Talk:False accusation of rape/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Removing references to small populations

Over the past few days, I removed content that cited sources that only referenced false accusations in a very small community. Their focus was too narrow to be generalizable or comparable to any other population. These were the sources and my reasons:

• Finnish newspaper article that quotes a police sergeant about his experience in one district in Finland. It was entirely anecdotal and didn't even give a pretense that it was based on a formal study or even a cursory review of actual data his department could have collected.
• LMU law review paper where the author admits in the first paragraph that his perspective is counter to "the predominant voice on sexual abuse within legal academia." In the end, his only conclusion is that the widely accepted 2% rate is based on what he argues is flawed data. He doesn't propose an alternate figure or make a statement in the conclusion about whether he believes the actual rate is higher or lower than 2%. He only concludes that he believes 2% is inaccurate.
• Kanin's 1994 journal article about false reports in "a small metropolitan community." The criticism subsection was twice as long as the section on the actual study and cited 5 sources that specifically opposed Kanin's paper. Referencing a controversial source from 1994 about a small community is not relevant or helpful to this article.

Please take this into consideration before posting more content that's vague, anecdotal and/or relevant only to a narrow population. Permstrump (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Kanin's study is very notable, even if it's also very controversial and probably inaccurate, so including it with the relevant context isn't a bad thing. We should probably restore the DiCanio source that was under "Other studies", because that's an overview. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't take it out b/c of notability, it was b/c it's over 20 years old at this point and has been heavily criticized and was a study on a small population, so it's old, inaccurate and not generalizable. I see your point about including it within the context of its criticism though. I don't think I removed the DiCanio source, did I? It doesn't sound familiar and I don't see it in my history, but I'm kind of rushing right now. I'll write a more thoughtful response tomorrow. Permstrump (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

DiCanio was removed in this edit by yourself. As for Kanin, it's a highly cited and notable study. Whatever you (or any other editor) say about the quality of the study is rather immaterial. Our obligation per WP:DUE is to list the various results and put them in context (which is why the Crit section follows).

Also, I've added the text back per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. The piece is long-standing text in the article and is status-quo. You were bold and removed it, its removal was reverted, so now we discuss it. Not keep on removing it. Stickee (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I can see your and Roscelese's reasons for keeping it, so I concede. This is an honest question though, not snark... Does notability ever expire? At what point are statistics from the mid-90's no longer relevant to the current discussion? Actually, I'll make a separate section below this to talk about how the FBI stats are used in the current version of the article, because I'm sure other people will have opinions about that. Permstrump (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

As is usual on Wikipedia, there's a shortcut for everything! WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Stickee (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I can imagine the thought process for using the 8% stat for false accusations in the US in the lead. Even though it's a 20-years-old stat, it's cited in basically every paper on the topic and it’s the most recent official stat put out by US govt. However, even one of the studies that we used as a source for that figure contests its validity (Rumney 2006). And the FBI (2015) and DOJ (2011) acknowledge major issues with the data they've collected and published about crime rates. We do say in the lead that this is something difficult to measure, but I think that’s a pretty big understatement, especially considering the next sentence gives a stat from a presumably reliable source (the U.S. DOJ and FBI) without acknowledging the wide body of internal and independent sources that criticize that dataset specifically. These are some points that, IMHO, should be clarified or added in the lead (in a more concise way) so people can make an informed decision about how much weight they want to give the stats in the lead and the rest of the article.

• FBI data on rape collected before 2013 only reflect cases where women made reports of forcible rape, specifically “penetration of a vagina by a penis." This excludes reports by male victims and reports about other types of sexual violence that didn’t involve vaginal penetration by a penis through physical force (e.g. oral or anal penetration, penetration with foreign objects, and nonconsensual penetration through coercion/deception, such as blackmail or drugging, etc.) (Beaulieu 2013).

• Law enforcement agencies have been found to misclassify reports of rape by inappropriately coding them as unfounded (i.e. “false or baseless complaints [where] investigation shows no offense occurred nor was attempted”) without doing an investigation or when they should have been coded as “cleared by exceptional means” (i.e. an offender couldn’t be identified or found, there wasn’t enough information to support pursuing an arrest/charges, or other reasons outside of law enforcement control, such as the death of the offender) (SRS User Manual 2013).

• On top of errors in the data due to improper coding by law enforcement, in the absence of a conviction, the general public often conflates false accusations with various other possible outcomes (e.g. unsubstantiated, administrative closures/suspensions, not guilty verdicts, etc.) (Gross 2009).

• Further obscuring the statistics, false accusations where there was intent to name an innocent person as the rapist, make up an unknown percentage of the total number of false reports coded in UCR as unfounded, which includes false accusations and fictitious complaints where no suspect was ever named (Marcotte 2013). Lonsway et al. (2009) found that studies on false reports of rape have shown, “Many ‘real’ false reports involve only a vaguely described stranger, so the victim can receive the caring attention of law enforcement officials and social service providers without the fear that someone will be arrested.” Marcotte (2013) says, “2-8 percent of reported rapes are false, but the number that are false accusations is smaller.”

I think making those nuances clear in the lead would give a more accurate picture of the fact that not only is it “difficult to assess the prevalence of false accusations,” it’s almost impossible to judge the accuracy of the UCR figures due to our inability to separate false accusations from the total number of false reports and the lack of empirical research supporting the UCR figures to begin with (Rumney 2006, Lonsway et al. 2009, Nolan et al. 2006, Sampson 2011, CJIS 2015, Marcotte 2013). I'm not so great at being concise though, so feel free to let me know which parts you think are extraneous/don't belong in the lead or better ways to word things. Permstrump (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I meant to also say that these same issues are brought up in all of the studies I've read so far about countries other than the US, but I don't have those citations on hand at the moment. Permstrump (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a new wording you would like to put in the lede? (The distinction between false report and false accusation is interesting and something the article doesn't presently cover, although I wonder how common it actually is to make a false report for sympathy given the notably terrible response of law enforcement to rape reports - all that means is that maybe we should check our language for precision.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Roscelese: It hadn't crossed my mind before, I read this article,[1] but now I've read multiple sources (cited below) that explain why people who do actually make false reports only name a suspect in about 50% or less of cases. You're right that it's counterintuitive that one would expect to gain sympathy from report rape (even if the rape actually occurred), but a lot of reports deemed to be false are made by people with mental illness and their motivations are not exactly based on sound logic. Here is my first attempt at reconstructing the lead taking into account that this is an article on false ACCUSATIONS, not false REPORTS, of rape.

A false accusation of rape is the intentional naming of an innocent person when reporting a rape to law enforcement.[2] A false report of rape includes both false accusations as well as complaints where law enforcement agents found through investigation that no rape occurred although no suspect was ever named.[3][4] Without adequate training, it's not uncommon for investigators to mistakenly view common responses by actual victims as indicators of a false report, leading them to overestimate the prevalence of false accusations.[5] The media and the general public often conflate false accusations with the failure to prosecute or convict a suspect and various types of administrative clearances (e.g. unsubstantiated, unfounded, suspended, closed, etc.), further compounding the overestimation of false accusations.[6][7][8][9]

It is not possible to assess the true prevalence of false accusations because most rapes go unreported.[10][11][12] In addition, the vast majority of data available measure cases that were deemed unfounded, which includes, but is not limited to false reports.[13][14] The limited amount of empirical research specifically on false reports that has been performed show the prevalence to be between approximately 2-8% internationally.[15][16][17] The literature on false reports very rarely separates statistics on the incidents of false accusations.[18][19] At least two studies have shown that a suspect was falsely named in about 50% or less of the cases deemed to be fabricated.[20][21] Varying definitions of relevant terminology and inconsistencies in law enforcement’s compliance with protocols for classifying crimes further obscure the accuracy of such estimates.[22] [23][24]

Eventually, I'd like to expand/add some sections in later parts of the article as well to elaborate more on false accusations versus false reports versus unfounded reports. For now, I'd appreciate feedback from whoever is interested on my suggestion for updating the lead. I didn't purposefully use any sources that don't support the content, so if it appears that way, it was just a mistake of copying the wrong website that I can easily update if someone points it out. I didn't find any mistakes like that, but I'm not so great at finding my own mistakes. :) Permstrump (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's useful trying to exclude "false reports" from "false accusations". A false report is still a false accusation, just against a John Doe instead. However, it is useful to distinguish against "insufficient evidence" classifications, which the article does many times currently (twice in the article's lead right now). Stickee (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources linked above that feel it's an important distinction. I'd also be fine with changing the title of this article to "False reports of rape" or "False allegations of rape." A lot of people hear "false accusations" and assume that a specific person was accused of a crime, so if we keep the current title, it's important to articulate clearly how we're using the terms and acknowledge the literature that discusses the difference between false accusations and false reports.

Even though the article mentions in multiple places that there's a difference between insufficient evidence and false reports, in other places the wording is ambiguous. So for example, in the lead it says, "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." That sentence can be read two ways,

1) 8% of rapes were regarded either as unfounded or as false, or

2) 8% of rapes were regarded as unfounded, i.e. false.

Neither version is correct according to UCR's definition of unfounded: reports that are found to be false or baseless. This is what that statistic really means, "8% of rapes were regarded as unfounded, an unspecified portion of which were false." It doesn't really roll off your tongue. Another way to say it is, "8% of rapes were regarded as either false or baseless, however UCR does not collect data separately on false versus baseless reports." Then later on in the article we'd probably want to explain what baseless means and how they're different. According to the DOJ, "The FBI does not separately track false reports; it tracks only the total number of unfounded reports. The category of "unfounded" consists of both baseless cases–in which the elements of the crime were never met–and false reports."[25] That was just one example, but there are several other places where this article conflates data on unfounded and false reports/accusations right after we just explained that people often confuse the two, or the wording is at least ambiguous. Permstrump (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, in the past 5 years there has been some empirical research specifically on false reports, not unfounded reports. Those studies are considered to be much more accurate than UCR data. And as far as this article is concerned, those studies were actually measuring the prevalence of what this article is about instead of a combination of arbitrary classifications that includes the topic of this article and forces the reader to guess any number less than than that and assume that it's "pretty close" to the prevalence of false reports. So instead of using FBI/DOJ statistic in the lead, we could say,

The vast majority of data available measure cases that were deemed unfounded, which includes, but is not limited to false reports.[26][27] The limited amount of empirical research specifically on false reports show the prevalence to be between approximately 2-8% internationally.[28][29][30]

Then later in one of the subsections, in the context of a discussion of the universally acknowledged flaws in UCR data collection and its unreliability, we can talk about how the FBI/DOJ UCR reports from 1996 showed the prevalence of unfounded reports to be 8% and what that means in terms of false reports. Permstrump (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"There are several reliable sources linked above that feel it's an important distinction". Once again not really. In the archives Roscelese provided two sources defining the scope, both of which don't require a perpetrator to be specifically named. [31] and [32]. "False allegation is defined as falsely alleging that a sexual assault has occurred against one's person, or the person of another". Stickee (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I said above that I'm fine with changing the title to false allegations of rape. Are you saying you agree with that? Right now it's false ACCUSATIONS, which implies a specific person was accused of something. Permstrump (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops I totally read the Hazelwood (2009) quote wrong. I guess I shouldn't do Wikipedia when I'm tired. Anyway, I agree that a title change to "false allegations" might solve this issue that's occurring. Plus this would make the title consistent with other article titles: False allegation of child sexual abuse. Stickee (talk) 12:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think "allegations" definitely makes it less ambiguous, especially if it's consistent with the child abuse article. How does one go about changing the title of an article? I'm newish at editing and didn't pay attention when I saw discussions about that kind of thing before b/c those times I didn't have an opinion about the title. (IDK how long I'm aloud to excuse myself as being new before I get called out on it, but I don't think I've gotten there yet.) I have a hunch that it's the kind of thing that would be "uncouth" for only 2 people to agree on and make an executive decision about. Amirite? Permstrump (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right that 2 people isn't enough. The correct procedure is a requested move, which gives other people (including people uninvolved with this page) the opportunity to voice their opinion. I'll review some sources before posting a move request. Stickee (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on False accusation of rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308223729/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Linda Fairstein addition

An unregistered user added a section about "America's Top Sex Crimes Expert" who apparently told Penthouse that "There are 4000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, half simply didn't happen" (and other related content). I reverted because Penthouse clearly is not a reliable source for this (and because the addition had lots of other problems).

A shorter version has now been added. Penthouse is still the only source. I have responded to the user's comment on my talk page, but I'm not interested to edit war. The content still seems inappropriate to me, but I'll leave it to a third party to revert (and if it's inappropriate, it's also worth considering the same addition to the Linda Fairstein article). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Original research clarification

The MoJ entry edited Nov 20 made use of referenced statistics on the fractional incidence of false rape accusation and the number of rape reports to estimate an actual number of false accusations per year. Is that really considered "original research"? Wouldn't it be helpful to provide some real numbers instead of sterile percentages to help people evaluate the extent of the problem. After all, on a percentile basis murder is also an "insignificant" crime - and there are more false accusations per year than there are murders.

Is the editing out of this part of the MoJ entry an attempt to keep the false accusation issue well sanitized?

Deletion of the Consequences of False Accusations section - Nov 20.

Removal of this section suggests a failure to abide by the neutrality pillar!

The impact of false accusations of rape and sexual assault have non-trivial consequences for the accused, their families and sometimes the community. The section included references to concerns raised in government sponsored reports and reports of two high-profile cases in which the victims described the traumatic experience of a false accusation. How is this "original research"? It seems to me that an "honest" contributor/editor would recognize that an account of the impact and challenges of a false accusation is a valid section for this page. It would inform more rational minds of the impact of false accusations and contribute to the dialog of how to approach the issue of false accusations in a way that maximises justice on both sides of this dreadful issue.

It also seems appropriate to use known and referenced statistics to attempt to estimate the numbers of people afflicted in the absence of better references.

