] can be very high are a dead giveaway. 100% opinion, 0% evidence. I actually think it's best to remove the quote altogether and then let you try to convince others of its merits. --SonicY (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not care about calling it a "reference work", and certainly agree to changing it to something else. What term do you think would be good? EllieTea (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

FBI statistics

User:Roscelese is again making false accusations against me and refusing to read the sources. Here is what the FBI report states (page 7).

The 1996 violent crime clearance rate was 47 percent, up from 45 percent in 1995. Among the violent offenses, the 1996 clearance rates ranged from 67 percent for murder to 27 percent for robbery. Over half of all forcible rapes (52 percent) and aggravated assaults (58 percent) were cleared.

If someone disagrees with the way that I presented that in the article, then fine: revert the edit and explain why. EllieTea (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Show me where the source says that 8% is out of 52%, not out of 100%. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This is my understanding of what "cleared" means. I do not see the term defined in the FBI report though.

Ahh, I wrote that, then googled the FBI site to find a definition. There is a definition here. I was wrong. I had been thinking that "cleared" meant the same as "closed". I will correct the WP article. EllieTea (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's clear from the sources that 8% of reported cases were designated as false. EllieTea had absolutely no consensus and no support from the source to change the wording and later edit-war over their changes. --SonicY (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Statistics in the lede

The lede said the following.

... in the United States, the FBI Uniform Crime Report in 1996 and the United States Department of Justice in 1997 stated 8% of rape accusations in the United States were regarded as unfounded or false Studies in other countries have reported their own rates at anywhere from 1.5% (Denmark) to 10% (Canada).

The statistic for the FBI/DoJ is highly misleading, for reasons discussed in the section "FBI statistics".

The statistic from Denmark is taken from Rumney (2006). Here is what Rumney actually says.

... use of the 10% figure is part of a study of false complaints by the Institute of Medicine in Copenhagen. As noted earlier, the 10% figure is the highest given during the five year period covered by this study, the lowest number ... was 1.5%.

Thus, the figure for Denmark that is quoted in the lede is also misleading.

The statistic for Canada is also taken from Rumney. The statistic is for a single city (Toronto) in 1970; moreover, the statistic was disputed by the Toronto police. Thus this statistic, too, is misleading.

Considering the above, I have removed all the statistics from the lede. EllieTea (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm extremely disinclined to trust anything you say about the statistics given the blatantly nonsensical "8 of 52" edit you made. That is flat-out not what the source says, and I'm guessing your goal is to claim a far greater percentage that actually exists and/or imply that the ones which weren't cleared were all false. I am strongly inclined to revert all your edits wholesale, back to the version from a few days ago, unless a trustworthy editor confirms that they actually conform to sources. User:EvergreenFir, would you want to help with that? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese I have reviewed most of the editor's contributions to this page, and I strongly support reverting to a version before EllieTea's first edit. I'm prepared to provide a list of EllieTea's edits that violate policy, starting with his first edits to the page (adding a self-published screed under further reading) to their most recent edit (removing a RS and claiming that it "violates WP policy for facts"). --SonicY (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit Summary, repeated, for removing a piece from Comment is Free

theguardian.com#Comment is free: it is unneeded and violates WP:RS#Statements of opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllieTea (talk • contribs) 14:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is the first sentence from theguardian.com#Comment is free.

Comment is free is a comment and political opinion site within theguardian.com.

Here is the first paragraph from WP:RS#Statements of opinion.

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

EllieTea (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you or do you not understand that it's a comment by Keir Starmer and that the source is used as a reference for a quote by Keir Starmer? --SonicY (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:EllieTea believes against all evidence that an article in the Guardian "violates WP policy for facts". I assume that EllieTea believes this because the source contradicts his personal stated POV that In fact, only a small percentage of rape accusations) is known to be true."] Please also note that the Guardian article is used a source for a quote by Keir Starmer whose opinion is based on recent CPS research. EllieTea seems to have no problem adding opinions when those opinions are more in line with his own opinion such as the quote by Turvey and McGrath who claim that "As those of us who work cases know from experience, the numbers [of false rape accusations] can be very high", based on nothing other than personal opinion. EllieTea, please stop your disruptive editing. --SonicY (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You are again ascribing motives to me in violation of WP:CIVIL. You would have understood my actual motivation if you had read the Edit Summary I gave for the edit. I have explained further above. EllieTea (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why you believe that a quote by Keir Starmer sourced to a comment by Keir Starmer in The Guardian "violates WP policy for facts". You have explained absolutely nothing so far. You have just continued to edit-war over your contentious changes. --SonicY (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I had not noticed that the citation was for a quote from the author of the opinion piece. I agree that the citation is valid, and I have undone my edit. EllieTea (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Survey of 20 police officers

