Jump to content

Talk:Rape/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

First sentence

The first sentence these contradictory to the discussion above "Rape, often referred to as sexual assault, is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or without sexual penetration of another person without that person's consent."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Rape is often called sexual assault to make it sound less dramatic. Just like the news media in America used to say child molester instead of child rapist. Dream Focus 12:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
No, all rapes are sexual assaults, but all sexual assaults are not rapes. What constitutes "rape" and "sexual assault" varies a lot by jurisdiction, however. I think that the first sentence as it stands now constitutes a misleading demarcation between "rape" and "sexual assault", I'll try to think of a better wording. Gabbe (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
On the news when they mention a woman got raped, involving forced sexual intercourse even, they call it sexual assault. For many years the word rape was never used at all. This was done only because people don't like hearing the word, not because of any official definition in a dictionary. Dream Focus 13:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what news you're referring to. I've seen CNN, BBC News, and other respectable news sources use both terms (but not interchangeably, of course, as they're not the same). Gabbe (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I admit I'm a bit puzzled by that one as well. Non-penetrative sex (whether consensual or not) is typically not termed "intercourse". And intercourse is (in most jurisdictions) on of the dividing lines between rape and other forms of sexual assault. If nobody objects I'll remove the "or without" part. Gabbe (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
The Sexual intercourse article explains how all forms of sexual intimacy can be considered sexual intercourse, though non-penetrative sex (with the exclusion of oral sex, depending on what type it is) is usually not considered intercourse (though, really, most people do not consider any form of oral sex to be sexual intercourse either). The word "intercourse" actually means between two people/beings; it was not originally meant to mean being inside of the body. But your change to the lead makes a lot of sense, considering that "intercourse" most commonly refers to penetration. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a source saying that "rape" and "sexual assault" are the same thing? For example, see [1] for a definition on the distinction in UK law, or [2] for a definition in the US. Gabbe (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Gabbe on this point: the highest quality sources make a distinction: rape is only one type of sexual assault. If the bully pulls someone's pants down in the hallway at school, then that can be considered sexual assault -- but never rape. This source names inappropriate speech as a type of sexual assault: "Sexual assault can be verbal, visual, or anything that forces a person to join in unwanted sexual contact or attention. Examples of this are voyeurism (when someone watches private sexual acts), exhibitionism (when someone exposes him/herself in public)..." I strongly doubt that anyone can find a source that claims that speaking words is a form of rape. I also suspect that many rape victims would be seriously offended by the idea that having a creepy stranger yell, "Nice tits, honey" is somehow the same as being forced to have vaginal intercourse against your will. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Google find 2.9 million articles which comment on the term "verbal rape".[3] Even google scholar has hits [4]. I do agree Gabbe that with strict usage "all rapes are sexual assaults, but all sexual assaults are not rapes". However looking at common usage for example rape kit is used interchangeably with sexual assault kit, the prevalence rates of rape and sexual assault presented are the same, and the Oxford English dictionary definitions above are nearly the same.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
So? Penicillin is always an antibiotic; a rape kit is always a sexual assault kit. The fact that X is a subset of Y does not mean that X is identical to Y. Not all antibiotics are penicillin; not all sexual assaults are rape.
About your Google Scholar searches: College English (1969), Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism, books.heinemann.com, French Studies, Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy, etc., are not exactly the kinds of sources that WP:MEDRS recommends for this kind of questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The 2005 lancet review I mention in the above section is the best evidence I have so far.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Looks at these three dictionaries it does not look like this is a well defined area and arguments could be made either way. [5] [6] [7]. Sometimes these two terms are used interchangeably. Sometimes not.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange, this is what this paper from WHO defines rape as, Sexual violence includes rape, defined as physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration – even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object. The attempt to do so is known as attempted rape. Rape of a person by two or more perpetrators is known as gang rape.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