Completely removing the section seem irresponsible and biased. If an editor disagrees, then let's work together to produce an improved and informative section rather that whitewash the entire issue out of existence. Make the issue available and let the community contribute.

Unfortunately, there seems to be very little referrable information on the topic, particularly on bail conditions, Social Services involvement, job loss etc. other than newspaper reports. The continued whitewashing and dismissing of an issue that impacts thousand of individuals per year and breaks up families discourages efforts at correcting this deficiency. If you feel concerned by the lack of citations, treat the section as other entries are treated - add a notice that the section lacks citations ... etc. etc.

I agree with the removing editor that this section appears to be original research. Generalizations like "This is widely criticized in legal circles as a violation of the assumption of innocence leading to inevitable bias in subsequent investigations." usually require a high quality secondary source to support them. Wikipedia doesn't exist to right great wrongs, and if there aren't quality sources on a topic, it doesn't need to be added. Nblund ^talk 03:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice that the statement was followed by references to the Elish report and the Henriquez report, both commissioned by the MPS. The Henriquez airs the concern beginning on page 14, paragraph 1.21 and ending 10 pages later with his Recommendation 2 That "The instruction to 'believe a victim's account' should cease....." The Elish report in paragraph 220 notes "It was, however surprising to hear the suggestion made in several focus groups, that it is police policy for officers always to ‘believe the victim’. It was clear too that this understanding caused resentment amongst some officers, especially when it led to a perception that they must continue to investigate cases regardless of whether or not the allegation was true, while being required to suspend disbelief." and in para 222 on page 57 states "The alternative approach of ‘always believing’ the complainant may prejudice the impartiality of the officer’s role and lead to their failing to recognise or give weight to other evidence inconsistent with the complainant’s account." Perhaps the editors of this page do not consider these authors and their investigations to be "quality sources"? Perhaps the editors have failed to note numerous newspaper reports of judges criticising the shortcomings of the current legal environment related to rape accusations. The intent of the additionwas not to "right great wrongs" but to provide reasoned information to balance the dismissal of false rape accusations as requiring attention because they are "insignificant". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.136.72 (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

If there isn't coverage of the issue, we can't add it into the article - it is one of the limitations of Wikipedia. Thus we can't generate our own statistics, or present our own interpretation of the situation. Unfortunately, you went beyond the sources to draw additional conclusions, as well as writing things that you presumably know to be true, but which weren't in any of the sources that you employed. I can understand the wish to add this sort of coverage, but unfortunately it is against policy. - Bilby (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

In that case, let me see you apply the same criterion to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#False_accusation and remove "The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) analyzed every rape complaint made over a 17-month period and found that actual false allegations made up less than 1%.[131][132]" Neither of the citation refer to 1% and the sentence misrepresents fact. The 1% was calculated by the author and the sentence conflates conviction in the cited articles with "actual false accusations".

Furthermore, you say that I "went beyond sources to draw additional conclusions". OK, so remove the "additional conclusions", not the whole section. Help the article get better instead of censoring it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.136.72 (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@189.172.136.72:

1. WP:SIGN your comments with ~~~~
2. WP:INDENT your comments one more than the previous with the appropriate number of :
3. Consider registering an account, you might be taken more seriously
4. Please don't edit with an agenda, this is called WP:TENDENTIOUS editing
5. Please provide a WP:RS for each potentially controversial statement made. In an article like this, for the statements you are trying to make, each statement needs to be directly based on a reliable source. Try adding a WP:REF for each sentence. You can re-use refs by giving them names per WP:REFNAME.

—DIYeditor (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Consequences of false accusation section

It seems discussion is required of a passage describing the consequences of false accusations. Since I am unable to complete the section as it is undone as I am typing, here is the draft of the entire section. The references do not copy although many of them are in the removed versions I was in the middle of entering. Maybe someone would show some willingness to collaborate on an informative narrative instead of deleting everything before it is completed.

I also note that some of the 'dubious' references objected to were government publications. Are newspaper reports not considered valid references? Are newspaper reports quoting government ministers not considered valid references? I also note that many articles leave uncited material but add a note that a citation is needed rather than delete an entire section. Why is deletion the preferred option on this page?

The argument of 'original research' for deleting estimates of incidence are not well justified. The entire purpose of statistical analysis is to allow extrapolation of sample research to an entire population. That is precisely what I was doing. What is the objection to providing an estimate of the incidence of a crime? Rather than deleting such efforts, perhaps offer an improved calculation.

Content collapsed; expand here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Number of false accusations The most explicit analysis of rape in the UK appears to be the Ministry of Justice report which suggested that 12% of all rape accusations were suspected of being incorrect and that 3% of rape accusations were identified as 'malicious'. The figures seem roughly aligned with other reports described above. Using the conservative 3% figure and a conserative number rapes reported per year in the UK, ~30,000 https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-offences-in-england-and-wales-uk-y-on-y/ provides an estimate of 'malicious' false accusations of ~1,000. This does not include sexual assault which is about 3 times more prevalent. A recent research article suggested that 70% of allegations of sexual assault of a child in contested family law cases in the UK were false https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265346094_False_allegations_of_child_abuse_in_contested_family_law_cases_The_implications_for_psychological_practice. Consequences to Accuser Prosecution Individuals suspected of making a false accusation of rape may be charged with the civil crime of "wasting police time" or the criminal charge of "Perverting the Course of Justice" with a maximum penalty of life in prison.( http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/perverting_the_course_of_justice_-_rape_and_dv_allegations/) Over a five-year period ending in 2014, a total of 109 women were prosecuted for crimes related to making false accusations of rape.[ http://time.com/3613506/prosecuting-women-for-false-rape-allegations/. The report did not indicate the verdicts following prosecution.] Another report identified 121 charging decisions involving allegations of false accusations of rape and an additional 11 false allegations of both domestic violence and rape between January 2011 and May 2012 and found of these cases, 35 were prosecuted based upon false accusations of rape. A further 3 were prosecuted based upon charges of false accusations of both rape and domestic abuse. The report did not indicate the verdicts following prosecution. http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf These numbers of prosecutions for false accusations, together with the above estimates of false accusations per year suggets a prosecution rate for false accusations of less than 2.5%. Compensation All individuals who claim to be victims of sexual abuse are entitled to awards under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) regardless of the outcome of the police investigation. Compensation for a single incident of rape is £11,000. (https://abuseandassaultclaims.co.uk/criminal-injuries-compensation-calculator/). Payments are made regardless of arrest or convictions of perpetrators and are difficult to recover from the false accusers. 'Nick', the discredited false accuser of 'Operation Midland is reported to have retained £50,000 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/09/operation-midland-police-helped-nick-claim-compensation-for-fals/. Jemma Beale who falsely accused 15 men, one of whom was convicted and jailed for almost 3 years received £11,000 that has reportedly not been recovered http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/03/fantasists-lied-sex-abuse-allowed-keep-compensation/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_fb. Accused Two categories of misdirected accusations of rape are recognised. Accusations motivated by malice and 'inadvertent' accusations due to a number of reasons such as 'misremembering' and psychological issues. From an investigative point of view all accusations are treated in the same way and there are widespread concerns that current investigative policies place an unjust burden on those who are falsely accused and upon their families. Investigatory Bias There is a police policy that investigators of crime reports 'believe the victim' (http://www.college.police.uk/News/College-news/Pages/College_comments_on_belief_of_victims_-.aspx, https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/crime-recording-making-the-victim-count.pdf). Serious concerns have been raised that this position has been unfairly biases the investigation in favour of the accuser, placing the burden of proof upon the accused to prove their innocenceWalker and Starmer, 1999. In the Elish report, Dame Elish stated "‘always believing’ the complainant may prejudice the impartiality of the officer’s role and lead to their failing to recognise or give weight to other evidence inconsistent with the complainant’s account." ( http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/vaw/dame_elish_angiolini_rape_review_2015.pdf - para 222) The recommendation in these documents go on to state.... "Our guidance on investigating these allegations calls for a thorough investigation of the facts. It is the credibility of the evidence, not solely the victim, that should be investigated”, concern has been expressed at the apparent misinterpretation of this directive by some investigators. Dame Elish stated "It was, however surprising to hear the suggestion made in several focus groups, that it is police policy for officers always to ‘believe the victim’. It was clear too that this understanding caused resentment amongst some officers, especially when it led to a perception that they must continue to investigate cases regardless of whether or not the allegation was true, while being required to suspend disbelief(para 220 p 57)( http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/vaw/dame_elish_angiolini_rape_review_2015.pdf). Metropolitan Police Chief confirmed this (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/18/police-watchdog-criticises-met-chiefs-comments-on-sexual-abuse-policy) and the same article quoted Sir Tom Winsor, head of the police watchdog HMIC was quoted as saying that the directive applied only to recording the crime and not to the entire investigation. Sir Richard Henriquez in his report to the Metropolitan Police Service states (para 1.24) "The effect of requiring a police officer, in such a position, to believe a complaint reverses the burden of proof. It also restricts the officer's ability to test the complainant's evidence"( http://nyenquirer.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/HENRIQUES-Report-Independent-Review-of-the-Metropolitan-Police-Services-handling-of-non-recent-sexual-offence-investigations.pdf). Lord Finkelstein, writing in The Times stated "The new principle is dangerous not just because it defies common sense. The real problem is that the police don't seek the truth, they construct cases. Starting with a rock-solid assumption that the victim is indeed a victim and the victim's story is correct, the temptation is strong to fit the facts to the story rather than test the story with the facts.( https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/destroyed-by-false-accusations-of-child-abuse-ljhv2w5q3) Personal impact A 2013 Huffington Post article quoted then Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer " "Where false allegations of rape and domestic violence do occur however, they are serious - reputations can be ruined and lives can be devastated as a result. This sentiment is also echoed in the Henriques and Elish reports. The most comprehensive report of the impact of false accusations of sexual assault perhaps comes from the Oxford Center for Criminology which reviewed the available literature and reported their analysis of interviews with 30 individuals who described their experiences of false accusations The impact of being wrongly accused of abuse Hoyle , Speechley & Burnett et al. 2016 University of Oxford Centre for Criminology . Alleged offences against elderly people or children may require police to demand that the alleged offender remove themselves from the vicinity of their accuser. The police may also make a safeguarding alerts ( https://patient.info/health/safeguarding-children) which may require separation of the alleged offender from other 'at-risk' individuals such as children or the elderly, resulting in loss of a business or suspension if the accused works in a field involving these at-risk groups. If the accused lives with, or visits their own children, police are obliged to alert Social Services who often require the accused to move away from their family or restrict visitation rights, thus impacting the entire family of the accused. In the United Kingdom, the accused may also be added to the Home Office Disclosure and Barring Service(DBS).[31] These restrictions remain at least until the police case is terminated which may take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. Social Services and other safeguarding restrictions may require a further hearing to meet their safeguarding requirements, since their criteria rely on the "preponderance of evidence" rules rather than the stricter "burden of proof" required by a criminal court. In some cases, even in a "he said, she said" case, organizations may decide to keep restrictions in place. Family life can be disrupted for years with negative impacts, particularly on young children. According to Webster (2005) "at least 10,000 former residents of care homes had made complaints by the end of 2004, with between 7,000 and 9,000 care workers having had accusations made against them: ‘Most of these care workers have not been charged with any offence, but many … had their lives blighted by false allegations. And in the last 15 years, as many as a hundred may have been wrongly convicted.’ (Webster 2005, p.550, and fn. 605)." Jensen and Jensen - ‘Hundreds more have been caught up in widespread police investigations and as a result have lost their professional reputation and personal standing. Lives have been shattered, careers have been lost and families have been torn apart.’ (Jensen and Jensen, 2011, p.iii) Curtis-Thomas - Their reputations have been blighted and even though we see them and their families emerge from the court looking happy, we know that the blight has not been removed, because beyond that court there are many organizations and authorities who will hold on to that reputation of guilt, making it impossible for an individual to return to a life. That sort of injustice, which is not covered by legal redress must remain a huge concern to all of us that there can be these organizations who still treat you as guilty and will affect their lives forever.’ (Curtis-Thomas, 2012) The cost of legal representation and in some cases the cost of maintaining multiple homes must be borne by the accused and there are no mechanisms in place to reimburse wrongly accused individuals for this cost burden, adding to the harm sustained by wrongly accused and their families. The number of false accusers with the financial resources to justify a civil suit to recover damages is unknown. According to the Oxford Centre for Criminology " All but two of the participants bore significant financial burdens despite awards of legal aid and damages. Several reported estimated losses of around £50,000 in legal fees, and much larger amounts for the loss of earnings while unable to work. In addition, many had significantly reduced pensions, given that they needed to take early retirement." The psychological impact of a false accusation has been widely publicized in media reports of some celebrity accusations.[32][33] It is further underlined in the Oxford Centre for Criminology report..... "Formal investigations, whether in a civil or criminal context, are harrowing for the accused person, and may result in immediate suspension from work and temporary restrictions on contact with children, and a record of having been reported and investigated, which can cause longer term damage to employment prospects and relationships. For cases which result in a guilty verdict, the punishment will be a lengthy period of imprisonment. When a defendant continues to assert their innocence, there will be added deprivations and barriers against privileges and parole." Stigma and vilification The stigma attached to being accused of abuse cannot be underestimated. It was a prevalent theme in each account. Stigma arose in two forms. First, from the actions and comments from others, who actively judged and excluded them, causing them to feel 32 shame and hurt. p 31 stigma was also generated within the accused themselves; the combination of abhorrence at what they had been accused of, and their inability to fully clear their name, caused extreme pain and embarrassment. At the broadest level, loss of self-confidence and ruined personal and professional reputation significantly affected the participants. p 32 Collateral damage to family and friendship circles Research suggests that one of the greatest effects of wrongful conviction is damage to significant relationships (Grounds 2005, p.34). Experiences of estrangement (even from those who have fully supported them) and resulting feelings of guilt are not uncommon (Jamieson and Grounds, 2005, p.173). In some cases, this can result in the breakdown of marital relationships (Grounds, 2005, p.32). There are considerable financial burdens accruing from this but loss of earnings is not the sole consequence; the wrongly accused may also face steep legal fees, the loss of a home, and financial pressure on their partner. For many, the loss of a vocation they had trained for and worked at for years caused multiple other harms. In our view, the cumulative impact of these interviews is both shocking and immense. It is widely accepted that to be described as a paedophile will be damaging. However, until we conducted this study, we had little grasp of the extent to which a false allegation is likely to affect every aspect of a person’s life, psychological, material and physical. Most of the participants, it should be recalled, were able to refute the accusations made against them at a relatively early stage of the legal process. Despite this, their lives were, to put it simply, wrecked. A survey by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers of 685 of its members found in 2015 that 22 per cent of school and college staff had been the subject of a false allegation of abuse by a pupil (Association of Teachers and Lecturers, 2015).