In the section False_accusation_of_rape#Police_opinions_on_false_rape I have removed this:

According to a small-scale survey of 20 US law enforcement officers conducted in 2004, officers believe that the typical person making a false accusation is "female (100%), Caucasian (100%), 15–20 years of age (10%), 31–45 years of age (25%), or 21–30 years of age (65%)".[1] A false accusation may be perpetrated out of a desire for attention or sympathy, anger or revenge, or to cover up behavior deemed "inappropriate" by the accuser's peers.[1]

'Small-scale survey' is an understatement. 20 US law enforcement officers is an absurdly low number of participants for a survey. This sounds more like a survey conducted for a grade-school assignment. Unfortunately, the source is non-free [3] so I can't read more about their methodology. If anyone has access to this, I would appreciate if someone could post information on the methodology (particularly selection methodology) for this specific survey. ― Padenton |☎ 18:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now traced the source. The correct reference is this:

Hazelwood, Robert R.; Burgess, Ann Wolbert (2009), "False rape allegations", in Hazelwood, Robert R.; Burgess, Ann Wolbert (eds.), Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation (Fourth ed.), CRC Press, p. 181-199.

The relevant section of that is copied below.

Who Makes a False Allegation?

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are no statistics maintained on false allegations. Recognizing this, Hazelwood and Napier (2004) reported on 20 active and retired federal, state, and city law enforcement officers from different regions of the United States (Washington, D.C., California, Texas, Nebraska, Virginia, Florida, Iowa, and Washington) and two provinces in Canada who were telephonically surveyed in a structured manner as to their anecdotal experience with staged crimes (false allegation of rape is one type). Each of these officers had served as a crime analyst (“profiler”) within his or her department and consequently was much more experienced with violent crime than the average investigator. It is to be noted that this survey was not intended to provide detailed predictive analysis, but to report investigative perceptions. The officers were asked to approximate the number of violent crimes they had been involved with and the number of fatal and nonfatal staged crimes they had encountered over the years. These officers had 560 years of cumulative law enforcement experience and an estimated 33,360 consultations on violent crimes. Of that number, they estimated that 903 had been staged; of the 903 staged crimes, 411 dealt with death scenes and 492 with nonfatal false allegations of sexual assault.

The officers reported that, in their experience, the person typically making the false allegation was female (100%); Caucasian (100%); 15–20 years of age (10%), 31–45 years of age (25%), or 21–30 years of age (65%).

While it is not intended that this information be generalized to the entire population, the findings that the person most often making a false allegation of rape is Caucasian, female, and between 21 and 30 years of age is consistent with the authors’ experience. However, it is important to note that there are no educational, occupational, or intellectual boundaries in this arena. The authors are aware of false complaints being lodged by nurses, psychologists, school teachers, college students, members of the criminal justice system, and female dancers. Investigators would be wise to disregard any criteria presented to them.

Thus, the section is reliant on Hazelwood & Napier (2004). An extract from that is below.

The participants in the survey, all of whom we personally know, were selected from a cadre of highly trained and experienced law enforcement investigators. Because of their expertise in criminal investigative analysis (Napier & Baker, 2002), these individuals have been consultants to their own and other agencies in a wide variety of violent crimes against persons. The participants represented city, state, and federal law enforcement agencies from Washington, D.C., two provinces in Canada, and the states of California, Florida, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia, and Washington.

...