This book comments on the WHO definition and than says that it will use the terms rape and sexual assault interchangeably. Roberts, Albert R.; Ann Wolbert Bergess; CHERYL REGEHR (2009). Victimology: Theories and Applications. Sudbury, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Publishers. p. 228. ISBN 0-7637-7210-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Since some of the literature uses the terms interchangeable. The definitions have changed over time, different definitions are used in different countries or districts. I have no idea why we would have two different pages since they are basically co-tracts and the literature does not allow differentiation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Doc James, have you found a single source that claims being groped is a form of rape? That whenever a mentally ill patient yells sexual remarks at your staff, then everyone within earshot has been raped? That flashing genitals on the sidewalk means that anyone who looked that direction was raped? How many television viewers do you think Janet Jackson "raped" with her Super Bowl peep show a few years ago? Every one of these behaviors falls under the standard definition of sexual assault.
It's sometimes useful for sources to talk about sexual assault in broad terms (just like we might talk about 'pneumonia' sometimes and specifically PCP other times), and the word rape has long been used in metaphorical ways (e.g., polluting factories are "raping" the environment), but we don't actually need to erase the distinction between the myriad forms of sexual assault and the kind that comes with specific forms of genital contact.
As a matter of fact, I interpret these sources' clear statement that they're using these terms interchangeably as proof that the most common uses are not interchangeable: If everyone thought that all forms of sexual assault were rape, then they wouldn't bother telling us about their particular choice of definitions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not think may people would call your above examples sexual assault either. I agree that legally we use the terms differently but medically we usually do not. I do agree that rape is usually used to represent a more severe for of sexual assault. I am just not convinced that it is different enough to have two pages. It is like have a page for abdominal pain and acute abdominal pain. Or asthma and brittle asthma.
BTW are you serious that people have claimed that Janet Jackson sexually assault millions of supper bowl watchers? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sexually exposing yourself to non-consenting people is generally taken to fit within the definition of sexual assault, and, yes, some people have named that particular incident as a form of sexual assault (e.g., "The Super Bowl entertainment was nothing less than sexual assault in the name of art" and "In most, if not all states the act of ripping a dress and exposing a breast is an indecent assault."). I don't think that's a common interpretation of the incident, but certainly some people see it that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
All I can say is WOW. This is a very culturally defined issue. In many Arabic countries you need to be completely covered well is some areas of Europe walking around with no clothing on the beach is common.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree: what's widely accepted in some places is not at all accepted in others. In your example, however, it's generally presumed that anyone who has voluntarily gone to a nude beach has consented to seeing nudity.
However, in no places do we find a cultural standard that allows a man to stick his hands down a stranger's pants and fondle the stranger's genitals without consent, and in no places is this kind of groping considered rape, and in no places is this kind of groping considered a non-sexual crime. This is why we can't pretend that rape=sexual assault=rape: sexual assault is a much broader subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree it is however considered attempted rape. I Nice France you did not even need to go to the beach to see people topless.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
No, "attempted rape", "sexual assault" and "rape" are three distinct concepts. Attempted rape is not the same thing as sexual assault. See for example this document from the US Department of Justice, which does not use the three terms interchangeably. In the example above, if the perpetrator can not be found to have actually attempted to rape the victim the conviction would be for "sexual assault", rather than "attempted rape". Gabbe (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
If rape and sexual assault were purely medical conditions (like with asthma/brittle asthma), then I agree with you, that might be an argument in favour of merging them. From a medical point of view there isn't much of a difference between them. But rape and sexual assault are, first and foremost, a form of crime. So any judicial delimitation between them should take precedence. Gabbe (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
We just need to make sure the article reflects these differences in definition than. Will look at things more closely when I have time.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Okay if rape and attempted rape are different than why does the latter redirect to rape? As per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Titles_containing_.22and.22 should we change the title of this page to Rape and attempted rape? This seems to be what it actually covers and would be technically more correct. I would see this as a compromise to merging.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