189.172.136.72 (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"The entire purpose of statistical analysis is to allow extrapolation of sample research to an entire population. That is precisely what I was doing." And that is exactly why this would be WP:SYNTH. I've not delved into the wall-o-text, but it seems like you're compiling your own list of statistics. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I saw your post on the NPOV messageboard. I'll go through the first paragraph in your proposed text and show you some things that are wrong with it.

• Number of false accusations The most explicit analysis of rape in the UK appears to be the Ministry of Justice report which suggested that 12% of all rape accusations were suspected of being incorrect and that 3% of rape accusations were identified as 'malicious'. Who says that this MoJ report is the most explicit analysis of false accusations of rape? What sources back up that claim? If it "appears" to you to be the most explicit analysis, then that claim is original research. Are there any secondary or tertiary sources that single out this MoJ report as particularly in depth, accurate, or notable?
• The figures seem roughly aligned with other reports described above. Again, "the figures seem roughly aligned" to whom? Whose voice is this statement being made in? If this alignment is something you yourself recognized without a source to back it up, then this is original research. Are there any sources that analyze multiple reports on false accusations and compare their results?
• Using the conservative 3% figure and a conserative number rapes reported per year in the UK, ~30,000 https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-offences-in-england-and-wales-uk-y-on-y/ provides an estimate of 'malicious' false accusations of ~1,000. Who is using that 3% number, applying it to the number of rapes reported in the UK and coming up with a "conservative" estimate of false accusations of rape? Unless it's a reliable source that makes this connection, you cannot use that number. It's original research and synthesis. Why the 3% number for malicious reports and not the 12% number for all false reports? Do the authors of that report claim their results can be extrapolated from their sample to the entire population of the UK? Do other sources back that up?
• This does not include sexual assault which is about 3 times more prevalent. A recent research article suggested that 70% of allegations of sexual assault of a child in contested family law cases in the UK were false https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265346094_False_allegations_of_child_abuse_in_contested_family_law_cases_The_implications_for_psychological_practice. This study is about a very specific situation (children of parents who are involved in family court proceedings) and finds that many of the claims made by the parents against each other are false - they're claiming child abuse in order to gain leverage in legal proceedings. These results are not generalizable. Unless you have a very strong reliable source linking this study to the larger problem of false accusations of sexual assault, it really should not be in the same paragraph as false accusations in general, and probably shouldn't be in this article to begin with, since it's such a specific case. I think that should be obvious just from reading the summary of that study, since its main focus is educational psychology, not criminal justice. Here's where they describe the accusations in their sample: "Of the total sample of 107 children, no allegations of physical or sexual abuse had been made by either party in 70 cases (65 percent). Allegations had been made in 37 cases (35 per cent). Of these cases, 20 (54 percent) were of physical abuse only, 11 (30 percent) were of sexual abuse only and the remaining six (16 per cent) were of both physical and sexual abuse.... Of the 37 cases where allegations of abuse had been made, 26 (70 per cent) were found in Court or were judged on the best available evidence to be false." Even in this incredibly specific scenario, your claim "70% of accusations of sexual abuse are false" is not supported - they do not separate sexual abuse from other types of abuse, and additionally it's based on a sub sample of just 37 cases. This is not a study you can use for any kind of general statement on false accusations of sexual assault.

I don't want to go through your entire proposal like this, but I hope you can see why your text keeps being removed by other editors. It does not meet Wikipedia's quality standards, and violates several basic guidelines for inclusion. I agree with you that the "Consequences" section could be improved by adding more material - an examination of the legal consequences of false reporting in various jurisdictions, the personal consequences for the accused, any societal consequences. However, the way you're going about this task is wrong. Find quality sources and write what they say in as neutral a tone as possible. Do not extrapolate from the sources, only write down what is explicitly stated within them. Balance the material with the other sections of the article, so that the article reflects discussion of the topic in reliable sources. If you can do those things, then other editors will be far more likely to respond positively to your proposals. Do not take it personally when your additions are deleted - that's simply one of the steps in discussing new material. It can always be added in later once others have a chance to review it and discuss it. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay with this. I did try writing a response earlier, but a crash meant that I lost what I wrote. First, the concerns above mirror my own in regard to the first paragraph, although I'll add that the report used for the 12% figure states that it should not be seen as statistically representative of the population as a whole, and thus can't be used to derive the figures calculated here.

In the section labeled "Compensation", the first example given is of Nick, who it is said received £50,000 compensation. However, the source being linked to says that they don't know if "Nick" received any compensation, but it it is possible that he was given up to £50,000. So I don't think we can say, based on that source, that he was compensated, as the source didn't know if he was or not. The text added also said that he was reported to have retained the money, but the source says that any money could be recovered if he is charged. As the process was still ongoing, I don't think that we can say that the money was retained.

In the "Consequences to Accused", the major problem was with the "Investigatory Bias" section. The sources made it clear that this is a complex issue, and my concern was that the account given seemed muddled as to how it expressed this, leading to an account that seemed inaccurate. Importantly, three of the sources made it clear that "believing the victim" was only in regard as to whether or not police recorded that a crime had occurred, not in regard to the investigation. However, this didn't come across in the text. I think any text on this topic would need to be more nuanced. - Bilby (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I reread the Telegraph article you dispute and could not find your quoted "didn't know". Perhaps I cited the wrong article. Here is the correct one. Would you quote the "didn't know" text directly so I can find it in the article. Furthermore, the article identifies 2 other payments to false accusers and quotes concerns about the issue expressed by Bob Neill, chairman of the all-party Commons Justice Committee. A member of Parliment and chair of the Commons Justice Committee acknowledges the problem. You apparently feel Wikipedia shouldn't acknowlede the issue. Why? And why do you feel that efforts to update an article should be deleted so quickly? In fact, as I was editing - which lost significant edits. You dismiss sections citing "dubious" sources, yet these same sources are used ( Telegraph, Guardian) are used in other sections of the Wiki Article. Most of all, the edits I lost because of your 'instant deletions' detailed the acknowledgement of the dreadful consequences of false rape accusations by the Crown Prosecution Service (in one of the documents cited by the Wiki Article) and by the Oxford Center for Criminology.....

CPS - At the outset it is important that we acknowledge the very damaging impact that a false allegation of rape or sexual assault – be it either malicious or misguided – can have on the person falsely accused. Reputations can be ruined and lives can be devastated as a result.

OCC - In our view, the cumulative impact of these interviews is both shocking and immense. It is widely accepted that to be described as a paedophile will be damaging. However, until we conducted this study, we had little grasp of the extent to which a false allegation is likely to affect every aspect of a person’s life, psychological, material and physical. Most of the participants, it should be recalled, were able to refute the accusations made against them at a relatively early stage of the legal process. Despite this, their lives were, to put it simply, wrecked.

If you care to go through the "wall of words" that I posted, you may see these references in the text that I was entering at the time I lost it due to your deletions. Is there anything so violating in ANY of that text, or other text that I have entered which warranted such rapid deletion, rather than a polite and considered effort to improve information on the topic of the page?

I also note that, other than truth, I have no agenda here. Like the OCC, I was shocked at the 'immensity' of the impact of false accusations of both rape and sexual assault and I am further shocked that, through ignorance or perhaps political motivations, there seems to be a reluctance in Wikipedia to share this information.189.172.136.72 (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It is always difficult having to revert text written by someone else, especially when they are clearly knowledgeable about the topic. However, where the text has issues, often it is better to take it off the article and work it out on the talk page, rather than try to fix it in situ.

With the case of "Nick", the claims were referenced to a Telegraph article. In the article it states "The Ministry of Justice refused to confirm or deny whether Nick had received a pay out", and then discuss what he could potentially have received. The second article you mention also covers "Nick", and doesn't state whether or not they have confirmed the compensation claim, but they link back to the first article. It is possible that they had received confirmation. That said, both articles also make it clear that Nick was still being investigated at the time - presumably any question of whether or not the Government would attempt to recover the compensation would depend on the findings of the investigation, so I'm not sure that Nick would be a good example either way. With the second example, the article only states that she received compensation - it doesn't say if there have been attempts to retrieve it. It might be better to skip the examples, and just say that it might be difficult to retrieve victims of crime compensation paid to people who were later charged with having made false allegations. Would a statement along those lines help? - Bilby (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

"Worldview" opinions

"The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." Talk about a totally worthless expression of opinion... This is why so many people refuse to participate in Wikipedia, too many self-inflated "editors". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flybd5 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I saw the notice, looking at the article, it would probably be good to add statistics from more countries. I saw this article about research done in India I think it would be a good idea to add to make the article a bit more 'international'? AspiringCheetah (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)AspiringCheetah

References

Definition Section Needed

The different studies here use different definitions of false accusation: particularly malicious accusations, prosecuted false accusations, and unintentionally false accusations. This deserves introduction and explanation. (Pulu (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC))

Agreed, that's a great idea. It would be illuminating to have a section that lists all the different definitions and explains what's the same and different about them, and the strength and weaknesses of each definition. Lonehexagon (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Claim of 2-10% Consensus Not Reflected by Studies Cited

This article opens with a false sense of consensus on 2-10% rate of false accusations of rape. The numbers are all over the map and reflecting nothing like a 2-10% consensus. I'm particularly concerned that the highest statistics surveys reported here all show rates out of this range; Kelly et al. (N=2,643) 25%, McCahil (N=1,198) 18.2%, HMCPSI/HMIC (N= 1,198) 11.8%, UK Ministry of Justice (N= 1,149) 12%. (I'm not counting the Crown Prosecution Service report here because they have a very different criteria.) A statistics-weighted average of these gives a rate of 16.4%. A statistics weighted average of all studies listed in this article gives 15.7%, which again is outside of the 2-10% range. I charted the false rape accusation rates reported in this article vs their statistical power below. For lack of better options, I put the studies that don't report their statistics at a power of 0. The chart shows nothing remotely resembling a 2-10% consensus.

(Pulu (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC))

A major issue you're accounting for is that Kelly et al., Harris and Grace, etc. are based on "no crime" determinations by police. That's not the same as "false". Please also see WP:OR. The "consensus on 2-10%" comes from the DiCanio reference. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I would interpret "false" accusations as accusations that are not true, and therefore incompas accusations where no crime occurs. Anyway, this is point of confusion highlights the need for a definitions section and results separated by definition.

A report by one source isn't the same as a general agreement and the 2-10% should be referenced as such without the false pretense of consensus that is contradicted by the rest of the article. Why is this one source privileged with the only number listed in the introduction?

This isn't original research, just a summary of what's written in this article. Pulu (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

While there are others out there, the 2-10% range is rather accepted (at least "on one side"). Lonsway 2010 mentions the range. Lisak et al. 2010 (and other Lisak articles) are fairly widely cited using this range. Though primary research, this was supported by Kelly 2010. Others argue we just don't know ([33]). On "the other side", you have people like John O. Savino and Brent Turvey who lambast the 2% statistic (which most researchers agree is incorrect). Thus far, the best I can find is the Lisak analyses. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment. This weighted graph is an example of original research (WP:OR) and therefore the results cannot be included on Wikipedia. Additionally, this is not true: "The numbers are all over the map and reflecting nothing like a 2-10% consensus." The stated percentages are, Dicanio (2-10%), Australian Institute of Family Studies (5%), National Sexual Violence Resource Center (2-10%), Crown Prosecution Service report (0.6%), Lisak (5.9%), Burman, Lovett & Kelly (4%), Ministry of Justice (3-12% depending on the definition used), Police in Victoria, Australia (2.1%), Rumney (1.5-90%), British Home Office study (2.5-8%), FBI statistics (8%), and Kanin (41%). Rumney has outliers both above and below. The Crown Prosecution Service report has it below 2% at 0.6%. The Ministry of Justice estimates 3-12%, which is not far over 10. The biggest outlier is Kanin, and this study is the oldest in the article, includes only 109 people and has been harshly criticized for its methods. The majority of studies fall within or close to the 2-10% range. If desired, the 2-10% number could be cited with the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (2015), which is a recent overview of multiple studies. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I just want to second Lonehexagon and others comment that the chart is OR. What you're talking about here is a meta-analysis, which is hardly a routine calculation. The real debate about these findings revolves around the validity of the definition of "false accusation", a weighted average based on sample size isn't especially helpful if the studies aren't even measuring the same thing. Nblund ^talk 19:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Pulu is advocating adding that graph to the article. He's just posting it here on the talk to demonstrate the point he is making. Stickee (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If there's no intention to use any of these conclusions in the article, then I'm not sure what the point of the discussion is. FWIW: I think it's probably more common to weight by the inverse of the variance, rather than the square root of the sample size alone. Using that approach is likely to result in a much lower weighted average. But there's not really a consensus on the best approach. Regardless, this is obviously outside of our pay grade as Wikipedia editors, and so we should simply stick with the estimate published in reliable sources rather than trying to do academic research. Nblund ^talk 23:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Pulu:: In which journal have you published your meta-analysis? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevent Sections

The Tuerkheimer section does not address or discuss the subject of false accusation of rape, and should be moved to another page that addresses under reporting. Similarly, the first sentence in the National Sexual Violence Resource Center section. (Pulu (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC))

Agree on both counts: they don't say anything about the prevalence of of false allegations. However, there is a passing reference to false allegations in Tuerkheimer. Stickee (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Oppose removing Tuerkheimer. The Tuerkheimer paper is completely on topic. It examines the literature on false allegations of rape, which is exactly what the "False accusation of rape" article is about. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Regarding the The National Sexual Violence Resource Center, perhaps we could change it to say, "The National Sexual Violence Resource Center stated that false rape reports are estimated to make up between 2% and 10% of all rape reports." Lonehexagon (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed this section as per Bold, revert, discuss. The section was about the "estimates of prevalence" - however the text in the Wikipedia article had nothing to do with that! It was all about legal system prejudices. It would be far more suited to an article like Rape investigation. Stickee (talk)

I agree that the text as written did not seem relevant and certainly wouldn't have belonged in the list of studies at any rate, even if the source contained info about false accusations that might belong elsewhere in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Crown Prosecution

Hi, just noting that I reverted the addition of the percentage to the CPS section since none of the sources make that comparison. Other studies do, but not this one. We can't go emulating calculations by other studies unless this one has too. Stickee (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Simple arithmetic is allowed on Wikipedia if it adds context to the subject. If the whole section is about rates of prevalence, why would you only remove the percentage from one paper? Some of the other papers have also been calculated, why remove just this one? Lonehexagon (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Some of the other papers have also been calculated Which ones? Stickee (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Remove Rumney's chart?

