Talk:Rape/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

False accusation - half of the section about Kanin study

Half of the section "False accusation" is about one single study - Kanin. This, in my view, is a violation of WP:UNDUE, not to talk about WP:NPOV, since it is clear that this specific study has been chosen to be presented here to push a specific POV. Apart from the fact that the study has been accused of serious methodological problems (which are noted in this article), it is really irrelevant to the global issue. It is a study done on very small sample (109 reports) on cases in the late 70ies/early 80ies at a police station in a small US town. Even if this study were to be accepted as accurate (which it isn't given that it has received major criticism) its presentation here would still be unwarranted. What was happening 35 years ago at an obscure police station in a small town in the US is not representative of the current situation in the US, or of the situation in the US at the time of the study, and obviously it is not representative of the current global situation. General data for US, UK and Australia are presented in the section and are sufficient, and there is a link to the main article False accusation of rape for readers who want more details on the subject. I suggest that the Kanin study be removed from this article.Skydeepblue (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your point is well made, yet that element is well fenced with comments disparaging the report. I an inclined towards its remaining, but with stronger cited statements calling it in to question. I think removal would be incorrect. To be clear, I understand your point, but do not support the action you propose. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Input needed at RfC on rape culture

Input is needed at an RfC: Talk:Rape_culture#Request_for_comment_III. The question is whether material from an activist can be included in the Rape culture article. --Noleander (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Facts of this case need to be checked.

"Another 9-month-old baby was raped by six men, aged between 24 and 66, after the infant had been left unattended by her teenage mother." These details need to be verified. It was originally reported as six men, but as I remember it turned out that only one had raped the baby, while the other 5 men were in the next room drunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.228.82.58 (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

'Motivation'

Please note that per WP:EDITORIALIZING, we shouldn't be using phrasing like this "Rape as a method to achieve sexual gratification has been rejected by some feminists, who contend that rape is an act of violence, motivated by aggression and dominance. This feminist view, however, has been criticized by evolutionary psychologists as not rooted in scientific evidence". We already mention 'evolutionary pressures' as a possible cause, and evolutionary psychology is itself a controversial subject - using it to counter 'feminism' in this way is inappropriate, particularly when the 'aggression and dominance' view is widely held beyond the feminist perspective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Read The Causes Of Rape: Understanding Individual Differences In Male Propensity For Sexual Aggression. The view that rape is caused by dominance or aggression is a fringe one in modern science.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Aggression aside, the view that rape is somewhat, primarily or completely caused by dominance is very much not WP:FRINGE in modern science. Sociobiological theories of rape, however, are. There are any number of factors, or combinations of them, that can motivate a man to rape, and dominance and/or aggression are common factors that are even admitted to by some of the rapists themselves. And, yes, a lot of men simply state that they wanted sex, so they raped (as often happens in the case of date rape). But most rapists and scientists do not state that men rape because of "evolutionary pressures" (or whatever wording may be used to describe sociobiological theories of rape).

For documentation here on the talk page, I had tweaked FutureTrillionaire's addition, and left this follow-up WP:Dummy edit summary. FutureTrillionaire added more about feminists, and then AndyTheGrump and FutureTrillionaire objected to each other's edits.[1][2] This resulted in FutureTrillionaire removing the addition about feminists altogether. Flyer22 (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting your sources from. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There is very strong evidence in modern science that sexual gratification is the primary cause of rape. Read the up-to-date scientific literature and you will see.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

My sources come from my having studied the topic of rape for several years, including this year. Mentioning/linking the Sociobiological theories of rape article is not using Wikipedia as a source. And even if I had done so, I would be referring to the sources that Wikipedia article cites. However, I see nothing currently in that article that outright calls sociobiological theories of rape "fringe," but such a mention should be in that article. I never stated that sexual gratification is not the primary cause of rape; nor did I call it fringe. I even stated that "a lot of men simply state that they wanted sex, so they raped." I called sociobiological theories of rape, in reference to "evolutionary pressures," fringe. But a lot of scientists would argue against your assertion that sexual gratification is the primary cause of rape. I don't need to read up on the up-to-date scientific literature on rape; I do that often, and I'm not about to further debate any of this topic with you. Flyer22 (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If one is using the perspective of evolutionary psychology, 'sexual gratification' cannot be the 'primary cause' of behaviour anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The desire for sex is indeed what motivates men to rape in the vast majority of cases, and this article needs to reflect that. In the words of highly respected research psychologist Steven Pinker:

I believe that the rape-is-not-about-sex doctrine will go down in history as an example of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. It is preposterous on the face of it, does not deserve its sanctity, is contradicted by a mass of evidence, and is getting in the way of the only morally relevant goal surrounding rape, the effort to stamp it out.

--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You have cited no source whatsoever for your assertion. And while Steven Pinker may well be respected, it isn't for any research into rape, as far as I'm aware. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I did: The Causes Of Rape: Understanding Individual Differences In Male Propensity For Sexual Aggression. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So a single source is all we need to determine conclusively that "The desire for sex is indeed what motivates men to rape in the vast majority of cases"? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A victim blaming section?

Doesn't really seem appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.210.66.139 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Rape victim blaming section

I've added a section of notable instances, which: a) attracted worldwide coverage of victim blaming, b) in the last decade. All is referenced to RSs. It is encyclopedic to have such examples, of recent vintage and referenced to RSs. Feel free to edit/add, but I would hope we will not have edit-warring where an editor seeks to delete it because they dislike examples, which are completely appropriate in articles of this type at the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it. You listed one 'instance' which wasn't about a rape at all, but a Muslim preacher's speech - can you please explain how this can be a 'notable instance' of anything but a WP:COATRACK? As for the other examples, who determined that they are 'notable'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Rape happens all the time. I don't see any need to list examples of them. The problem is not "who determined that they are 'notable'?" They obviously are notable. The problem is we can't add every notable rape in history, and the pick-and-choose of incidents might lead to neutrality issues. The other problem is that they are not within the scope of this article, which is meant to be an overview on the issue, not a list of incidents.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the two above me, that section shouldn't be there. We don't need to quote what someone said to give an example of victim blaming. Dream Focus 23:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not determined by a who. It's determined by a what–namely, by reliable secondary sources. But that's beside the point.

The point is that the Victim Blaming section is a prose section, not a list section, and while listing some examples is not unreasonable, they should be limited, and incorporated seamlessly into that section's explanation of that phenomena. I favor restoring the material, but structuring it differently. Nightscream (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Nightscream as to notability (and it is I would suggest more than beside the point, since it was a basis for the deletion of the material). Obviously -- we have articles about notable people, and lists of notable people. I'm fine with what Night suggests -- making it (more clearly) prose. Alternatively, it can be put in the see also section, which is typically list format. I support the material being restored, in either format.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What is this article really about?

Is it about the concept of rape in America as the supreme center of the world or is it about rape worldwide? In any case the second sentence doesn't fit the rest of the article.

The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent.

These acts are not always defined as rape, and consequently most of the statistics and negative effects described in the lead don't apply to them. Examples include having sex with a drunk woman, teacher having sex with his student and a man having sex with an underage person.--Brazzon (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What does it matter that those acts are not always defined as rape? The point is that they sometimes are, and often enough with regard to an adult having sex with someone who is under the age of consent. Those acts are definitions of rape, and not just definitions found in America. And, per WP:LEAD, are simply a summary of the content lower in the article. So the second sentence, which includes the typical "physically forced to have sex" content, does fit with the rest of the article. The fact that the article is mostly about physical force is only because that is the default/core definition of rape. Flyer22 (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, forcing someone to have sex against their will, whether physical force or forced otherwise, is more so the default/core definition of rape. Flyer22 (talk) 13:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What does it matter that those acts are not always defined as rape? It matters because it's not explicitly stated there and the reader gets the impression that it's always so and that all the surveys and traumatic disorders are the result of these acts.