A simpler solution would be to just add a definition of attempted rape to the lead paragraph and embolden the words 'attempted rape' - that's the practice as regards redirected pages--Cailil talk 15:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Secondly there is a very boring but pertinent reason for not changing the name of this page and that is because it is the parent article of category:rape. Other potential article should be given sections herein and until they can be "spun-off" to create there own. When that happens a summary is left here. This is what should happen in the case of the attempted rape article/redirect (see WP:SUMMARY for on this process)--Cailil talk 15:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
As sexual assault is the broader term it should be used for the category as we all agree that rape and attempted rape are types of sexual assault.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
No the articles within the section are all about rape specifically not sexual assault generally. Also category:rape is already sub-category of category:sex crimes (which sexual assault is also categorized under) and category:sexual abuse. There are a number of systematic and structural reasons here on wikipedia a) for the naming of this article and b) for its separateness from sexual assault, sex crime and sexual abuse. But the principle reason is that they are individually defined and given various distinctions by reliable sources [1][2][3][4]--Cailil talk 18:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Sexual assault however is in the rape category. I agree that they have specific definitions but we do not seem to organize either this page or the categories based on said definitions.
BTW I think the first paragraph is now clear and agree with its content / wording.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The use of Makovsky's painting could cause unnecessary offense

I believe it is most unfortunate to illustrate this great article with Konstantin Makovsky's "Bulgarian martyresses". The painting could easily obscure and distract from the main issues and facts of rape by introducing an uncalled for emphasis on potentially inflammatory issues revolving around:

  • Muslim vs. Christian,
  • black vs. white,
  • Turkish culture vs. Slavic culture,
  • Turkey vs. Bulgaria,
  • pornography vs. reality,
  • sacrilege vs. religious tolerance.

Let me try to clarify with a quick and dirty analysis of what maybe isn't plain to see... The painting depicts murder and sacrilege vividly, while sexual assault, rape and child abduction is suggested but not necessarily depicted. The three victims are Bulgarian christians: two being young women, one of them is dead or dying, the second will eventually be killed, while the third victim is an infant possibly about to be abducted for Janissary military service. The three perpetrators are irregular Muslim Ottoman soldiers: one is black, another one has stereotypical cartoonish Arabic features, while the third is obscured in the background. The painting is saturated with violated Christian symbols, but it also has a pornographic tint, as both females are beautiful and topless.

Why does the painting put a flashlight on ethnicity, religion, nationalism, race and breasts? Well, it was used to rally the Russian public in support for their fellow Slavic Christian population in Bulgaria in the upcoming conflict with the Muslim Ottoman Empire. It was no doubt effective propaganda as it dehumanizes the turkish military while raising compassionate concern for the Bulgarian.

I'm neither Turkish, Arabic, Muslim nor black, but on behalf of said groups, I feel a sting. And although I'm male, I do not appreciate gorgeous women with perfect breasts in this context.

Furthermore, the very same paining is also used to illustrate our articles on Sacrilege and Sexual assault, and I believe what is said above, holds quite true to those two articles as well.

Coolhearted (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have something better in mind?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I really should have had something great... before I started whining, right? But as a quick fix, "The Rape of Lucretia" is already in this article, and I think it would do really well at the top of this article and at the top of Sexual assault? And maybe we could keep Makovsky's painting at the top of Sacrilege since it is indeed very sacrilegious, even unintentionally sacrilegious? And I will keep looking for something even better, if there is such a beast. Coolhearted (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not have any concerns with you switching them.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
It looks like there are plenty of options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Pathetic American culture? You forgot american, for I a male, was a victim of rape by a woman.

1) impaired by drugs or alcohol 2) under the age of consent (16-18 in most states) 3) physically handicapped or limited 4) physically forced or coerced by a woman

From two of the below at youth.