I propose removing the chart of sources from the "Rumney (2006)" section. None of the other studies have a chart like that and there's no reason to keep it for just one study. Additionally, the chart doesn't include enough information about any source to actually look it up, so it contains no usable information. This is due to the fact that the sources were copy-pasted from the original paper without actually bringing over the citations from the bibliography, which could also possibly be a copyright violation. Lastly, the study has been specifically criticized for its sourcing, so it's especially odd this is the only study that lists its sources with percentages in a prominent chart. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Why would the other studies have a chart like that? They are not surveys. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not true, there are other meta-analyses in the article. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This study is a meta-analysis, so it makes sense to keep it, as Roscelese said. Stickee (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Should we bring over the list of sources from all the other meta-analyses? Lonehexagon (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It's important to not remove this chart. It gives an excellent review of research and presents an important sense of balance and neutrality to the article. (Pulu (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC))

There are known issues with the sourcing of that study, so it doesn't make sense to include them as a list, when it's the only paper that does that. Not only that, several of the other papers are also the result of multiple sources, just like Rumney's paper. Should we add charts for all the other studies, too, so it's more balanced? At the very least, if the chart is going to be included in the article, the full information should be brought over. It is completely useless to cite "Theilade and Thomsen (1986)" in a wikipedia article without any explanation of who "Theilade and Thomsen" were and what paper is being referenced. Someone just copy/pasted the chart directly from the paper. Wikipedia doesn't allow direct copy/pastes like that. WP:COPYPASTE The information needs to be re-stated with the author's own words. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Rumney chart must be removed because it was copy/pasted from the source. The chart is copy/pasted directly from page 136-137 of the cited paper. According to WP:COPYPASTE, any information put on Wikipedia must be changed to be in the author's own words. There cannot be copy/pasted content on Wikipedia, as it is plagiarism and may violate copyright laws. Lonehexagon (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Compilations of data are not copyrightable under US law. Stickee (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

According to Copyright.gov, that doesn't apply to this chart. That only applies to compilations that are a "purely mechanical task with no element of original selection, coordination, or arrangement, such as a white-pages telephone directory." Lonehexagon (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

It's an ordered list of studies. Stickee (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem. It is a a hand-picked, ordered list of studies which was literally copy/pasted word-for-word from a research paper that likely took weeks if not months or years of work compiling together. The copy/paste includes references to papers that aren't cited anywhere in the Wikipedia article. According to Wikipedia about lists: "If they are creative in selection or presentation, information is usable but only if presentation and selection are significantly altered." If a Wikipedian wants to use the data, they have to use the data directly and put it in their own words, not copy/paste a chart line-by-line. Lonehexagon (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

As per the example in your linked essay, it's only copyrightable if there's value judgement. Rumney is simply listing all available police research. If there is value judgement added, such as reliability or weight then it may be copyrightable. If you disagree with this chart, I suggest you pursue other arguments than badly attempting to apply the law. Stickee (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The author picked these sources. There is no "all available police research" as any researcher has to seek out and choose which research to include. Some of the sources were his personal conversations with officers. His particular selection is what makes his analysis unique. If someone is going to bring over the data, they need to significantly alter the presentation to prevent a copyright infringement. Lonehexagon (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

"Some of the sources were his personal conversations with officers" That means there's even less value judgement. I note your edit summary of "it's against the rules to delete something just because you don't like it" - rather ironic since that's exactly what you're trying to do here. There's no consensus for your removal, so as per consensus policy it stays. Furthermore there actually appears to be support for it's inclusion here. Stickee (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Change intro

The current intro:

A false accusation of rape is the reporting of a rape where no rape has occurred. It is difficult to assess the prevalence of false accusations because they are often conflated with non-prosecuted cases under the designation "unfounded". However, in the United States, the FBI Uniform Crime Report in 1996 and the United States Department of Justice in 1997 reported that 8% of accusations for forcible rape had been determined through investigation to be unfounded.

It uses FBI's "unfounded" designation and statistics from 1995-97, which was not reported similarly across all police jurisdictions, and can include cases where the victim did not physically fight off the suspect, the suspect did not use a weapon, or cases where the victim had a prior relationship to the suspect. Additionally, this isn't an article about false rape accusations in the US, but in general, so it doesn't make sense to have 20-year-old FBI statistics in the intro. It's generally agreed as a range of 2% to 10%, so I feel like the beginning should be changed to this:

A false accusation of rape is the reporting of a rape where no rape has occurred. It is difficult to assess the true prevalence of false rape allegations, but it's generally agreed that rape accusations are false about 2% to 10% of the time.

I think that's pretty uncontroversial, and much more straightforward. Plantlady223 (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, makes sense to remove the old statistics and US bias. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Which reference will be used for this? The NSVRC one? The Lisak study (2010) also states that they estimate the prevalence to be 2-10%. Stickee (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

We could list both, though I think the NSVRC one should work. Most studies listed on the page fall into that general range: https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf Plantlady223 (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

We could also list neither. This seems like to much detail, and US centric at that for the lead in my view. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense. I support listing neither, since the 2-10% statistic is well supported in the article, which includes several studies from around the world in addition to the US. Plantlady223 (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't make any changes to the intro text, but just added the DiCanio and Lisak reference to support the 2-10% sentence. Experience tells me from other articles that if there's a possible controversial statement in the lead without a ref tag, drive-by IPs will whack the {{cn}} tag on it, even if it's supported later in the text. Preventative measures! Stickee (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Should there be a chart/table at the start?

In regards to the "handy graph" added in this edit. I don't think it quite characterises the content is summarises. Plus there's the issue acknowledged with this edit:There are different definitions used to determine what constitutes a "false" accusation, including particularly malicious accusations, prosecuted false accusations, and unintentionally false accusations.. Furthermore the studies used in there are measuring vastly different things: some are estimates of overall rate, some are confirmed cases only, some are prosecuted cases only. For us to compare them like that is not only factually incorrect, but probably OR too. Stickee (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Statistics

When the article gives numbers, it should also give numbers for rape accusations made to police forces. No-one can prove the real reasons the women had when making or withdrawing the claims, and they must be taken simply as what their are: accusations made to authorities. Feminist questionnaries are not trustable there as they, and their handling is politically biased. The common sense tells many of the accusations were just malevolent tries to hurt the another side and if they didn't reach the stage of court, that doesn't diminish the try to lie.

The only trustable number we have is the claimed and court decided cases. The relation of those to all accusations made to police gives us the only reliable number for false accusations. And that is not 2% --J. Sketter (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

In this respect the latest FBI data reported in the 2017 March edition of the Journal of Forensic Psychology addresses your concern most precisely. Please read the related section in the article. Isananni (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

What I don't understand

I simply fail to understand how many otherwise intelligently honest Wikipedia editors seem to think via the following line:

• if there is rape accusation that is withdrawn before the deeper examination, it must have been surely forced withdrawal by a real victim.

In real world we just can't know without a detailed examination (that's why we have courts) and the sensible attitude is to a attach probability to each case as 50%. Now the current dominating POW in the article and talk page seems to be that almost in every case the claims are made by real victims, only to withdrawn by some outer force. Like violent partner, family, lack of trust to authorities etc.

And these are backed up by questionnaries. As if a dishonest person would really confess their lies there. And not to whitewash themselves. Also studies made by feminists are not much more trustable in general. Again in the real world we know politically motivated science is not good or honest science. For start drawing conclusions from base of polls is a very difficult art. It might tell us more of the intentions of the replyee (as the subject of study is not any, say subatomic particle, but a human with own will and own motives). Most importantly it gives trends, and those it gives right. Whatever the reason behind the trend is. --J. Sketter (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Data from German police

I would like to add this data from Germany to the article. The current version is:

A false accusation of rape is the reporting of a rape where no rape has occurred. It is difficult to assess the true prevalence of false rape allegations, but it is generally agreed that, for about 2% to 10% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.

I would like to edit it by adding the following text about regional variations:

A false accusation of rape is the reporting of a rape where no rape has occurred. It is difficult to assess the true prevalence of false rape allegations, but it is generally agreed that, for about 2% to 10% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted. But this may vary by country and region, according to Chief Criminal Investigator Britta Rabe, 80% of rape allegations in Germany's Rostock don't hold up to scrutiny.

Alternatively, it can also be added as: 1.14 Police in Rostock, Germany (2015).

Well, after thinking about it, I guess we should add it to Estimates of prevalence. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Estimates of Prevalence is probably the most appropriate section for this contribution.Isananni (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems like this runs into the definition issue that we already discuss in the article. I don't read German very well, but to me, "doesn't stand up to scrutiny" sounds more like "not enough evidence to convict" than "a malicious report of a crime that didn't happen", which is what the article was about. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Mmmh, no, when any accusation does not hold up to scrutiny it means it’s baseless, meaning either the crime was not committed or the action was not a crime according to present law. E.g. one of the women who testified against Judge Kozinski in the USA claimed that he allegedly once stared at her too intensely when she went into his office (some 12 years earlier...) Regardless of the difficulty of proving this claim beyond any reasonable doubt, I am rather sure that the mere action of looking at someone in whatever way is not a punishable crime according to present law, hence the accusation is baseless. However, my example is about alleged sexual harassment, where boundaries are blurry. The defition of rape is generally much clearer and if the German Police says x% of the accusations do not hold up to scrutiny, we can safely assume that the accusation was false or it would have been subject to judicial review as a case of disputed consent. Isananni (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This piece that Domen von Wielkopolska added to the lead was WP:Undue weight. Also read WP:Lead. Glad that Domen von Wielkopolska reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Roscelese: to me, "doesn't stand up to scrutiny" sounds more like "not enough evidence to convict" than "a malicious report of a crime that didn't happen", which is what the article was about. Are you serious? You can't take sides here. Every failed report can be either malicious or not. If the accuser withdraws, the initial accusation could still have been intentional and malicious try to achieve something or not. If the accusator changed her mind at some point, doesn't matter. But now, to interprete words "doesn't stand up to scrutiny" to mean there actually was a crime, is almost dishonest. --J. Sketter (talk) 23:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the lead was not the correct position for this edit, but since the article speaks of rape accusations that are “vorgetauscht”, which means “false” in German, giving estimates of prevalence, I think it can be an interesting addition in the estimates of prevalence section. False accusations of rape are a problem everywhere, not just in the USA. Isananni (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Isananni: No one is positing that this is a US-specific problem, only that the explanation provided by our American sources regarding the difference between an accusation of a crime that did not occur (the subject of our article) and one that does not result in a criminal conviction may also apply to other countries. Frankly, your off-topic commentary here does not lend you a lot of credence. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: What exactly is off topic in my comment? a) that an article providing estimates on false accusations of rape in Germany does seem to belong in this page in the estimates of prevalence section? b) that the German word “vorgetauscht” in the headline of the article means “false”, not simply “baseless” or “not leading to a conviction due to lack of evidence”, hence the article seems to apply to the criteria of this page? c) that having estimates of prevalence from countries other than the USA would make this page more complete? Isananni (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The information from Rostock belongs into suitable sub-section that can be made. I didn't see any notification or other reason to force Domen von Wielkopolska to retreat his/her contribution. Only that it, as a single example, didn't belong to the lead. Either we create a section based on case or country (German Police 2011, Rostock Police 2014, FBI 1999, Finnish Police 2015 etc.) or, IMO very much worth of considering, organise the content based on police statistics vs. other sources. As field police point of view in all countries seems to be in deep contrast with other sources.

For example in 2014 Helsinki Police informed 2/3 of reports of sexual crimes were either completely made up, not crimes or the accuser had dropped the claim. Now that's a huge difference to the claim that only 2% of accusations are false. Whatever the reason, this fact must be duly respected and the contradiction discussed thoroughly in the article too.

Any arbitrary and overly strict "definition of false rape" should not be allowed to prevent normal, common sense treatment of the subject in the article. Sure that way someone could try to gate-keep personally unpleasant facts out of the article, but that kind of attitude should not be practised when we want to give the reader a good and thorough review to the subject. As always, the more detailed division can be made in the article itself.