Furthermore, the acts we're talking about usually don't have to involve sex against their will, coersion or physical force, so they by no means are the core definition of rape.--Brazzon (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, the lead is a summary. We are not going to get into all the details, especially complicated ones like you are commenting on, in the lead. The lower part of the article does that. And we use "may be" in the lead for that sentence (as in "[t]he act may be," not "are" (as in "the acts are"). Furthermore, most people know that not all of these acts are always defined as rape. And as for "sex with a drunk person," that is not solely what the lead means by "incapacitated," considering that a drunk person is not always disabled from making a clear enough decision to have sex. Read this archived talk page section, where I address the "incapacitated does not mean drunk" aspect.

As for "the acts we're talking about," even though I know what you meant, you did cite the entire second sentence and proclaimed "These acts are not always defined as rape." And going back to the core definition of rape, like I stated, an adult having sex with a person under the age of consent is defined as rape often enough.

I'm mostly done with this discussion, and will let others address you now...if they decide to address you. Flyer22 (talk) 14:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In some screwed up nations murdering your wife or children because they embarrassed you isn't considered murder. Should the article for murder change its definition so not to offend these people? Its still murder even if done in a nation which doesn't consider it that. Rape is rape, no matter how much some try to downplay its severity, or justify the acts of the rapist. Raping your own wife is still legal in some nations. There are places were its legal to force a 12 year old girl to marry a man old enough to be her grandfather, and perfectly legal for him to rape and beat her as he sees fit. In Afghanistan you can legally sell a 7 old boy as a sex slave. They don't consider having sex with the child as rape, but that doesn't mean anyone in the civilized world would not consider it rape. Dream Focus 14:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Since you mentioned murder, Brazzon has proposed to change the lead of the Murder article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I do think that Brazzon has a point. The concept of what constitutes rape has changed in time and across cultures. Take an admittedly extreme example. Where the legal age for consent to intercourse is sixteen, is it helpful or even realistic to assert that rape necessarily includes intercourse between a 15 year old boy and a 16 year old girl where the boy has perhaps initiated the activity and been, shall we say, an enthusiastic participant? We may say that the girl must take most of the blame, has behaved immorally, ought to be punished, etc, or that the behaviour is treated as rape under the relevant criminal law, but to suggest that it is incontrovertably and universally included within the definition is misleading. Lead sentences need to be carefully worded, and avoid POV. --AJHingston (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

And I don't see how the second sentence, which, again, uses "may be," is not worded carefully and neutrally. Again, the lead is not for delving into all the details about what constitutes rape, and certainly not complicated aspects like the close-in-age statutory rape matters that you touched on. We have the Definitions section, with its subsections, for that. Flyer22 (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