Recent edits

I am completely against these edits by Jmh649. For one, I am not seeing how the False accusation section belongs in the Definitions section. It is not a definition of rape at all, not even if some innocent person is convicted of rape. It does not "fit well" there. Second, the Statistics section should be called Statistics, not Epidemiology. Not only do most people not use the word epidemiology (and others do not know what it means), the Statistics section largely covers rape statistics. Therefore, the title should be specific about that. Finally, removing the specific rape statistics details on rape by countries? As I partially stated at Talk:Rape/Archive 11#Proposed split, "Just because there is already an article on a section...does not mean we should not cover some of it here. It is pointless to have a Statistics section, if we are going to note very little about rape statistics and have the section rather serve as a link to [the related articles about rape statistics]. It might as well be in the See also section. The Statistics section [was already cut down, though the United States part can be cut down further], but some (as in not a little note) of the information about rape statistics should be covered in this article. From that section...we are suppose to point to the main article[s] to give a more in-depth look/study of [this] topic, not link to it just to cover the whole topic. Furthermore, some of this information is not in the related articles about rape statistics, because the related articles expand on what is mentioned here.

This is not like summarizing the types of rapes. The rape statistics about each of these countries can only be adequately summarized by addressing them individually. And people should not have to go to separate articles to get the needed information about rape statistics. Flyer22 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer, I believe you are correct. Also Rape statistics being removed because there's another article about it - is not an appropriate argument. Rape is a parent article and as explained above re WP:SUMMARY even if another article exists a summary of it should be placed here. And on a sourcing point - to conflate stats is original research - if the sources state stats individually we record them individually--Cailil talk 21:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
This article should only deal with an overview of rape with country specific details on the subpage. Will try to add more of a summary both here and on the sexual assault page. What we had here was not a summary of the subpage as the subpage did not contain the information found in this section.
If you guys disagree feel free to revert the changes. I did try to organize this article based on WP:MEDMOS which I think was an improvement but it seems it has been rearranged again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Jmh649, I already explained my reasons for reverting you above. I will not be for anything similar to the version you injected, though I welcome others' opinions about that. With the exception of the United States section perhaps being okay to trim, the country specific details I reverted to belong in this article. This is the Rape article, after all, and people will look for rape statistics here first. If those related articles did not exist, all that information would be in this article anyway (as it was before). The version I reverted to summarizes this topic already, and points readers to the larger articles. I am not seeing the problem, and this is how plenty of Wikipedia articles are done (from medical to entertainment, etc). And I would not categorize rape as a primary medical topic. This is also a sexual, social and law topic. Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps as a compromise in the interim the USA section could be trimmed, perhaps also the south african section as well. Then continue the discussion aiming for consensus on what action should or should not be taken in this diagreement.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps. But I'm not really for the sections being as short as the United Kingdom section. A healthy paragraph or two is better, in my view. And we need to work out what we feel is the most important to mention about rape in these two countries, and leave the main articles to deal with the rest. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the current formatting is poor. One should summarize all the country data in a couple of paragraphs and move the subsection to the subpage. Will attempt to do so and people can comment on which they prefer afterwords.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
And I have stated that I disagree with you, and why. Stuff like this should be worked out on the talk page first. What is the point of inserting it into the article when it has a chance of being reverted, due to two already expressed objections?
How can one summarize all the country data in a couple of paragraphs? There are certain things that I and others may feel need to be mentioned about rape in the United States, etc. And readers still need to be pointed to each of the articles which expand on this topic. When you took away those sections before, you took away those links with them. Not only that, we are not covering all the world's countries. The subheadings make this clear and they take readers to which country they want the rape statistic data on immediately. If we were covering all the world's countries, as Wikipedia topics are suppose to present a worldwide view as much as they can, I would be more for summarizing without subheadings. But we do not even have individual articles about rape/other sexual violence statistics for all of the world's countries. I do want this article to cover rape statistics for as many countries as we can, though, which, as I stated, is when I would be for losing the subheadings. But are you even trying to compromise on this matter? If you were to present a version of your proposal for that section on this talk page or in your user space (as in userspace draft) first so that others could comment on whether or not they like it or what is missing, it would be much better. Because if I do not like it, I have to honestly say that I will revert and bring it here to this talk page to be worked out. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I was being WP:BOLD. You have concerns and here were are discussing things. I do not have any serious issue with all the stats being here as well. The main thing is they also need to be on the subpage as the subpage is supposed to deal with the summary presented here in more detail.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you were being bold the first time. There is no problem with being bold on Wikipedia in some cases. But I was speaking of now, of course. Like you stated, this is being discussed now. You have two objections to the version you added. Right now, you are proposing another version that we cannot see. I said, "What is the point of inserting it into the article when it has a chance of being reverted, due to two already expressed objections?" And that it would be best that your proposal be presented here on this talk page or "in your user space (as in userspace draft) first so that others [can] comment on whether or not they like it or what is missing" from it. Right now, I feel that you are not even listening. There is nothing especially new that I can state on this matter at the moment, because this discussion is not moving forward. It is not better for you to keep inserting a version and for version after version to be reverted...until one is accepted. Even if one is accepted, there may be important things that some of us feel your version leaves out. Again, I am saying that what ever version you are proposing would be better worked out here on this talk page first.
You say that you "do not have any serious issue with all the stats being here," but it does not seem that way. As for the statistics also needing to be in the subarticles, they are. They do deal with this topic in more detail. Thus, I am not getting your point on that. If some of this information is not in the subarticles, and you feel that it needs to be there as well, then go ahead and put it there. It being there, however, does not mean that some of it should not also be here. It is just that your idea of summarizing this topic is one I disagreed with in your previous version of it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly interesting source