The benefit of this is transparency for any casual reader who passes by to read the article. The lead must be kept as neutral and concise as possible, but otherwise you shouldn't be afraid of space or lines spent. There is not and will not be any shortage of them here. --J. Sketter (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The contradiction is what makes this a problem - relying on unofficial reports and newspaper coverage, we have a radically different value than every other report. Unless something very, very unusual is happening in those two countries, this discrepancy suggests that we at least need better sources before we make such a claim. - Bilby (talk) 04:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

This. There's no need to report every estimate of false accusations. Police points of view aren't subject to peer review, don't necessarily have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and usually aren't viewed as authoritative (or even credible) by experts. In fact, there is quite a bit of literature in the US showing that police routinely mis-classify accusations as "false" (see pdf). Police estimates - especially when they are as vague as the ones cited here, are extremely low quality sources for statements of fact. Nblund ^talk 18:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@J. Sketter: Any arbitrary and overly strict "definition of false rape" should not be allowed to prevent normal, common sense treatment of the subject in the article? Geez, yeah, why would encyclopedia editors think it's important to have a meaningful definition of the article's topic? I can't fathom such a strange desire. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:38, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Finnish police

I don't quite see what @Bilby: means when saying we need better sources? The Finnish sources in question are: our national broadcast company, a respected daily newspaper and one tabloid. And of course in every three ocassion the Helsinki Police. All three articles from separate years 2009, 2010 (altho these 2 might be partially from the same statistics), 2014 follow a consistent view of the police. All in all they are reliable to present that exact stance. That doesn't mean all the accusations/reports were made maliciously, but do include eg. cases where the woman simply drank her memory and came to police to get the medical examination pass the queue. Just in case. And that is IMO quite acceptable use of tax payers money. When The Helsinki Police went to Facebook it was even slightly humorous about the subject; that IMHO tells that police itself was quite confident in it's ability to filter out also the liers.--J. Sketter (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that every other country we have reports a level of false accusations of rape between 2.1% and 8%. Then we suddenly get two - Finland, with widely varying claims from 20% to 2/3, and Germany with 80%, both based on newspaper reports or an unofficial report. This suggests three possibilities - a) Finland and Germany are seriously out of step with the rest of the world in regard to false rape claims; b) the figures for those two countries cannot be directly compared (or used) as they include situations other than false rape claims; or c) the data is incorrect. If it is a), I'd like to see a genuine formal study or official findings clarifying that these are false rape cases at those levels, because it is an extremely strong claim to make without formal data; if it is b) or c) (which is far more likely) we can't use the data. - Bilby (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The 2% rate was never a reliable, academically proven statistics in the first place. It is based on a feminist author, Susan Brownmiller, citing a judge giving an offhand comment over dinner in the early 1970s. No wonder other on field studies differ, even significantly.Isananni (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The official percentage for no-crimes decisions by Finnish Police (the whole country) of the cleared reports varied 1999-2010 anywhere between 9,1 and 32,4%, average (by eye) being somewhat under 20%. That the aggregate rejection portion raised close to 2/3 in Helsinki area would be surprising, but not impossible.--J. Sketter (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

And 80% for Germany? We're still talking about a jump from a high of 8% in the US to 66% in Finland and 80% in Germany. I don't see those statistics as trustworthy without a better study to draw on. - Bilby (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

That "almost 2/3%" was in the 1st half of 2014 only. --J. Sketter (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC) And in the capital only.--J. Sketter (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So it is also potentially a significant aberration from the norm, with a small sample in a specific area. That would explain the unusual claim, but makes it less useful as a source. - Bilby (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bilby: higher rates were recorded in academical studies in the US too: Kanin's work is an excellent study, albeit coding an accusation as "false" only when the accuser ultimately admitted to lying, and the rate was 41%. We have similar rates of 40% accusations of rape being ultimately labelled as false in Italy after judicial reviews, with or without the accuser's recantation, a recantation that is not exactly to be expected even though it is desirable since we can all agree false accusations in general, not only false rape accusations, are a plague that destroys the victim's life, where the victims are the falsely accused and their families of course. Rates may vary according to location of course. It comes to me as no surprise that cities have higher rates of false accusations than smaller towns and villages since proximity makes it easier to unmask the lie. Rates can be also culture driven. The sooner civil rights for women were won in a country, the sooner someone started taking advantage of the system. I honestly do not see why an article reporting on a police study should not be considered a reliable source and why we should be afraid of reading higher rates for false rape accusations than propaganda feeds us. Isananni (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with an article reporting on a police study. That would mean something. But these sources are an unofficial study, a Facebook post, and a personal opinion. - Bilby (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You Bilby could be served with a million items of circumstancial or anecdotal evidence and you shrugged them all of. Because you though they were flies :). And flies don't belong to a soup nor a Wikipedia article.

Seriously, if you go to extreme and demand a proof an accusation was baseless and an intentional lie - then you could get whatever small percentage there is. For instance that infamous 2%. Now that'd be close to what I meant when talking about too strict a definition of the article subject. Honestly it seems to me and to police forces around the globe that women often actually lie about rape. If the lies don't lead to a capture or sentencing of the man, or if the lie is not punished is to me here of the 2nd order importance. I'd just like to see it recognized some way that these people try to pervert the justice system. Succesful or not.

It'd be better to create a separate section like "Police opinion" or anything. At the moment the "Estimates" section that contains mostly academic some kind of studies has problems and I recognise they are due to my edits. The new section should be free of too rigorous strict demands (well you read my personal opinion of rigorousness of feminist research) and the fact appropriately informed to the reader in a suitable manner, if any is needed at all. --J. Sketter (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC) --J. Sketter (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect if we had a million examples of circumstantial or anecdotal evidence, we'd be moving into quantitative data territory. :) I'm fine with mentioning figures on the incidences of false rape claims - we should be doing that. But we should ensure that we only use reliable figures, which means official reports and peer-reviewed sources, and we need to limit this specifically to statistics about false rape accusations. Facebook posts, unofficial reports, and individual opinions published in newspapers don't meet the threshold for reliability, and figures which include more than false rape accusations are of limited value. - Bilby (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, may I remove all the researcher own opinions and conclusions from the article then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Sketter (talk • contribs) 16:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

J. Sketter: the three newspapers that quoted the police aren't secondary sources - they aren't fact-checking the claim and so they don't lend it any additional credibility. Peer-reviewed published research by noteworthy experts (people like David Lisak) are considered reliable estimates for the prevalence of false accusations. We might decide that (regardless of their accuracy) claims by police officers are noteworthy enough to mention somewhere in the article - but these claims aren't reliable sources for statements of fact about this subject. Nblund ^talk 17:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@J. Sketter: It seems like you're continuing to re-insert disputed material without really engaging the discussion here. The onus is really on you to work on resolving this issue before re-adding disputed content. There are real questions about the accuracy of these claims. There are also some issues with NPOV here - it really seems like you are cherry-picking quotes from non-notable sources - with the goal of offering a counterpoint to statistics from reliable academic sources. Nblund ^talk 15:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

You make it sound like I was editing the whole weekend w/o talking. The police accounts I've added are reliable sources for police point of view on why it happens and, yes how often it happens. They enlighten well the phenomena in general besides or, should I say behind the simple numbers/percentage of 'not evidence' or whatever. --J. Sketter (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The 1st FB-post (from which the quote is) was noted by 3 newspapers and YLE. IMO it's enough notable. Can't 'cherry pick' quotes from a post that solely aims to criticise people who make false reports after drunk evening /cheating and a) waste police time b) lie to them. I don't know why the Police as officials would simply lie for instance about the numbers? There the onus is solely with you. Again I say, that it's possible and try to push the article content to direction, where "false rape" equals only "proved false in court and with malicious intent". But that doesn't handle the subject comprehensively enough. The definition in the article lead reads: "...reporting of a rape where no rape has occurred." ,after all. --J. Sketter (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

So are we in agreement that these aren't reliable for statements of fact about the prevalence of false accusations? If so, then why is the claim enlightening at all? Can you show that these represent "prominent viewpoints" on this issue? They don't appear to have received any coverage beyond a couple of short articles inside of Finland - are there secondary sources that demonstrate that Helsinki police are prominent authorities of the prevalence of false accusations? Or that their claims are part of a wider debate on the prevalence of false accusations? We should apply the definition used by reliable sources - and the police aren't a reliable source here. Nblund ^talk 16:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Helsinki Police clearly is in position to offer a significant view what becomes to crimes and criminals in Helsinki Area. An excellent section in itself, the "Estimates of prevalence" is not well made to tackle with questions like why or who. Hence we need to discuss those elsewhere in the article. Lastly, no we are not in agreement of the reliability of the sources or the importance of their content regarding to the subject. --J. Sketter (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

If the goal is the answer "why" and "who", then shouldn't we delete the references to the prevalence of false accusations offered by police? This has been the main point of contention anyway. Police in general do not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy when it comes to these claims - as I mentioned - we can point to peer reviewed research quoted in this article that attest to that fact. Can you provide some contrary evidence to demonstrate that police in Helsinki are [authoritative] on the subject of false accusations of rape and sexual assault? Nblund ^talk 19:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The HPD had observed, however subjectively, that many of the reporters 2008-2014 had drunk their memory or intoxicated themselves to point where actions to regret happened. The phenomenom had got so widespread that it pushed police to make several public pleas. The more women drink, the more often they come to the police station to make very uncertain claims of rape. This observation is worth of mentiong in itself (But hardly surprising nor unique, globally). I'm not sure what exact quantitative statements you did mean?

1. more than 20% of reports of sexual assault led to "no crime" decision
2. the most usual reasons for baseless reports were ...
3. 2/3 of cleared sexual crime reports in the first half of the year 2014 in Helsinki were either completely wrong, no crime was included or the accuser had dropped the claim.

1) hardly controversial 2) yes, a statement of Mrs. Sgt. Vuento who had specialized in handling sexual crimes 3) not controversial as soon as we got to know what exactly "completely wrong" stands for in statistics.

"Can you provide some contrary evidence to demonstrate that police in Helsinki are considered authoritative on the subject of false accusations of rape and sexual assault?" This and much of the previous post of yours is just a try of wikilawyering. I already said a police force is clearly an expert on crime in it's area. I don't see any need to "prove" self-evident things. --J. Sketter (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

By "references to the prevalence of false allegations" I'm referring to the claims that 2/3rds or 80% of rape claims are false in those districts. Why not delete these statements as a starting point? I went ahead and posted a question about this on the reliable sources noticeboard. I think there are still major neutrality issues, but the RS issue seems more straightforward so I figure we could tackle it first. Nblund ^talk 19:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to keep the discussion here instead of RS Board as I think the main point is not reliability but the definition of the article subject and the comparability of the numbers. I added yet another police account and you start to see the picture: women just drink too much, end up to a bed with someone, regret and then... file a false report of rape that adds up in statistics. It's not rocket science. --J. Sketter (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Your lack of understanding that someone who is too impaired to consent to sex, and wakes up with evidence of sexual contact having occurred that they did not consent to, is a rape victim, is an indication that you are not qualified to be editing this article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if I have Finnish as my mother tongue, English on the other hand is not. So some times I can poorly choose the words in my translation. Inspector Hahl said this: "Joko havahdutaan siihen, että seksi on käynnissä, taikka aamulla on sellainen tuntemus, että seksiä on harrastettu, mutta ei ole mitään muistikuvia siitä, Hahl kertoo. Hahl ei viittaa tapauksiin, joissa on tarkoituksella harrastettu seksiä tajuttoman henkilön kanssa, mikä on laissa kiellettyä." In the last sentence it reads he definitely doesn't refer to cases where an unconsious person was intentionally abused. I'll write the text anew but you should have known simply from the existence of the explanatory sentence, however poorly formulated that your first impression was mistaken. And you should have acted accordingly. Also this was really a silly excuse from you to remove also other text not related to this issue. --J. Sketter (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The text you added refers to a person "passing out after drinking" who then "becomes aware of sex happening" - this sounds like an unconscious person waking up while they are being sexually assaulted - this would be rape. Perhaps something is just getting lost in translation, but the article you added in that section doesn't appear to be referencing false allegations it all, it appears to be discussing instances where an accusation of rape didn't proceed to trial - which doesn't mean it was false. Nblund ^talk 21:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

For a chance I agree with you. This newspaper article text appears so contradictory it makes it difficult to use the article here. No translation issues there. --J. Sketter (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reliable in limited context - (via RSN) I would view them as authoritative first-person sources speaking of their own location and that year, which may be a local anomaly or agree that this may be talking about all 'unfounded' cases rather than just those proven false. (A second party analysis would be useful to tell me what the case is here and why, and need some more prominence of WP:WEIGHT to show these particular items worth a mention.) I seem to recall an authoritative UK study was something like 80% undetermined, 10-15% proven true, 6% proven false. And for accuracy the whole set needs to be said -- saying only the '15% true' gives a false impression that 85% are false, as giving only the '6% false' gives a false impression that 94% are guilty - when the main point is that most cases are never proven either way. Cheers (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that some additional clarity may be useful for those sections. Regarding the study, I think you're referring to the 2005 British Home Office study. That study found that police classified about 9% of cases as false - but the researchers concluded after some scrutiny that a large portion of these were not classified using the appropriate criteria and the proper rate was probably closer to 3%. They also note that both figures were "considerably lower than the extent of false reporting estimated by police officers interviewed" in the study. That finding is consistent with other research showing that police officers vastly overestimate the frequency of false accusations - it's exceedingly hard for me to see how police could be called reliable sources here given that virtually every source we cite in the "Estimates of Prevalence" section makes note of the fact that police classifications are flawed. Nblund ^talk 18:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

in general I naturally agree on Markbassett (talk) comment. Especially on the observation that was presented via an example: both sides of the number-problem need to be handled in the article. What becomes to "appropriate criteria", have you ever thought possible that actually police lets go many people who strictly legally deserved a fine or even more? And those cases don't end up in any 'false' section in your stats. Merely a mention that there was no evidence for crime. That is one of the problems with your researches who try to push the false percentage to the absolute minimum and claiming those are merely cases of "insufficient evidence" - or discrimination against poor innocent citizens. That's why we need other voices than just feminist academics who do it for politics. --J. Sketter (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

If you want to make an argument that these findings are invalid, you need to find sources that support that argument directly and explicitly. We aren't going to discount sources based on your speculation about police practices or the ideology of researchers. Nblund ^talk 20:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The criteria itself is invalid for handling the subject comprehensively. I say it here yet for the umpteenth time and you've already given a lot of reasoning supporting that in this thread. --J. Sketter (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

An EC study by an anti-abuse group put national rates at about 4% false rape charges with variations as high as 9% down to 2%, and a more concerning extensive range of conviction rate from 85% down to 3%. They also noted that experts tended to overestimate the false rape charges figure. (I would guess there may be an exaggerated awareness due to negative effects -- waste of time, discredit to legitimate cases, damage to the unjustly accused, and general outrage.) The UK has prosecuted a number for false accusations, as reported by The Guardian. Quartz also has a readable piece on this. So again, I would say the police are RS for their figures, with caveat it may just be a local fluctuation in variations. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a good study, but I'm puzzled a to how it helps your argument since it also concludes that the findings offer "further strong evidence that popular assessments of the scale of this problem, including among police and prosecutors, consistently over-estimate the extent of false allegations" (p. 60). How does this lead to a conclusion that police are a RS? Nblund ^talk 15:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The study is already in the article and it's sheer numbers hardly add anything new to the discussion. May I say that naturally political pressure groups try to publish studies that support their own goals. Especially if those studies are done by themselves. --J. Sketter (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Estimates of prevalence

I wish to add a line to the first paragraph as follows:

False accusation in regards to rape has been found to be 5 times higher than for most other offense types.