Because criminal investigators generally do not keep numerical records of the cases or consultations that they have participated in during their career, the officers were asked to approximate the number of violent crimes that they had been involved with and the number of fatal and nonfatal staged crimes that they had encountered. Their estimates were from memory and without benefit of reviewing case statistics or other case materials. It should be noted that because of their crime consultant status, the survey participants were exposed to a particularly large number of complex violent crime scenarios and that consequently, staged crimes may be overrepresented in their casebooks. The findings presented in this article are not intended to provide detailed predictive analyses but rather to report investigative perceptions. Therefore, the survey results should not be generalized. Although we did not participate in the survey, our experience is consistent with the findings of the survey.

...

The 20 officers estimated that of the 903 staged crimes with which they had experience, 492 (55%) dealt with nonfatal false allegations of sexual assault. This figure represents more than half of the staged crimes reported by the participants. Consequently, false allegations of sexual assault were the most commonly staged crimes encountered by these experienced investigators.

In addition to being the most frequently observed, false allegation of sexual assault is also the most politically sensitive staged crime dealt with by investigators. The infamous false allegation of kidnap and rape by Tawanna Brawley in upstate New York became a national media event.

...

The participating officers unanimously reported that the staging offender is most often a White female. When asked to approximate the age range of the staging offender, 13 of the 20 officers (65%) advised that the most common age was between 21 and 30, 5 officers (25%) reported that 31 to 45 was the most common age, and 2 (10%) of the officers advised that the most common age was between 15 and 20.

...

The surveyed officers reported that in staged nonfatal sexual crimes, the most common offender was a White female between 21 and 30 years old. In staged crimes involving fatalities, the staging offender was most commonly a White male, who was an intimate partner of the victim and between 26 and 35 years old.

...

Note that the first author of the paper, Hazelwood, is the same as the first author of the book chapter (and of the book). Hazelwood is apparently a retired FBI officer.

Regarding what to do with the above, I have no view. EllieTea (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Section "Police opinions on false rape accusations"

The section False accusation of rape#Police opinions on false rape accusations is currently a single paragraph, as follows.

Statements by the Finnish Police estimate that false rape accusations have risen in like manner with female alcohol consumption in the country, and that many false rape accusations are made when intoxicated, with many of the people falsely accused of rape being men who are typically immigrants.

The reference for the paragraph/section is the following.

"Raiskausilmoituksista yli viidennes perättömiä", Turun Sanomat (in Finnish), 30 June 2010, retrieved 2 May 2015 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help).

I do not read Finnish, but I used Google Translate to get a rough English version. That version is given below.

Rape reports, more than a fifth of untrue

Domestic | 30.6.2010 3:00

Unfound rape reports are weekly problem with the police. Officials estimate that more than one in five rape claims reported to the police turns out to be false. These cases do not lead to consideration of charges and the court process.

Every year, police record about a thousand rape notices and over a thousand more lenient notifications of sexual abuse.

Police sergeant Berry Vuento, the Helsinki Police Department, says that the amount of undue notices has been growing at the same pace with the consumption of alcohol by women.

- A large part untrue declarations made drunk thoughtlessly. Someone may want a free ride taxi from the driver, another invents a rape allegation in order to avoid jail night and the third explains the emergency lie spouse or the folks back home. When the man then contacts the police, the speeches are hard to be canceled, Vuento says.

Untrue allegations designated factor is often a foreign man or men. According to Detective Chief Inspector Ville Hahl, there are two reasons for this.

- A foreign background are, for example, the metropolitan area suspicion about every second rape case.

- Secondly, if the notifying party shall appoint factor dark-skinned, he is not expected to be as accurate distinguishing features as if the author would stem Finnish, Hahl to find out.

A large number of untrue declarations are bound police resources but the notifications do frost also true for victims of sexual crimes.

- Sisters make insanely great disservice to other women. Rape victims are treated, at least in substance today, but the police have interrogated to ensure the veracity of the story, says Vuento.

Because rape is usually not witnesses, the police authorities and the judiciary need to consider the alleged victim and the author's reliability speeches.

- Years of experience have to admit that the judicial killings take place in both directions, Vuento says.

EllieTea (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Introduction

The WP article might benefit from having an Introduction section. A potential draft of such a section is below.

[The following remarks are adapted from a forthcoming paper by a professor of criminal justice at the University of the West of England, Philip Rumney. Rumney has been researching on criminal justice responses to rape for many years.]