This 1999 paper:

  • Shalhoub-Kevorkian, Nadera. "Towards a cultural definition of rape: Dilemmas in dealing with rape victims in Palestinian society." Women’s Studies International Forum, Volume 22, Issue 2, 4 March 1999, Pages 157-173. doi:10.1016/S0277-5395(99)00004-7

looks like it might be an intriguing source, although I don't know anything about the publication, and I haven't read it because it's hiding behind a US$30 paywall. If someone has free access (e.g., it's in the stacks at the law library or something like that), then perhaps it would be interesting to know more about its contents, and what ideas are being advanced for a definition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, WhatamIdoing. Yes, maybe that can be helpful in expanding society's definitions of rape. We'll see if anyone gets access to it. I am not about to pay, at least not yet (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong data

The name James Beumonth with frequency 100% appears under the statistics for United States for Rape of women by men, by perpetrator. The data appears to be totally wrong, kindly remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anujprateek (talk • contribs) 10:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How is this particular data "totally wrong"? Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. In particular, for cases of simple vandalism, please feel free to undo the inappropriate changes as soon as you see them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RAINN exists?

Would someone explain to me how we have an article on Rape that does not prominently mention the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network or it's hotline number? Simesa (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For that matter, we have nothing on treatment or rape kits either. Simesa (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
RAINN is mentioned in the article, used for references, and with links to its article. Treatment is different in various countries. Rape in the United States shows the treatment of rape victims, as well as information about rape kits. Dream Focus 04:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Remember, anyone can edit the Wikipedia. If you believe something should be add it, then do so, or if you don't know how to word it exactly, discuss it here. This is a very important topic, and I'm sure many would be grateful if you could help improve it. We need to educate the victims and those who care about them, and make it easy for them to find out where to go for treatment. Dream Focus 04:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's another explanation: RAINN, being a USA-specific organization, is irrelevant to more than 95% of the world's rape victims -- because more than 95% of the people in the world, including a substantial majority of Wikipedia's readers, don't live in your home country. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Most people use a Wikipedia in their native/primary language, and most native English speakers in the world live in the USA, and this is the English Wikipedia. Mostly though its because it seems to be the largest such organization about, or the best known since internationally famous actors keep promoting it and getting mentioned on the news a lot, Christini Ricci even speaking to the American congress directly on their behalf, to get a law concerning rape aboard cruise ships passed. If there is another one this significant in other nations, then please, add it to the list. And the information on their site provides information to everyone, regardless of where they are at. [8] Dream Focus 08:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
RAINN's toll-free hotline number, which Simesa also recommended, is absolutely useless outside of the US. You can't reach most US toll-free phone numbers on an international telephone line, and this number automatically redirects callers to local agencies within the US based on the caller's US area code. I don't object to a link to any informative webpage (subject to the usual WP:EL standards), but IMO it is not appropriate to advertise US-only contact methods to our international audience.
(The reports I've seen estimate that about 70% of the readers at the English-language Wikipedia (excluding all of the non-English Wikipedias) are outside the US.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Are racially charged rape statistics spread on nazi forums allowed on wikipedia?