Source: The Prevalence of False Allegations of Rape in the United States from 2006-2010

Quote: "Approximately 5% of the allegations of rape were deemed false or baseless. That was at least five times higher than for most other offence types."

Thoughts?

Flamous7 (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the section dedicated to that research, see “Journal of Forensic Psychology”. This rate may not be true for all instances, hence I do not think it is a good idea to have it in the lead. Isananni (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Didn't see that initially.Flamous7 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. Isananni (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Percents in lead

Iwog please discuss proposed changes here. WP:RS use that percentage range. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The conclusions are being misread and misreported because you are not willing to dive deeper into the data. ALL ESTIMATES EXCEPT KAGEN are an attempt to find provable false allegations the exact same way that a trial attempts to find provable legitimate accusations. However the vast majority of allegations are neither proven or disproven so making any representation of a false accusation rate is extremely dishonest. I find it vile that you would support such bias in a Wiki article.

Again I'll ask you this question. If I lead the article this way: "95% of rape allegations do not result in a rape conviction" I could connect hundreds of credible sources and I would be technically correct. Would you allow it? No of course you wouldn't. Data about conviction rates are entirely missing from an article and why is that exactly?

In this spirit, I have prepared an additional paragraph that reads "The conviction rate for initial rape allegations is only around 5%." (numerous citations given) How could anyone complain about the inclusion of this data in a discussion ABOUT FALSE AND LEGITIMATE RAPE ALLEGATIONS?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwog (talk • contribs)

Because it'd be like writing an article on the suicide rate under the assumption that any death that wasn't provably murder was a suicide. We're writing from actual evidence here, not making assumptions about the gaps. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Stick to what sources say the rate is, not your own research on it. WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR all relate. And don't accuse editors of ill intent without unambiguous evidence. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm writing about the actual evidence here, it's the current state of the article is making assumptions about the gaps. In this case, that ALL accusations outside of those few proven to to be false are true leading to the conclusion that the false rape report is 2-10%. Not only is this impossible considering the data but it EXCLUDES many of the studies listed on the page such as the ONLY study that actually attempts to quantify the ACTUAL number of false rape reports. I will give an example of how this reckless treatment of the data translates into the real world:

"Fact: Only 2-8% of rapes are falsely reported, the same percentage as for other felonies."

This is simply a bald faced lie and comes directly from the reckless nature of this page and the bias that is created from the opening paragraph. There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the actual rate is under 10%. NONE! So why is such a paragraph being included if it's not to mislead and create bias? Iwog (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

According to RAINN, a source that references FBI statistics, only 3.5% of rapes reported to the police result in prosecution. Would I be justified in editing the Wikipedia page on the crime of Rape to preface with: "It is difficult to assess the true prevalence of legitimate rape allegations, but it is generally agreed that, for only about 3.5% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation will result in the prosecution for a crime." Can anyone explain to me why the exact same language is allowed on a page devoted to the crime of false reporting of rape?? Iwog (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Added {{Reflist-talk}}, to move References from the preceding post up from the bottom of the talk page. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC) updated to move refs to bottom of section; by Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

If I may weigh in in the discussion, since different studies have given different results based on different methods (e.g. one of the most recent studies in the Journal of Forensic Psychology only takes into account the cases dismissed as false by the Police, which are 5,55% in 2006-2010, whereas Kanin studied the files of judicial cases and the results based on the women’s eventual admission was a 41%, with the Rostock police report giving the record result of 80% accusations resulting false after investigation), maybe it is safer to avoid such a wild range like 2-10% in the lead and go into detail of the different ranges in the sections dedicated to the specific studies. A more neutral rephrasing like “recent studies on false rape accusations have resulted in ranges going from as low as 5,5% of all rape accusations (which was 5 times higher than false accusations for other crimes within the same study) to as high as 80%.” The 2% rate was NEVER scientifically proven in any case. Isananni (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Isananni, I wonder do have the citation for that study in Journal of Forensic Psychology? Was that a study in one country, or based on data from multiple countries, or perhaps a meta study of earlier work? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Isananni: when you said "other editors" favored your 80%, I hope you weren't referring to obvious throwaway or single-purpose accounts. Please behave like a reasonable person here. This 80% in the lede is a non-starter and the 2% is not an outlier. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: I am not a single purpose account and I am not the one behaving unreasonably here. The 2% rate was NEVER scientifically proven, more than one reliable source shows higher rates than 10%, and 80% is actually the rate of false rape accusations emerging from such allegations made in the context of divorce in my country. So, either we mention outliers on both extremes in the lead or we leave out statistics alltogether from that section and only state rates with each specific study. Otherwise it is biase, a deliberate attempt to dismiss false rape accusations as statistically irrelevant, which is not the case. Isananni (talk) 04:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Sources? Here's some I found [34] [35] [36] EvergreenFir (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Isananni: why are you harping on "scientifically proven" and insisting on this 80%? If you're so concerned with accurately conveying the science, why are you suggesting that we present a range from 2 to 80, instead of indicating that most studies cluster around 4%? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: what most studies? And how do you build a worldwide average since all studies seem to use different criteria? Let alone the different laws (e.g. an adult sleeping with a 17 years old like Asia Argento seems to have done is statutory rape in California, but not in Italy where the age of consent is 14) Even the latest study of 2017 giving a 5,55% rate clearly states that it only took FBI data of cases dismissed as false by yhe Police after the initial investigation, thus leaving out all judicial reviews where further evidence was eventually produced that proved the rape allegations were false (as was instead the case of Kanin’s study giving a 41% of false rape accusations, even though not on a national level). The case of Brian Banks would not have been in that 5,55% for example, and that was just one case of men spending YEARS in prison over a false rape accusation. And you ask me why I am “harping” on demanding that the 2% rate is shown as the unproven gossip it is on an encyclopedia that supposedly bases its entries on reliable sources?!? Furthermore these studies do not take into account the many instances of petty frauds that do not result in formal charges, but are not less real and known and a social plague. Have you ever heard of anyone giving a lift to a girl with their car only to be threatened to be accused of rape unless they handed her 100 bucks? Or similar blackmails when asking for room service? One such blackmailer was caught on camera by her fortunately smart victim, look it up on youtube. After all is said and done, I hold my point that we either mention both extremes in the lead or none at all. Isananni (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Isananni: You seem to be fighting a battle that has nothing to do with the content dispute at hand. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: The same can be said about you. The present rephrasing clearly states that a 2-10% is a generally agreed rate but at the same time does not dismiss higher rates from perfectly reliable sources as urban legend. It respects WP:NEUTRAL (while this was not the case before), and encourages the user to read further in the article to discern the different studies that have been reported so far, hoping for further contributions. What exactly is your problem with all this?!? Where exactly is wiki policy not respected in allowing for a wider and neutral perspective? Isananni (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@Isananni: I don't think you understand very well about how to present statistics, and your wild statements about how Asia Argento's statutory rape is toooooootally the sort of thing this article is about and how really every rapist could be a Brian Banks bely a lack of interest in encyclopedic editing of the article. I suggest you leave it up to people who are more up for encyclopedia editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:26, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: you have moved from bordering harassment against me to being downright offensive. 1) as far as my interest for encyclopedia editing is concerned, you may note I was awarded a Good Article badge for my extensive editing on this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_III_of_England so you’re not exactly addressing a naive beginner, while I understand you were implicated in canvassing and have not been awarded a similar badge yet. 2) I never implied every person convicted of rape is a Brian Banks, but it is a fact people wrongly convicted of rape like Brian Banks still exist (two were freed after 26 years in prison after a very belated recantation last May in the USA) and such cases do not add up to the data of cases filed as false allegations by the FBI after the initial investigations in the 2017 research, just like all the other cases that were proved to be false allegations based on evidence produced during the proceedings, and that by admission of the researchers themselves whom I happen to know personally aside from actually reading their paper and I am not aware you can boast either of these circumstances, you certainly do not seem to. As for the Asia Argento case, it is a fact that rape is not a universally agreed concept, national laws do differ on what is considered rape, marital rape e.g. is a very modern western world idea that is still not shared in several islamic countries as far as I am aware and this different approach based on cultural and legal differences would of course weigh in in any serious statistical study. How you can accuse me of pursuing any agenda by merely giving examples in the talk page when all I have done IN THE ARTICLE is curbing the blatant biase in the lead and rephrasing it in a perfectly neutral way (as well as adding the section on the 2017 research you do not seem to have objected) is beyond me. So far the only one pursuing an agenda seems to be you. Isananni (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, @Lwarrenwiki:, @Martinevans123:, @Serial Number 54129:, could you please read my latest edit in the lead of the article that I made in response to the imo reasonable request of other users and tell me if you find it disruptive or in any case not complying with WP:NEUTRAL? Since none of you was recently involved in the editing and cannot be accused of possessiveness, I would honestly appreciate a third party opinion Isananni (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Any clues as to what is being discussed here? Didn't realise I was involved. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2018

@Martinevans123: some users objected the previous lead only reported the lowest rates of false accusations of rape and left out the highest. My recent edit aimed at bringing more neutrality and added that different studies from reliable sources (that have been already reported in the article and perfectly sourced) yelded rates going from a generally accepted 2-10% to as high as 80%. Does this look like I’m distupting the article? What is wrong with giving BOTH the lowest AND the highest rates in the lead and let the user read in detail what rate each study gave according to what data, etc? I involved you and other editors to have an unbiased opinion Isananni (talk) 09:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I see. Well it's a relief to lean I'm not actually involved. Maybe discussions like this need a "ask a random uninvolved editor" function that then deposits a request to comment, via bot, on one's Talk page? Thanks for the explanation, anyway. I'll try and have a look. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: articles are referenced here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape Also sorry if this comes out of the blue, but I thought users who had not been previously involved in the editing could be more unbiased in their opinion. Isananni (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be now at WP:3RR on this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: could you PLEASE state your opinion on my latest edit? That would help avoid edit warring. It’s barely two lines to read. Thanks. Isananni (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please don't shout. Let's wait until the other three uninvolved editors appear? I wonder could you answer my question above? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I wasn’t shouting, I was begging, I am sorry I gave the wrong impression, but I am close to tears, with no one, mot even yiu, simply adding their opinion to a thread where I have been called names from nonsensical to unreasonable to pursuing my agenda with total lack of respect for my good faith. Why wait for the others to give your opinion Martin? Don’t you have an opinion of your own that you prefer to follow the others? What exactly is wrong with my edit stating both extremes of the percents in the lead? What? Isananni (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Waiting might give you a chance to cool down. Look forward to your answer. My interim answer is that we don't generally go straight into numerical detail in the lead. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

that was my second point, either both extremes of the spectrum or none at all. I guess none st all is a preferable solution since that line is a duplication in any case. What was the question? Isananni (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: could you please add your opinion? What exactly is wrong with my edit stating both extremes of the percents in the lead? What? I would appreciate it if one of you had the decency to tell me instead of hiding behind an unargued revert button. What is wrong with my perfectly neutral rephrasing of the lead? Isananni (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not neutral. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: Now it’s neutral, no numerical details in the lead, as I suggested as alternative option fron the start with @Martinevans123: confirming it was a more viable and commonly used option. Isananni (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Look, you don't like the lede. Can we move forward constructively without you continually edit warring to change it? Propose a new lede, discuss, get input. Try to establish consensus through communication. PeterTheFourth (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion for the lead is to leave out all numetical details, exactly like user Martinevans123 confirmed is common practice, which has always been my best secobd option (read the ehole thread please). What exactly is your objection to my latest edit? What was not neutral in my latest edit in this respect? What is your constructive contribution aside from reverting my edits even when I merely follow other users’ suggestions??? Isananni (talk) 12:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: could you please give your opinion on my latest edit where I left out all numerical details? Please look at the history of the article. Isananni (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

In response to the request by User:Isananni for comments from uninvolved editors, I looked first at the cited sources for the numbers in the lead. The first source is from 1993, much too old to be reliable. The second is less than completely reliable looking; it has an uncorrected typo in its title as published, and doesn't appear to be widely cited by other literature (as far as I can see). Those facts tell me that the numbers don't belong in the lead. They may not even be good enough for the body of the article. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