The phenomenon of false rape allegations is a subject of widespread controversy. It is an area littered with misunderstanding, myths, and stereotypes.

Two broad approaches have emerged in response to the subject. The first approach involves an insistence that women reporting rape must be believed by criminal justice professionals, that false allegations are rare and to believe otherwise is evidence of the existence of "rape culture". The second approach involves a fear that an increasing willingness to believe will lead to an institutional failure to distinguish between true and false claims, that due process rights for the accused are under threat, and that false allegations are common.

These two approaches share common characteristics in terms of the way in which false allegations are discussed and analyzed. This shared analytical orthodoxy is empirically flawed, inflexible, and resistant to counter-evidence or dissent. Those who promote this orthodoxy fail to take seriously the data on false allegations and neglect to carefully analyze the existing literature for weaknesses. There is also a failure to acknowledge the differing types of false allegation – from those that are malicious, through to the mistaken, wrongful, and third party allegations. In addition, much of what is written on the subject involves the selective citation of evidence, use of confirmation bias to support claims, and failure to acknowledge that the "other side" has legitimate concerns.

This has created at least three problems. First, both approaches to the question of false allegations promote the widespread dissemination of flawed data in which factual ambiguity is ignored in favor of ideological certainty. Second, this flawed data is used to underpin various legal policy proposals. Third, a growing body of empirical research examining the impact of allegations on the falsely accused, comparative false allegation rates, motivational factors, and social allegations is ignored, because the false allegation orthodoxy is resistant to data that challenges preferred policy positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllieTea (talk • contribs) 09:54, 30 April 2015 UTC‎
Updated by EllieTea (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

British Home Office study (2005): the percentage rate

The percentage rate of false rape reports, as determined by the British Home Office study (2005), has been discussed above. I thought that it might be useful to start the discussion afresh, in a section devoted to the rate alone.

To begin, consider a simple example. Suppose that there were 2000 rape reports. Suppose additionally that we only had records for 100 of those reports—and that all the other records had been lost. Suppose further that among the 100 records of rape reports, the police determined that 5 reports were false.

Here is the key question: what is the rate of false rape reporting? If we have 100 records, and 5 are false, then the rate is 5%. (Think about that, please; it should be clear.)

Suppose that someone were to claim that the rate was 5/2000 = 0.25%. That would be an error. Again, that should be clear.

Unfortunately, the latter error is essentially what the British Home Office study made. The numbers are different, but the error is otherwise the same. The study found that there were 2643 rape reports, but it only had records for 2284—the other records were apparently lost. Among those 2284, there were 216 that the police determined to be false. Thus, the rate of false reports is 216/2284 = 9.5% The study, however, calculated the rate to be 216/2643 = 8%. Thus, the study is in error.

The error seems to have been noticed by at least one other person: Cybulska (2007), cited in the WP article. That is a reliable source, which describes the rate as "about 9%". (There might be other such sources; I have not looked.)

Considering the above, I edited the article to say the following (references omitted).[4]

The study was based on 2643 sexual assault cases, of which 2284 had adequate reports with the police. Of these, the police classified 216 as false reports, i.e. about 9%.

The "about 9%" was referenced to Cybulska (2007).

User:Sonicyouth86 said that I am wrong to do that, and undid my edits. Sonicyouth86 and I have discussed this, but to no avail thus far. In the discussion, Sonicyouth86 repeatedly violated WP:FAITH and also, I believe, WP:CIVIL.

Rather than continue the argument, I decided that the difference between 8% and "about 9%" was too small to be worth fighting for. Hence, I tried to diffuse the situation, and let the issue go. Sonicyouth86 interpreted my attempt at diplomacy as evidence that I actually believed the rate to be 8%. Primarily for that reason, I decided that I should create this section, and explain the situation in more detail.