discussion moved to Talk:Rape in the United States Drmies (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to victim stats are wrong

Latest update should be a good compromise, the statistics are still there, but now they are all there, so people can compare for themselves. I think it's best to put the stats there, including the racial ones, and give the most accurate ones available. Rape is a horrible thing, and to stop it people should know the reality of it. Picking one statistic, or just ignoring them, gives people an inaccurate image of rape and makes preventing it harder. Unfortunately, I lost the Detroit study, so if someone has a link to it, I will add that as well. Is this agreeable to everyone? Hvatum (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, found the Detroit (Women's Phsych Quarterly Study), it was hiding at the top. I've put it the rest of the table about offender-victim relationship.Hvatum (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

That study used that has these stats is a smallish study in Detroit. It's not reflective other other statistics I've seen. For the time being I've put the National Victimization Survey as a source. Furthermore, the study the (old) Stats which I've copied below come from was not designed as a survey of rape, but of rape under certain conditions.

Steady dating partner 21.6% Casual friend 16.5% Ex-boyfriend 12.2% Acquaintance 10.8% Close friend 10.1% Casual date 10.1% Husband 7.2% Stranger 2%

If anyone has an objection, please argue it out here.Hvatum (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Right now, you have it that most rapes are committed by strangers. From all I have studied on the subject, that is not true. In the paragraph right before that, this source tackles that...and The Bureau of Justice Statistics displays it. Basically, I am not convinced that rape by strangers is more rampant than rape by known/well-known people, and we should not have that section saying two different things...unless we present the sources as arguing each other. Flyer22 (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The stats Hvatum changed it to are referenced to a site that says "Estimate is based on 10 or fewer sample cases". So that isn't really scientifically valid. Wouldn't RAINN or other organizations have more valid stats, instead of just some random results taken from 10 people? Dream Focus 20:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
So should we revert Hvatum's change for now? As I stated, it does not go with the paragraph right before it. Whatever we do, we need to get this information as accurate as we can. Flyer22 (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I know I just responded to this, but my post vanished. Servert error I guess. Anyway, I reverted the lower part of it, since the original source comes from a survey of over 200 people, while the government report is only for 10. I'm also searching [10] World Health Organization. Perhaps adding in the name of a country, or other things, can narrow the search. Dream Focus 16:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Good job. If I get a good chance to, I will also help look for more on it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think Rape in the United States also needs to be looked at. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You're mis-understanding, the stats are not based on a survey of "10 or fewer people," 10 or fewer people are in the groups highlighted with an asterisk. The same is the case for the Detroit study. It has for example four people in the entire group who say they were raped by strangers. Do you really think 2% of rapes are committed by a strangers?? That is not even close the numbers I see (except for Wikipedia, and the Detroit study). Here are some more sources quoting numbers much closer to mine,
http://www.nmcsap.org/statistics.html
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r159.pdf (UK Stats, 8% reported by stranges, still that's four times the Detroit number)
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4523.0 (Australia, 11%)
We need to arrive at something... I'd be fine with just using the Australia study (the downside being it isn't about the US). Either way, for the time being, we probably not rely on outliar studies like the FBI one or the Detroit one. So those stats should be changed again. Hvatum (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining, Hvatum. Yes, we need to arrive at something. Perhaps, a brief explanation of whichever stats we present before presenting them? Flyer22 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
We could say: Because of the very small number of people involved in these surveys, the results change greatly year by year. And then instead of wasting time publishing any stats, which will contradict all those the year before, or say something insanely stupid like 100% of black women raped were raped only by black men, we could just not publish any stats at all. Dream Focus 20:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I feel that we should keep all the text information regarding rape statistics as is, of course. But for the chart statistics that we are debating now, maybe we should discard it altogether, as you stated. I still feel that mention of rape by strangers being by far the least common form of rape should be somewhere in that section, similar to how Hvatum did it in the Rape in the United States article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • As before, I say eliminate the charts, and anything that comes from 10 people being surveyed. Also, this is Rape in the United States, so mentioning something from Australia makes no sense at all. Dream Focus 23:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I feel about Hvatum's new chart, where Australia and the UK are included. I mean, it is in the United States section...but it is also small and is stressing the point that rape by strangers is not the most common form of rape. I'm not too against this change. I'm neutral on it. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