@Lwarrenwiki: those concerns make sense, but I think they can be addressed by using the more recent sources present in the body of the article - it's an issue of keeping the lede up to date with the body content, not of sources not being available. Certainly I think that if we're going to state in the lede that it's hard to assess how often they happen, we naturally must follow that up with the estimate - but in general, the prevalence (or lack thereof) of false accusations is the biggest thing that anyone talks about about them, so even if there's a general no-stats-in-the-lede guideline, that would seem to be superseded by the directive to have the lede be an overview of the body of the article and how the subject is discussed in the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I must say that's a pretty convincing point. We just shouldn't present too much numerical detail in the lead. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at other sources cited in the body to verify the numbers in the lead; I hope others can help with this. So far, I don't see support for the words generally agreed in the lead. I see dissent. It would be verifiable to write According to a 2010 study, for about 2% to 10% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.^[2] Putting that in the lead, though, visibly gives it WP:UNDUE weight. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that singling out that study would be undue. I did a quick google of sources from the last year to see how the rate currently tends to be summarized, and the common view seems to be around 3-4%, 4% or 2-6%, etc. - but I would also understand the argument for summarizing the numbers in recent reliable scientific studies, rather than using news reports which are reporting at a remove. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:59, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

The 2-10% range is supported by more recent research as well.This primer cites studies from 2006, 2009, and 2010 as sources for that figure. This 2017 article from Rumney and McCartney states that "Reviews of the more rigorous international studies suggest a false allegation rate of 2–8 percent and 2–10 percent". This 2016 meta analysis finds an average rate of about 5.2%, which might also be a reasonable figure to cite in the lead. There's general agreement among reliable sources that this represents a plausible range, there's no reason to remove it from the lead, and there's definitely no reason to rely on patently unreliable figures from police. Nblund ^talk 16:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

addendum Regarding Lwarrenwiki's note about undue weight: the 2-10% range in the 2010 study comes from the authors' survey of past research. The authors also conduct their own separate study and find a result in that same range, providing further confirmation, but the figure itself is a summary of other work. Since the same range is reported in Rumney's review (among others), I don't think it's undue. Lisak and Rumney are two of the most widely cited scholars in the field, and I don't know of any published academic work that disputes that that figure is representative of the quality research. Nblund ^talk 15:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The 2-10% range is not supported by any research including the study you linked. There remains an 80% or more range of accusations that are undetermined as to legitimacy or falsity. I don't know how many other ways I can say this. The ONLY study that attempts to quantify an entire data set as either true or false allegations of rape is the Kanin study. No other study cited on this page attempts to do this. Iwog (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the visitor of this page would be better served with a more detailed explanation of what is understood under “false accusation of rape” instead of trying to find an average among studies where not one report is based on the same criteria and therefore cannot be compared to the others. In terms of percents of estimates given the different criteria, scope of the study, legal aspects etc. at best we don’t know, as this article in Bloomberg states https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2014-09-19/how-many-rape-reports-are-false.

I may be wrong, but I have a feeling many, including some editors and researchers, are under the delusion that a false rape allegation is such only when no sexual intercourse has occured. While this represents one of the instances, the other instance of false accusation of rape is when a sexual intercourse has indeed occured but one of the parties lies about the lack of consent on their part during the intercourse. This partiality may account for the dissent on at least part of the percents found in the different studies, which is why one cannot throw figures around without explaining exactly what they are based on, as one can do in detail only in the section dedicated to the respective study.

Another issue that would be useful to hint at in the lead and would probably be worthy of a section of its own is the motives behind such false accusations. So far we only have a few words about it in Kanin’s section, when there is more recent research about it https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313830325_Motives_for_Filing_a_False_Allegation_of_Rape

After all, I support editors Martinevans123’s and Lwarrenwiki’s opinion that percents do not belong in the lead in general and especially in this page, but there are other aspects to improve on. Isananni (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

"under the delusion that a false rape allegation is such only when no sexual intercourse has occured" - No, I don't think anyone is arguing this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Splendid, so you will not object to a lead specifying “no rape has occured either because the claimant lied about having a sexual intercourse with the accused or lied about their lack of consent during the actual encounter”? And what about adding a section on the motives behind such accusations based on Kanin’s 1994 study as well as the 2017 research by Prof De Sutter and his colleagues? Isananni (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The 2-10% figure is based on published, peer reviewed research conducted by experts in the relevant field, we aren't going to discount those statements because Megan McCardle, a conservative blogger with no relevant experience, thinks that the rate of false allegations is fundamentally unknowable. The lead currently acknowledges that there is a wide variance and uncertainty in estimates, but also states the fact that higher quality studies indicate a rate of 2-10%. Unless you can present high-quality sources that explicitly contest this, there's no reason to remove a widely-cited and well supported figure.

Regarding the statement of about lack of consent or lack of sexual intercourse - there are more reasons that a rape allegation might be categorized as false, so that statement would not be consistent with the sources. Rumney gives some examples in this article: someone may mistakenly believe that a rape took place because they are mentally ill or were unconscious or intoxicated, or, someone might report a rape in a state that has out-of-date consent laws, where marital rape or rape by intoxication are actually not illegal. Alternatively, a third party might mistakenly report a rape when they genuinely don't know (but suspect) a crime has occurred. Nblund ^talk 18:54, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I will read Rumney’s paper and come back with a better suggestion on how to word the reasons when an accusation of rape is false. Can we agree that based on the already mentioned studies a section on the motives behind a false accusation of rape is useful and within the scope of this page and can be added? Isananni (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree that would be within the scope of the page, I'm not sure if it is within the scope of the lead, but that might be worth discussing at a later point. Nblund ^talk 23:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

If you would research for 15 minutes rather than only 5, you'll quickly learn that 2-10% (as written in the lead) is documented but likely inflated. ● Those numbers come from police reporting that is volunteer based and without defined terminology, likely including reports that are difficult to substantiate but not proven false ("False Reporting: Overview," National Sexual Violence Resource Center, nsvrc.org). ● For example, a study of 216 "false reports" found only 2 were proven false in an investigation (Francie Diep, "What the Research Says About (The Very Rare Phenomenon of) False Sexual Assault Allegations" Sep 26 2018). ● On the flip side, only about 0.6% (6 out of 1000) of perpetrators of sexual assault end up in prison ([[RAINN.org|RAINN.org]]). ● "Research shows that rates of false reporting are frequently inflated, in part because of inconsistent definitions and protocols, or a weak understanding of sexual assault. Misconceptions about false reporting have direct, negative consequences and can contribute to why many victims don't report sexual assaults" (Lisak et al., 2010, "False accusations of sexual assault: An analysis of ten years of reported cases," Violence Against Woman, 16, 1318-1334).

...(And that last quote is why it is SO IMPORTANT that we get this right--because most people will see those numbers before they see anything else on this Wiki page. And they will make up their mind that those are the percentages. And they may not read on after that, because they just came to this page wanting to know how often it happens--and now walking away thinking it's as high as TEN PERCENT?! (FYI, I was so upset by this misrepresentation--especially one that has direct consequences on the wellbeing of humans--that I chose to figure out how to write to the writers, pleading for an edit. I have NEVER, in fact, written on the talk page or edited a Wikipedia post before. So I'm sorry if my sources or my name aren't documented correctly.) ...Additionally, there are MANY good stats/quotes/takeaways that someone could excerpt from this article (too many for me to list here): "False Reporting," National Sexual Violence Resource Center, www.nsvrc.org. ...I also think the following should be stated before any stats: "Sexual violence is notoriously difficult to measure, and there is no single source of data that provides a complete picture of the crime" (RAINN.org). Thanks for reading and considering. 09:57 Oct. 1, 2018 HHH--166.70.63.4 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

This page is about false accusations of rape, the definition of rape is linked so the alleged difficulty in measuring sexual violence should imo be added there, if ever the case. I object to the percents in lead because hardly any study uses the same criteria as the other and it should be specified what the percent represents since the differences in criteria, legislation etc. make it impossible to derive a reliable worldwide average that does not only include English speaking countries, as is now the case instead. The sources you cite do not seem the most unbiased ones and Lisak is already quoted with an entire section dedicated to his study. Isananni (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

To clarify that 216 Home Office number, it seems like what it's saying is that of the 216 reports labeled as false in the study, only 39 identified a specific perpetrator, and only 2 led to charges being brought against the supposed perpetrator. This seems like potentially relevant/useful information that's not currently in the article. Do other studies have this kind of stat? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Blanked the Germany section

I blanked the #Germany section in the article because the assertions about it based on the Rostock police statement were not supported by the reference given.

former content of Germany section from the article
In 2015 the Rostock police in Germany observed the false allegations had increased in number and claimed 80% of sexual attack allegations in the town were "faked ones". Chief Criminal Investigator to district Britta Rabe opinied the reason for faked allegations was in many instances the women trying to justify her mistaken conduct to her husband, friend or parent.

I blanked it because the WP section asserted that:

1. false allegations had increased in number – but the OZ newspaper does not say that false allegations had increased in number. It said that they are dealing with such reports more frequently than before. That might mean there are more of them. That might mean they hired more investigators to go through them. That might mean there is more political pressure in Rostock on the police to solve sex crimes. It does not imply that the number of them have increased. In fact, it appears that the opposite is the case: at the point the article was written in mid-September of 2015, 173 crimes had been reported; pro-rated to an annual rate that comes to 245 per year. The article reports 262 rapes in 2014, so 245 would be a decrease, year over year.
2. police... claimed 80% of sexual attack allegations in the town were "faked ones" – but if by "sexual attack" we are to understand "rape", the OZ newspaper does not say anything about the numbers of rapes. Or even, unwanted touching. What it does say, is that the 80% of the total reports of rapes, exhibitionism, child pornography, and child molestation were false reports. That could mean, 90% of exhibitionist flashing events were false, and all the others were valid reports. Since the four categories of sexually-related crimes were bundled together, there's no way to know whether reports of sexual attack in Rostock were 80% false, 100% false, or 0% false. The information simply isn't available in the news report.

Since this article is about false claims of rape, and the entire paragraph rests on a source which says nothing verifiable about this, I removed the section. Consequently, since we have no reliable source for a figure of 80% of false reports in the body of the article, it cannot be included in the lead, either. Mathglot (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed this statement from the Helsinki police on largely the same basis: since no distinction is made amongst different types of sexual crimes, and no distinction is made between false allegations vs allegations where the accuser decided not to pursue the case. Nblund ^talk 14:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Breakdown of the opening paragraph

Direct quote: "A false accusation of rape is the reporting of a rape where no rape has occurred. It is difficult to assess the true prevalence of false rape allegations, but it is generally agreed that, for about 2% to 10% of rape allegations, a thorough investigation establishes that no crime was committed or attempted.[1][2]"

I have no problem with the first sentence. The second sentence sets up the subject as "true prevalence of false rape allegations" which the reader will now presume will be addressed following the word "but". However there is a grossly disingenuous bait and switch here. Instead of countering the "true prevalence of false rape allegations", a new subject: "prevalence of provable false rape allegations" is substituted as if it is connected and applies to the first subject. It is LITERALLY connected by the word "but" except it does not apply at all and instead addresses an entirely new subject. This is cleverly done and results in nearly every media source in the world claiming that 2-10% of false rape allegations is the known rate. It is certainly not the known rate and it can be empirically proven to be far greater than 2-10%.

Furthermore the deception is continued at the header where the published studies are listed. The title is: "A selection of findings on the prevalence of false rape allegations." This is false and furthermore none of the studies except Kanin even claim to be measuring the prevalence of false rape allegations. This page is overflowing with errors, deception, and bias and I think it's worth going to war over I would respectfully ask for very specific replies to these criticisms and not more citation of policy or the claim that apples and oranges deserve to be treated the same way and that oranges are perfectly capable of conveying apple information. Iwog (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iwog:... "This page is overflowing with errors, deception, and bias and I think it's worth going to war over"... please review WP:BATTLEGROUND. This, as it stands, is a non-starter imho. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your link. With regards to WP:BATTLEGROUND, none of it applies to me. Nothing I have written indicates that this is personal, prejudicial, or fear-mongering. I believe you have mistakenly attributed motives to me that do not exist. If you are interested in this discussion perhaps you can address the opening paragraph containing two entirely separate yet connected subjects written intentionally to deceive. Do you want to see it corrected because as it stands, it's not even grammatically valid. Iwog (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Saying something is worth "going to war over" on Wikipedia is BATTLEGROUND. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:You are not correct unless you are attributing motive to me which you have no right to do. Regardless I have corrected my statement to agree with your sensibilities. I will always go to war over conveying the truth as should everyone else. It's a terminology choice, not a defined set of intentions which you seem to demand here. Again I will ask you to address the valid criticisms I have made and not make this personal. Iwog (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Iwog, I'm afraid User:EvergreenFir is correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm actually astonished. How am I still the topic of a discussion on false rape accusations after I was the stated topic for a much longer period earlier in the discussion? Are the two of you interested in some very valid points or do you wish to make this entirely personal based on the semantics of a single word? Unbelievable. Iwog (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:BATTLEGROUND is pretty clear. I'm not sure about any semantics. You need to withdraw that statement about "going to war over the truth", e.g. strike it through like this. If you persist with your battle cry of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" I can assure you you wont get too far here. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have edited a single word to correct an error. It makes the entire article more accurate. I'm going to be interested to see how this is received. Is anyone going to disagree with me that "false rape allegations" and "provable false rape allegations" are not the same thing? Iwog (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Probably best if you start a new thread for that one. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. I see that the False accusation article says, somewhat wisely in my opinion, "Due to varying definitions of a "false accusation", the true percentage remains unknown."