To conclude, the correct rate is 9.5%, the study is in error but there is a reliable source that is correct, and I do not consider the correction to be worth fighting for. EllieTea (talk) 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from presenting your original research as facts. At no point do the researchers suggest that they "lost" the 355 records from the three comparison areas. The researchers repeat over and over that 2643 cases were reported to the police, 2288 in the three SARCs and 355 in the three comparison areas. And no, the Cybulska source doesn't support your misrepresentation of the British Home Office study. Cybulska never actually singles out the British Home Office study for discussion. She only uses it twice as a reference. The fourth paragraph that you refer to which contains the 9% figure is sourced to four separate studies and is supposed to be a summary of all four, not just to the British Home Office study. The only other secondary source that specifically discusses the British Home Office finding is the paper by Lonsway et al. who state: The largest and most rigorous study that is currently available in this area is the third one commissioned by the British Home Office (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005). The analysis was based on the 2,643 sexual assault cases (where the outcome was known) that were reported to British police over a 15-year period of time. Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. Yet the researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators, ... (p. 2). You misrepresented the British Home Office study, your edits were reverted, and now you need to give it a rest. --SonicY (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is another way to look at this. There were 216 false reports; those 216 were among a set of 2284 reports. There were, altogether, 2643 reports. That means that there were 2643−2284 = 359 reports not included in the set of 2284.

How many false reports were among the 359? If the rate of false reporting is 8%, then we would expect about 359×0.08 = 29. In fact, there are 0. Obviously, this is wrong.

As for original research, I did not at any time attempt to put any original research in the WP article. EllieTea (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You've repeatedly attempted to do your own math and to put your own conclusions in the article instead of the sources' conclusions. In this very comment you're defending your original research. Quit it before another editor really does decide that sorting through all your edits to this article looking for something constructive is a waste of time and just reverts back to April. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Basic math isn't WP:OR. See WP:CALC. ― Padenton|✉ 09:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

But claiming that only 2288 cases were reported to the police and 9% of the cases were designated as false, when the source states clearly and repeatedly that 2643 were reported and 8% were designated as false most certainly is WP:OR. It's actually worse, it's a repeated misrepresentation of the source. This article is subject to the GG discretionary sanctions and WP:MRMPS. Consequently, you and ElliTea need to be sanctioned for restoring and edit-warring over original research and NPOV violations. You and ElliTea are welcome to propose changes on the article talk page and add them if there's a consensus. But you are not welcome to edit-war over your additions and push them into the article without consensus. --SonicY (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The report contains a table summarizing most of the the data on page 40 (page 56 of the pdf). As stated there, all the 216 false reports are included in the 2284. You are correct that the source gives the rate as 8%: I stated that at the beginning. The problem is that the source made an error in basic math. You do not seem to be addressing this. EllieTea (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not know about WP:CALC. I very much appreciate this. EllieTea (talk) 11:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Brownmiller (1975) and the claimed rate of 2%

Brownmiller (1975) claims that the rate of false reporting is 2%. The claim has been widely cited and discussed. Hence, the WP article should presumably have a section about this. I will write the section, but before I do, there is a question—what secondary sources should the section cite?

The relevant sources that I know of are Rumney (2006), Greer (2000), and Turvey & McGrath (2014). (I have searched with Google Scholar, and not found more.) EllieTea (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be completely WP:UNDUE to dedicate an entire section to criticizing Brownmiller whose research isn't even described here and doesn't belong. You have repeatedly stated your opinion that only a small portion of rape accusations are true but you need to read WP:NPOV and edit accordingly. Or better yet, you edit in some other topic area for a change. --SonicY (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is an excerpt from Rumney (whose paper is discussed in the WP article).

Historically, legal scholarship has produced two broad approaches to the issue of false rape allegations. The first approach claims that women are very likely to make false complaints of rape, and provides various medical or psychological explanations for this behavior. These works have consistently failed to challenge the assumption that significant numbers of women falsely allege rape. Since the mid-1970s, a second approach has emerged. It can be found in a large number of legal articles and books examining the law of rape and its enforcement taking the view that the number of false allegations is low, or at least no higher than the rate for other serious offences. Indeed, such a view has been said to form an ‘‘overwhelming consensus’’. Within this body of work probably the single most commonly cited false reporting statistic is taken from Susan Brownmiller’s book Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape.

Here is a related quote from the Dean of the CUNY School of Law, Michelle Anderson, writing in the Boston University Law Review (84: 945–1022, 2006).

... In fact, there is no good empirical data on false rape complaints either historically or currently. A debate over the number of false complaints nevertheless continues.