And as shown in the "archived talk page section" link I provided above, I was (and still am) worried about the same matter as Brazzon when it comes to sex with a drunk person. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Precision is difficult. [M]ay be can be ambiguous - we might naturally say that a task may be carried out in one of a number of ways, all of which are valid. I would prefer the second sentence to simply concede that legal and cultural understandings vary, leaving it to later sections to explain how and why. As for the first sentence, the legal concept of consent, as in laying down ages at which it can be given, may be a very familiar one to some of us but is not necessarily the natural meaning. It is interesting that the Oxford English Dictionary definition refers to compelling somebody to have intercourse 'against their will' which is probably a better starting point. --AJHingston (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, it's best not to be ambiguous in the way that you propose by saying "definitions vary," or some variation of that. Not to mention that we have some editors who like to tweak (or sometimes needlessly tamper with) leads and are consistently removing such wording from leads. If rape were as difficult to define as defining the Universe (a topic that has plagued that article because of the difficulty defining the Universe), I would get your point about being ambiguous in the way that you propose. But in the case of rape, we should provide the definitions in the lead, as in summarize them, and let the lower part of the article do the rest. It's a good thing that "may be" is ambiguous, and that's the point I was making about it, for the very reasons stated above about rape not always being defined the same way. And as for consent, rape is about whether or not consent was present between the people to engage in sexual activity, just as the Consent section makes clear (also mentioning the age of consent aspect), so I would rather that remain. Besides that, "without that person's consent," in the case of rape, is a synonym for "against his or her will"...except for in cases of abuse of authority that are absent of force or a person who is incapable of valid consent (such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or the type of age of consent matters discussed above, unless one argues that having sex with someone who is unconscious or incapacitated is also against the person's will). Further, we shouldn't give the impression that rape is always about force, which is what "against his or her will" implies. So, clearly, "against his or her will" is limiting, while "without that person's consent" is not. The Oxford English Dictionary's definition is not unique, given the dictionary sources used in the lead which pretty much state the same thing, or exactly the same thing, as one of the definitions of rape. The first paragraph of the lead is doing the same thing that dictionaries and other encyclopedias do -- name the different definitions without making one more authoritative than the other (unless you count the number listings in dictionary definitions as putting forth the authoritative or most common definitions first; dictionary definitions do, at least usually, put forth the most common definition first). Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You and I read WP:LEAD differently. If it is not possible to summarise an article clearly, simply and unambiguously, we should ensure that we do not mislead. My objection to 'may be' is not that it is ambiguous in the way that you mean, but that it can be read unambiguously as inclusive of the examples given whilst the whole point is that it may or may not include them depending upon the social and legal context. [I realise that might be an idiomatic use of English that is not universal, but that is the problem in an international encyclopedia - I would be much happier with 'might include' but would still like the point made that this will vary]. Some legal systems and societies make a clear distinction between rape and other sexual offences and that can be important in how participants are treated, so the question of whether an activity is rape or not is non trivial and should not be unduly influenced by our own prejudices or usage. --AJHingston (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you and I evidently have read WP:LEAD differently, or it's rather that we have different opinions about how difficult it is to define rape. You believe that it's not possible to clearly summarize the different definitions of rape in the lead, and that we should leave out the different definitions due to that. I don't. I believe that it's as simple as naming the different definitions like we currently do, which is what dictionaries and other encyclopedias do as well. We are not stating anything other than that by naming the different definitions. Listing those different definitions is not about prejudice; it's about the fact that all of those definitions are considered rape, as the sources show. I don't see a problem at all with using "may be" in this case. For example, if you mean that a person can take it to mean that we are saying that a single act of rape includes all those things, I don't see how a person would come to that conclusion unless they have comprehension problems. Furthermore, we also use "or." And knowing of WP:ANDOR, the word "or" is usually (or always, according to some people) sufficient without stating "and/or." The whole point of "may," and the wording "may be" that is used in this case, is that it signals to the reader that rape may or may not include those things. So I do not understand your point at all, and find it to be (no offense intended) quibbling. I would agree to use "may or may not be," but when "may be" is used, there is no need to state "may not be." It goes without saying that rape may not be carried out by all of those acts, and rather just one of them. And if you mean listing those examples gives the impression that all of those things are considered rape, that's the point; they are all considered rape. The fact that they, with the exception of forced penile-vaginal penetration, aren't all considered rape in every jurisdiction, state or country is beside the point; the same can be stated about a lot of different terms and laws (for example, murder noted above), but we still usually (or usually should) give a clear definition of a subject in our Wikipedia articles.

I find "might include" problematic instead of "may be carried out by" because the former seems to imply even more so that a single act of rape might include all those things, when rarely ever, if ever, does a single act of rape include all those things. You are asking us to be ambiguous about what rape can mean by leaving out the different definitions; I see no valid reason for doing so, especially since, according to Wikipedia statistics, most people who visit Wikipedia to look up something do not read past the lead. I could agree to adding "Definitions vary" in conjunction with listing the different definitions, but not with completely removing the different definitions. But again, "Definitions vary" would likely be removed by the type of editors I mentioned above; and, if used in conjunction with the different definitions, it would be removed by one of those editors because it's redundant; the fact that there are different definitions makes it obvious that definitions on the subject vary. So instead of just "Definitions vary," it would be better to state that they vary by "social and legal context" (your wording). So we could have the second line state: "Definitions of rape vary by social and legal context; the act of rape may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent." But I do point out that we also make this clear in the Definitions section by stating: "The definition of rape varies both in different parts of the world and at different times in history." Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