I don't see why I need to start a new discussion on a correction that basically has no rebuttal. Since every single study cited save one is only attempting to cite PROVABLE false rape allegations, how can it be claimed in the title that they are attempting to simply measure false rape allegations? I know this subject is charged with emotion but I thought the number one rule is accuracy? Are the numbers of teen drug abusers and provable teen drug abusers the same? Of course not they are radically different with radically different conclusions. Iwog (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

We generally use different threads to discuss different topics. But hey, you seem to know best around here, so I'll leave you to it. Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Iwog's suggested edits to the article's lede. MugyuToChu (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

What is this, amateur hour? This is your first edit to the encylcopedia, you're clearly a sock- or meatpuppet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

A new editor has to make a new edit somewhere. If you're not aware, Roscelese, the Wikimedia Foundation has been conducting outreach seminars to feminists in order to increase their participation in WP. I was told during the seminars that Wikipedians are often hostile to new editors, especially if they're women. I hope your rude reception isn't an affirmation of that. MugyuToChu (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

MugyuToChu/Iwog/Simonvino/whoever you are: I know that from your perspective, you think those nasty liberals will believe anything a "feminist" will say, but Wikipedia decision making is based on consensus determined by the quality of argumentation, not by whether you're a "feminist". One suspicious editor calling themselves a "feminist" and saying "I agree with Iwog" brings nothing of value to the discussion. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 18:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Once again I would like to open a discussion on the grammatically incorrect opening paragraph. I defy anyone interested in editing this page to explain to me what the subject is in the second sentence. Is the subject TRUE false rape allegations or is the subject provably true false rape allegations? They are VERY different concepts with very different data sets. It's simultaneously possible for the provable rate of false allegations to be 5% but the TRUE rate of false allegations to be 50%. Not only is the first paragraph grossly misleading but it contains a clear grammatical error in not having a separate subject for each sentence. If no one is willing to correct it or even argue against the correction, I see no reason why I shouldn't rewrite it myself. Does anyone object to my argument? Iwog (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Who is User:Iwog?

Just stumbling by. (Was bored and had a look at recent edit wars.) If you peruse this talk page only and have a look at recent behavior by the Isananni account, this smells like tons of bad faith and even sockpuppetry. Just look at the User:Iwog account's contributions. Created only to support Isananni's position on this talk page.

If I cared enough to get an account, I would add Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isananni | checkuser = yes | sock1 = Iwog

2.247.242.145 (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I was also wondering about that user. They have made only 7 edits but seem to be WP:SPA. Perhaps they could respond here promptly to clear the air? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Martinevans123: I was wondering about that SPA as well. Now I'm wondering just as much about the WP:SPA IP editor with a special interest in edit wars, who has implausibly thorough knowledge of WP:SPI for a drive-by IP contributor who never "cared enough to get an account", but cares enough to cite policy like an old hand on two seemingly random talk pages. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, haha. That is also quite intriguing. But at least they restrict their posts to Talk pages? Can registered editors still self requests for SPI to clear their own names? Or is that regarded as a frivolous waste of check-user time? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• I have no idea. And please be assured that I'm not questioning your good faith at all! As anyone could, I've clicked the "Geolocate" link on the IP editor's contributions page. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• I can assure you Herne can be very pleasant at this time of year. At least that's a believable location, unlike the spoof locations we often see like North Korean or Outer Mongolia. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually I supported Iwog’s pov and not the other way round. I found their argument to be reasonable and did not waste time x-raying their previous contributions. One single contribution does not necessarily make it bs, and @Martinevans123: I thought our previous shared history of editing on the Richard III of England page, just to give an example, should have spoken for me better than that, but if you feel like opening an SPI to check if I’m hiding behind a double id, please be my guest. Isananni (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll be opening nothing, thanks. I suggested that anyone might want to request an SPI, not just you. I was also asking a procedural question about whether you could open one yourself, to prove you are innocent. 7 edits don't take a lot of x-raying. I'm not sure what any edits at Richard III of England have to do with anything. I'm sure you're a good faith editor who never uses sockpuppets. We have yet to hear from User:Iwog. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: thank you for ackowledging my good faith. User Iwong remains an enigma, that does not make their points less worthy of attention. Isananni (talk) 07:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:SPAs often get blocked. If Iwog turned out to be a sockpuppet, all their contributions would be discounted. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If that were the case it would be sad. Promoting a valid point in the wrong way does not help the cause of improving the encyclopedia of course. Isananni (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Iwog's almost certainly a sock, possibly of Isananni and possibly not, but as long as they remain inactive and people don't use them to point to some kind of consensus for a fringe view, I'm not bothered. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese: if you have no good faith in me why don’t you open an SPI to appeace your curiosity instead of smearing my name with unfounded insinuations? Isananni (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this a serious discussion? I assure everyone speculating about this that I am not a sock puppet. Now that I've cleared the air of the attempted character assassination, can we please correct this page? I once again heard the false 2-8% citation given in the mainstream media. In this case on KGO radio San Francisco. I would like to point out that the Kanin study remains the only scientific research that attempts to estimate the TOTAL number of false rape allegations. Unfortunately it is being listed with a lot of research that does not attempt to do the same thing. This is extremely misleading to the point of being pure propaganda. ALL THE STUDIES THAT REPORT A RATE OF 2-8% ARE TALKING ABOUT PROVABLY FALSE ACCUSATIONS. They are not measuring TOTAL false accusations and in most cases the conviction rate WITHIN THE STUDY is only 5-10%. This means in every singe case except Kanin, over 80% of rape allegations are UNDETERMINED and neither provably true nor provably false. I would like someone.......anyone.......to reply to these specific criticisms and stop muddying the water. Iwog (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it probably is. I thought we might have heard from you in less than 10 days. But thanks for responding. You seem keen to make your real-life identity quite clear at your User page; I see we have an article on The Red Pill. Pseudonymic user names are not mandatory at Wikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

That's actually how statistics work. The murder rate is the rate of deaths that are provably murders, not the rate of all deaths that aren't proved to be not murders. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

No one attempted to prove allegations in the unproven range are true or false OTHER THAN KANIN. None of the studies cited attempt to do this OTHER THAN KANIN. In your example, you have 100 dead bodies and you've proven 2-10% are actually murders and you've left the other 90-98% to rot on the sidewalk. Your argument is not valid.Iwog (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If we want to make a percentage range claim in the lead section (or anywhere else for that matter) we need to support it with a source that clearly shows those same figures? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Then the number of actual convictions cited by the source is less than 1% of all allegations. However the majority of studies linked on the page cite around a 5% conviction rate because obviously false rape reports are quickly dismissed by the police. I'm fine with less than 1%. I'm fine with 1%-5%. What I'm not fine with is the opening line that is being used all over the word as justification for false rape allegations being extremely rare. This is grossly dishonest and lacking context. I will reiterate my main point. THERE IS ONE SINGLE STUDY THAT ATTEMPTS TO QUANTIFY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF FALSE RAPE ALLEGATIONS AND THAT IS KANIN. It is beyond me why so many people are insisting on studies that do not purport to do this. Iwog (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe because we can't base an entire article on one single study? Your use of the source to balance what's in that source with what's in the rest of this article is perhaps understandable but is WP:SYNTH. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You are again failing to acknowledge my main point. Kanin is attempting to measure something that no other study is attempting to measure. Total false reports of rape. You insist on misleading the reader into thinking the known rate is 2-10% which can be demonstrated by dozens of media citations. Your argument boils down to "We need to cite studies that don't measure what we are looking for because the one study that actually does measure what we are looking for is not enough". Iwog (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not just me, I'm afraid. But I'm just quoting policy. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:You are misusing policy. You are saying a study on the total number of teens abusing drugs should be shoulder to shoulder with studies demonstrating how many teens are convicted of abusing drugs. This is a grossly incorrect representation of the policy you are attempting to cite. There is a single study attempting to quantify the question at hand. Only one and it's Kanin. Ironically it's Kanin that is being rejected in the opening paragraph. Why? Iwog (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem remarkably familiar, both with policy and with method, for a new user welcomed 11 years ago on 23 September 2007 and now making only their 20th ever edit? Please feel free to get a second opinion on the meaning of WP:SYNTH. I'm suggesting that what you added to the lead wasn't supported by the content of that source. Please explain to me if you think it was. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:You are speaking about the conclusions of the source, not the raw data contained in that source. Do you have a reference that prohibits the using of raw data regardless of the conclusions reached by the publisher? Because I'm pretty sure that the only thing I took from my citation is the 1% conviction rate which I'm going to presume all parties agree with. Therefore my lead was ENTIRELY supported by my source. Your disagreement seems to be that I did not interpret the data the same way however you are missing the fact that I did not interpret the data at all. I simply cited it. Iwog (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If you think a publisher has "reached a conclusion", by all means quote that conclusion. We're not at liberty to draw our own conclusions. If you want to get a second opinion about my interpretation of WP:SYNTH, by all means get one. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:Once again I'm getting the feeling that we are not having the same discussion. I did not cite a conclusion. I cited a statistic, that 1% (actually 1-5%) of rape allegations result in a conviction and I gave a citation. Are you telling me it is a REQUIREMENT to state a sources conclusion? If so, the entire opening paragraph needs to be stricken because the conclusion given is not contained within any of the studies being used. Iwog (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You added this:

Likewise it is also generally agreed upon only about 1 to 5% of total rape allegations will lead to a conviction by a court of law and can be presumed to be true. *"The Criminal Justice System: Statistics | RAINN". rainn.org. Retrieved 2018-09-27.*

Please show me where, in that source, the words "about 1 to 5%" occur. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123:It's not necessary because I already stipulated earlier in the discussion that I would be happy to strictly adhere to my citation and change 1-5% to "Less than 1%" or even "1%". Would you be satisfied then? The presumption of guilt by jury is written into American law however if you insist I can certainly find a citation for that as well. Iwog (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please provide your source here that "The presumption of guilt by jury is written into American law." I'd very much like to see it. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. you don't actually need to "ping" me every time you reply, I am actually watching this discussion? Thanks.

@Martinevans123: "In criminal law, guilt is the state of being responsible for the commission of an offense.[1] Legal guilt is entirely externally defined by the state, or more generally a "court of law"." Guilt_(law)#cite_note-thefreedictionary.com-1 I'm sure you can find what you're looking for there. Iwog (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not looking for anything. I asked you to show me something. I have no idea what you're on about. Or how it relates to the content of this article. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. please stop pinging me. Thanks.

I will be happy to explain. I can give a 1% conviction rate with a citation. I can presume that conviction = guilt via the legal citation I gave you. Therefore I can say entirely consistent with the study I linked that the 1% conviction rate can be the number of people presumed to be guilty of rape. I don't think I'm jumping through any hoops here. I also think indicating the HUGE gap between known and unknown is extraordinarily important considering the entire world accepts the 2-10% (or 2-8%) rate as gospel. It's not. It's provably inaccurate using every study on this page. Iwog (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iwog: I do appreciate Kanin’s work but it’s too limited in scope. I agree percents do not belong in the lead, each percent must make clear what the underlying criteria of the study were, what country/legislation was being considered etc. and that’s simply too long for any lead. The lead should better specify what constitutes a false accusation, especially a false accusation of rape. However, your last edit was simply unacceptable. If a rapist escapes justice, it does not mean the allegations were false, and your source clearly spoke of perpetrators who escape justice, not of innocent people who are wrongly accused. Find a better source or hold your digits. Isananni (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Even your presumption that the rapist escaped justice is biased. Would you say the low 2-10% rate of provable false rape reports indicates many who ruined lives with a lie escaped justice?? I am not saying the unknown reports are true OR false. I am saying they are unknown. Apparently I seem to be the only one willing to acknowledge this.Iwog (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Iwog: What you're proposing is original research. There is nothing more to discuss about it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Roscelese:No it's not. What I'm proposing is to accurately describe the research being cited. None of the studies except Kanin attempt to measure the true incidence of false rape reports. Please do not confuse a constructed rebuttal to someone's assertion as a page suggestion. My page edits can be easily viewed and do not contain any original research. Iwog (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

You've already stated your intent to engage in original synthesis. No one is misunderstanding you, you're just not familiar with policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed. Also why did you revert to an incorrect title for the studies on provable rape allegations? None of these studies except Kanin attempt to determine the actual rate of false allegations. They only claim to be looking at allegations that can be proven to be false with unknowns exceeding 80% of the cases examined. Please explain your reasoning for the incorrect title. Iwog (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

"Where the hell did "provable" come from?" does not appear to be a valid argument for misrepresenting the conclusions of the citations listed. Again I will demonstrate: Less than 1% of rape allegations are provably true and result in a conviction. This does not mean the total number of legitimate rape allegations are less than 1% and such a statement would be false.Iwog (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Find a reliable secondary source that explicitly supports this language and then maybe it's worth discussing - without that, you're just wasting everyone's time. Nblund ^talk 18:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I will do so in every single study on that page. We'll start with citation #2. (I have the book for #1 on order)

The determination that a report of sexual assault is false can be made only if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted. This determination can be made only after a thorough investigation. This should not be confused with an investigation that fails to prove a sexual assault occurred. In that case the investigation would be labeled unsubstantiated. The determination that a report is false must be supported by evidence that the assault did not happen. (IACP, 2005b, pp. 12-13; italics in original)

This clearly indicates "fails to prove" as a second (and totally ignored) category in the study. Thus inclusion of the word "Provable" is necessary to distinguish the cases identified in the study as provable false accusations as separate from unsubstantiated. You will discover that in no case, none, zero, zilch does any study on this page claim to be citing TOTAL or TRUE or ACCURATE false allegations. The only language you will ever see is provable, thoroughly investigated and determined to be false, unfounded, no-crime, and other descriptors which indicate cases that can be scientifically shown to be false. The VAST number of cases in every study on this list will openly admit to containing a large unknown. This makes both the opening paragraph and the cited conclusions for each study extremely bad summaries of each study and all of it should be stricken. Iwog (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)