One side of the debate maintains that only two percent of rape complaints made to the police are false. In her popular 1975 book on rape, Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller wrote, “When New York City instituted a special sex crimes analysis squad and put police women (instead of men) in charge of interviewing complaints, the number of false charges in New York dropped dramatically to 2 percent,....

There are several other sources that cite Brownmiller and indicate importance, e.g. Turvey & McGrath [cited in the WP article] and Haws [Columbia Journalism Review, 1997; archived version ]. It seems clear from all this that Brownmiller is an important source.

Additionally, you yourself indicated that Brownmiller is an important source: in your Edit Summary on April 29 17:08.[5]

EllieTea (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The 2%/3% rate is based on many studies (like the Australian police study or Theilade and Thomsen or Kelly et al.), not just Brownmiller's opinion. Brownmiller's estimate is based on old data or no data at all. I see no reason to include poor research or opinions. For example, there are studies that cite the opinions of men's rights activists, but giving them their own section in this article ("Men's rights activists and the claimed 90% rate") is undue. If I understand you correctly, you know that the Brownmiller estimate is outdated and probably unreliable but you want to give Brownmiller a section just to tear into her. --SonicY (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Your original issue was about whether Brownmiller is important enough to discuss. The answer is positive, given the evidence that I presented. As to whether Brownmiller is right, or reliable—that is a separate issue, which can be discussed in the section. EllieTea (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted back to Amaury's version from April 25. EllieTea's conduct in the article and on this talk page gives me little hope that their edits conform to WP:V and WP:NOR, as in the week they've been here, they've blatantly misrepresented sources numerous times. EllieTea, since you are unable to edit the article in accordance with policy, I suggest that you propose edits on the talk page, gain consensus, and let other users implement them if consensus is achieved. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

This is way too large a revert, and there were plenty of good edits in there. There is countless discussion on this talk page about the various edits and its clear EllieTea put countless hours of work into them. You want to fix the problematic edits? You can do so without biting newcomers. You and SonicYouth aren't the only editors on this article, it doesn't matter that you two discussed it (wherever that was). ― Padenton|✉ 02:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

If an editor puts countless hours into edits that violate Wikipedia policy, that's their loss. EllieTea was warned about edit warring and disruptive editing and has continued the behavior anyway - you see BITE, I see a disruptive SPA. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

There were more bad than good edits in there. The user is welcome to propose changes on the article talk page and gain consensus for them instead of edit-warring. --SonicY (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see no reason to be suspicious of EllieTea as a new editor. After receiving some pushback in the beginning, EllieTea has repeatedly attempted to explain their edits in numerous talk discussions (I may prefer fewer sections, but that's hardly a big issue). That the majority of the changes reverted here are perfectly fine proves that this should not have been rolled all the way back to over a week ago. ― Padenton|✉ 11:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

But they are not "perfectly fine" and there's no consensus for the changes. Again, this article is under discretionary sanctions and WP:MRMPS. --SonicY (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Most changes don't require consensus. Discretionary sanctions in WP:MRMPS are more against the lack of civility and edit warring behavior the two of you have shown rather than these good faith edits and attempts to discuss, which you have scoffed at repeatedly. ― Padenton|✉ 11:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The ones that have been reverted by another editor sure need consensus before you can restore them. Discretionary sanctions aren't specified in WP:MRMPS. I'm talking about the GamerGate discretionary sanctions which apply to any page about a gender controversy. I have "scoffed" at attempts to discuss? Be very careful with your baseless accusations. --SonicY (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You said WP:MRMPS. The scoffing is present in every talk discussion you've had here with EllieTea for everyone to see, as is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me to a 2 week dead discussion that was fairly deep in my edit history. ― Padenton|✉ 11:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I would love to see you try to get me sanctioned for imaginary "scoffing" in response to repeated misrepresentations of multiple sources. Please, please try. I suggest that you do not repeat your laughable accusation of "wikihounding" again. --SonicY (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Who said anything about trying? I could not care less about you, just be careful this doesn't WP:BOOMERANG you in the face. ― Padenton|✉ 11:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Aw, don't you worry about me. I've been around longer than you. --SonicY (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Then by all means, stop bluffing and take me to WP:ANI as you keep threatening, let's get some outside input on this. ― Padenton|✉ 12:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