United States Rape stats should not be copied here verbatim

I've added a summary, otherwise, users should refer to the US rape article, which has exactly the same stuff. No reason to add to the workload by maintaining three copies of the same thing. Hvatum (talk) 02:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed before. See Talk:Rape/Archive 12, Recent edits. As I stated there, "Just because there is already an article on a section...does not mean we should not cover some of it here. It is pointless to have a Statistics section, if we are going to note very little about rape statistics and have the section rather serve as a link to [the related articles about rape statistics]. It might as well be in the See also section. The Statistics section [was already cut down, though the United States part can be cut down further], but some (as in not a little note) of the information about rape statistics should be covered in this article. From [the Statistics section]...we are suppose to point to the main article[s] to give a more in-depth look/study of [this] topic, not link to it just to cover the whole topic... This is not like summarizing the types of rapes. The rape statistics about each of these countries can only be adequately summarized by addressing them individually. And people should not have to go to separate articles to get the needed information about rape statistics." Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hvatum, do you want to come up with a cut-down version yourself, or would you rather have someone else tackle it? I don't want the United States section to be too small; I want the very relevant stuff still there. I will go ahead and tackle it first. Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll try to pare it down and improve this section with you as I have time. But here is my real objection... this information exists on THREE pages:
1, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States
2, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#United_States
3, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States#Rape_statistics
THAT is silly. Maybe we could put a summarized version here, and then a full version in page 1 or 3? A full version should exist on one page, a summary on one, and then a few sentences and a link on the other (or perhaps just a link). Does anyone see my point? Or is it really better to keep three versions of the same thing?Hvatum (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I get your point. I have already cut down the information a little, and rearranged/combined certain paragraphs, but everything else there seems very relevant to mention. I am open to seeing how you would cut it down further, though. I feel that it should open (start off) the way I have it, with stats about men raping women and women sexually assaulting men, and I definitely want the information about rape outdoors and rape by strangers to stay. For the other articles, I would say all the United States rape statistics information in the Rape in the United States article should stay. After all, that is what that article was made for. But the information about the United States in the Rape statistics article should be significantly cut down. If you cut down the United States statistics information in this (the Rape) article even more, I would say that section and the Rape statistics article should be pretty much the same size on this matter (contain the same exact material). Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Sex crimes: patterns and behavior by Ronald M. Holmes, Stephen T. Holmes
  2. ^ Sex, Crime, and the Law by Donal E. J. MacNamara and Edward Sagarin
  3. ^ Sex Crime: Sex Offending and Society by Terry Thomas
  4. ^ Perspectives on sex, crime and society by David W. Selfe and Vincent Burke
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape/Archive_12&oldid=1142775693"