On history section

Hi. I'm answering to the comment left by Flyer22 in her summary: "Some of the new material is redundant to what is already in the article about how rape was viewed in history. The redundancy needs to be cut." While it is true that there are some redundancies in the history section which need to be worked out, the text I added was meant to refer only to legal definitions of the crime of rape; while much of what was already in that section is about the social views in general of rape throughout history. I think the "History" section should have two subsections:

• Legal definitions of rape and evolution of laws
• Social views (which would inlude how society viewed this crime, what was though of it, of its causes, of victims, of perpetrators; where did society believe the harm lied - eg. property crime against the man who "owned" the woman etc).Skydeepblue (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Skydeepblue. Good to see you, as usual. As you know, I removed a bit of redundancies, and, like I stated in a different edit summary, I don't see too much redundancy there. Also, I don't object to your proposal for redesigning that section, except that I do feel that the War rape subheading/section specifically about war rape should remain, since the second part of the text that's currently there is about war rape. It doesn't seem that any of the war rape material needs to be cut, unless unsourced. Flyer22 (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about the subsection "War rape" being kept. I was referring to the first part of "History" being broken in two subsections: "Legal definitions of rape and evolution of laws" and "Social views throughout history"; so there will be three subsections of the "History" section.Skydeepblue (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Norweigan rapes

Norway section states '100% of assault rapes were committed by immigrant non-Western males'. Firstly, in what sense are they immigrants if they were born there? Statistics are unlikely to discern between the two, only appearance. Secondly, the only sources via googling I can find for this is some anti-muslim blog-type sites, do the facts really match this? If so I suggest this be changed to 'men of non-European appearance/ethnicity.'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a direct quote. There may possibly be grounds for excluding this per WP:WEIGHT though - to quote in full "Recent police statistics showed that in the capital city of Oslo, 100 percent of assault rapes between strangers were committed by immigrant, non-Western males. And nine out of 10 of their victims were native Norwegian women". [3] We don't know what proportion of rapes in Norway happen in Oslo, nor what proportion were 'assault rapes' (or indeed what exactly that means), nor what proportion were 'between strangers'. Without further context it may be undue. I'd also be a little wary regarding sourcing: the Christian Broadcasting Network may not bee seen as impartial in this context. If it can't be sourced elsewhere, it should probably be deleted, at least until we can find confirmation and clarification. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think it should be excluded but I think there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. I managed to find the source if it, it's from a Norweigan Police report-style PDF from 2010/2011, straight from the horses mouth https://www.politi.no/vedlegg/lokale_vedlegg/oslo/Vedlegg_1309.pdf. I translated it to English in my Chrome browser and am reading it now so if I can clarify it i'll try my best. Re:Assault rapes, turns out Norway classify rapes into five categories, 'assault rape' being one of them.Oxr033 (talk) 00:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Found it, took a screencap > http://imgur.com/jDCRV4P this clears a lot up. It's about 2/3rds of the way down if you want to read. Of the 152 rapes that were recorded in Oslo on 2010, 6 of them were assault rapes. Of those 6, 4 were committed by men of Middle Eastern appearance (66.7%), and 1 committed by man of African appearance, and one committed by man of Asian appearance. So yes it is correct that non were commited by ethnically Norweigan men, but none were also committed by American or European men, America being both north and south so not just 'western'. I also think it needs to be made clear that Norway categorizes rape in to 5 categories, 'Related party', 'Relationship', 'Vulnerable', 'Assault' and 'Other' -and without this information it comes across as misleading. The date for the research (2010) also needs to be mentioned. Regarding the non-western background, further up the PDF the police state that they define 'non norweigan' as someone born from two parents who were born and raised abroad, so it stands to reason that of these 6 men who committed these assault rapes, all 6 could theoretically have been born in Norway, so the title of 'immigrant' doesn't seem right. Then again they could have all been born and raised abroad - so maybe more neutral terminology would be better suited to the article. EDIT: To be honest i'm not sure 6/152 rapes is even notable, maybe it should be left out? I'm unsure of there's been an increase in the preceding years of this particular type of incident. If not is it noteworthy?Oxr033 (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to make sense of it myself - it certainly appears that the statistic has been cherry-picked. Probably best to delete it, though to be sure we might want to get a Norwegian-speaker to double check this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