EllieTea's edits have been more disruptive than yours. Priorities. --SonicY (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sonicyouth86: Then you need to provide information on what specific changes you have issue with, and engage in civil discussion over the changes so we can finish this. ― Padenton|✉ 12:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not ignore the many discussions on this page, all of which deal with EllieTea's edits and reverts. If you want to "finish this", please present your desired changes on the article talk page, editors will check and discuss them, and if they're okay (unlike many of EllieTea's edits) and there's consensus to adds them, go ahead. --SonicY (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at it. As I said, I see many attempts of EllieTea's to discuss his/her changes on the talk page, and I see your refusal to discuss. ― Padenton|✉ 12:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Roscelese has suggested that I violated WP:VERIFY and WP:OR, but has not presented any evidence for that. She should either withdraw the accusation or list some edits showing where I violated those policies. EllieTea (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you being serious? There are at least two sections that are entirely dedicated to your misrepresentation of sources: British Home Office study (2005) and FBI statistics. --SonicY (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Funny, in British Home Office study (2005) I see EllieTea attempting to discuss it with you and following policy, while you are repeatedly being antagonistic. I see the same at Talk:False_accusation_of_rape#FBI_statistics. Let's remain calm here, why can we not discuss this? Please explain, with evidence, why each of the changes reverted in the diff I posted above are problematic. Thanks― Padenton|✉ 11:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You see me quoting the source that says and EllieTea arguing that the source is "in error". This needs to go to ANI or AE soon and you need to feature prominently. --SonicY (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

By all means, take it there. I stand by my edits here and do so proudly. ― Padenton|✉ 11:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

An efficient way to deal with this is to specify an edit I made that violated WP:OR and an edit that violated WP:VERIFY. Please specify the edits via direct links. EllieTea (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It's been explained to you already. Enough WP:IDHT, please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese:: Except you haven't explained at all your issues with EllieTea's edits, and you have not allowed him/her to discuss them with you. As a reminder, you are required to explain your reverts, civilly especially when unilaterally undoing over a week of edits. ― Padenton|✉ 21:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've explained them with reference to both policy and statistics. EllieTea's refusal to listen is not a tactic you should adopt as well. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: then you should have no problem showing me exactly where you have done so, as I've looked through this entire talk page several times without finding any links to statistics nor links to policy with explanations on how they apply to what EllieTea has said. ― Padenton|✉ 21:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure you have. I'm not interested in repeating myself to people who aren't bothering to read the discussion, sorry. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions apply to all edits of this article

Please see the editnotice which was recently added by User:Callanecc per a request at WP:AE: You cannot make any edit (apart from those which are blatantly uncontroversial) to this article without first proposing it on the talk page for at least 24 hours and having a consensus in support of the change. The authority for this restriction is WP:ARBGG, which applies to "any gender-related dispute or controversy". EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Conor Oberst

He is wikilinked in the see also section of this article. I read it, and there is no mention at all of any false rape allegation. I therefore went to delete the content here, and discovered that sanctions apply. So here I am. I want to delete that link totally as being not relevant to this article at all unless some detail is added to the Oberst BLP. Comments? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like there's an ongoing controversy on Oberst entry over whether or not the allegations should be mentioned since the accuser recanted. It seems like a pretty obscure case either way, and so I don't think its inclusion here is particularly useful, and may run afoul of some BLP issues. Nblund (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Doesn't seem needful to include this linkage to Oberst's article and I will try to reason out why here. Even if the information is included in the Oberst article, the person making the false accusation is not named but Oberst is, however his name was cleared so why is his name linked (however spuriously) to the asserted crime? (Also it isn't clear from the 'See also" inclusion if Oberst made a false allegation or if one was made against him.) When the original tumblr link is looked at, a disclaimer of "I am not the person who..." is there. I also don't think that every single time someone is accused of a crime (then cleared without going to any kind of trial or even being charged) or has an alleged run-in with the law (sourced from a blog post perhaps) that it bears mentioning in their Wikipedia article. And yeah, this incident is not in the Oberst article at the present time.Shearonink (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Quoted in book

"...between 2010 and 2011, Wikipedia users edited and added some of the new studies—as well as Professor Lisak's critique of Eugene J. Kanin—to the site's "False Accusation of Rape" entry. As recorded by the entry's "Talk" page, the article's author, a rape denier, then removed some of the new material. These actions caused the new research, non-Kanin material to be unavailable to Wikipedia readers. The hullabaloo stands as a mini-version of the whole controversy."

Comment: I created the article false accusation of rape but I am not the author of most of the article's material. I merely moved the content from the more generic article rape into this more specialized one, years ago. For the record, I am not a rape denier and I do not endorse what is written in the book (or in this Wikipedia article). I have no idea who Eugene Kanin is and I did not take part in any of the edit wars in this talk page or article page. I would like Jody Raphael to correct what she wrote because it is false and perhaps libelous. As a law professor, she should know better than to make potentially libelous statements like that, and also she should learn how to properly use Wikipedia's edit history function. I believe her mistake was due to her ignorance of the edit history function and that it was not out of malice. 70.51.30.18 (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I also remember the real reason why I created this article. It was because I had read about the Michel Dumont case in Canada, about a guy who was declared innocent after spending a decade in jail. I also saw an interview of him on television. This sort of got me interested in the subject of false rape accusations. LINK: [6] 70.51.30.18 (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

(UK) Times column written by falsely accused man

The current article is mostly a tedious list of "studies" whose findings shed no light whatsoever on the core issue: did the purported rapes happen in real life or only in the imagination of the person making the accusation?

There's a case to be made of simply excluding these "studies" from the article and instead focusing on the thing we can be sure of: there is a two-sided debate going on here. On the feminist side there is a wave of articles, tweets and interviews demanding that rape accusations "be believed". On the non-feminist side the argument is that belief should come only after persuasive evidence is produced, not on the simple expression of an accusatory statement by a self-described victim.

This article linked below is a part of that discussion, from the point of view of a man who was smeared by Gawker, implying he had engaged in attempted rape with a French film actress as he was interviewing her. A certain strain of dishonest editor will seek to exclude this unflattering example of modern feminism by lawyering about it being an opinion piece. While there is plenty of opinion in the piece, there is also significant reportage of the false accusation made first by Gawker, and then by its army of followers. It is directly relevant to the subject of the article. Nevertheless, let's see what distortion of WP policy the spin-masters come up with to exclude it: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4581782.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.141.133 (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Estimate for India in the lead

I have removed the 50% estimate for India in the lead. Firstly, it is not a study, like the other estimates: it is meaningless to compare one with the other. Secondly, the number only refers to false accusations of rapes in Delhi, in a specific period, which were made to the Delhi Commission for Women. That is much too narrow and restricted a methodology/geographical area to extrapolate to the larger concept of rapes in India. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Is the subject even notable?

Surely this should simply be folded into the rape article? —ajf (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I do think there's enough published about false accusations on both sides of the issue that it probably is notable enough for its own article. Is there enough unique and valuable information in all of those sources to fill up its own article? I'm not sure. I'm open to hearing more about why you think it should be folded into the article on rape. Though there's already a decent sized section about it in the main rape article (that looks like it needs some work), so does that mean this should be a discussion re: AfD as opposed to a merge (if anything)? Permstrump (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Confusing wording in lead

Is it just me or is the second sentence confusing? It says, "It is difficult to assess the prevalence of false reports due to such accusations being conflated with non-prosecuted cases as 'unfounded'." I'm not exactly sure what it's trying to say. I think this wording means the same thing and is hopefully more clear:

It is difficult to assess the prevalence due to non-prosecuted and unfounded cases being conflated with false accusations.

I'm going to update it this way, but I've honestly read this sentence so many times that I'm experiencing some semantic satiation and it's definitely possible that my version makes even less sense, so please, feedback is welcome. :) Permstrump (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I think your version is more confusing. Any version should say prevalence of what. I agree that "accusations" and "reports" in the previous version could also be confusing. Maybe "It is difficult to assess the prevance of false reports because they are often conflated with non-prosecuted cases under the designation "unfounded". –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

That does sound better. Permstrump (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)