OK i've asked about in on the Norweigan Rape talkpage http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskusjon:Voldtekt#Utenlandsk_opprinnelse.3F, in the mean time should I delete it or expand it?Oxr033 (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd delete it for now, as undue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Headings

One does not need a third level heading that states "general statistics" under epidemiology as the main section (second level heading) is for general statistics. This is redundant. And we do not do it in other articles.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, James. I'm fine with your other recent edits to the article so far. For others, here is backstory to the present regarding the "General" headings: I added the "General" headings to this article on May 14 of this year, such as to the Statistics section. The reason why is stated in that edit summary. James removed the heading earlier the previous hour, with the following reasoning: "the lead bit is general statics do not need to say twice." I reverted, explaining, "I added this so that this section is not skipped by judging this section from the table of contents. The accidental skipping happens often when reading our Wikipedia articles, as some of our readers have stated." James reverted, responding, "no the content in the begining is the overview, no one will skip." I left a WP:Dummy edit summary stating, "Yes, some will. I have experience with that being the case; otherwise, I wouldn't have stated it. I will start a section about this on the talk page."

James is incorrect on this because, as I have repeatedly witnessed, our editors and/or readers have accidentally skipped information because what they saw from the table of contents gave them the impression that there was no content in what James calls the overview of the section. This is because it is often that there is no overview in a section that consists of two or more subheadings; our editors and readers therefore skip right to the first subheading in a section. One example that I know of where this included our own editors (including me) accidentally skipping a section is what happened more than once at the WP:FA Changeling (film) article back in 2009. See this discussion, this discussion and this discussion. In that first discussion, Steve stated of the "Summary" heading he added, "I included it more for navigation purposes, really. Seeing the contents at the top of the page, a reader might see the subsections to the main sections and assume there's no content above them (as clicking through to the subsection puts it at the top of the screen)." And that is essentially my rationale for having included the "General" headings that James has removed from this article. We do add such headings, as can be seen in the Changeling (film) article and many of our other Wikipedia articles. And considering that I have seen what happened at the Changeling (film) article (the accidental skipping) happen at many other Wikipedia articles since 2009, it is safe to say that the "General" type of headings are very helpful to our editors and/or readers. It's not redundant to most of our readers because most of them, without a "General" type of heading starting off the sections, don't know that there are often summary areas in our sections before the subsections that follow. Flyer22 (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We almost never do this at WPMED and I see no medical GAs or FAs that do this. All it does is make the Table of Contents cluttered and extra long so it is hard to find anything. If you want statistics you click on the statistics heading. Not sure how one will miss something. With the country specific data moved to the subpage it is even less needed to add this heading back. Disagree with its use at "changeling" as well but do not edit that subject. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I don't often see it done with WP:MED articles, and the Rape article is tagged as being within WP:MED's scope. I'm not arguing that a "General" subheading should always be done. I'm arguing that not including such a heading has often had a negative effect. Like I stated, there are many other examples besides the Changeling (film) article example on Wikipedia. Such headings can be clutter, but it is often not unnecessary clutter; and when an article is not too long, it is even less of a problem. I'm not going to press for such headings in this article, James, but I did feel the need to explain why I disagree with you that such headings are not needed. Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay. It already has a second level heading, do not think it deserves a third level heading as well. I guess we could ask for wider input. If we make the TOC more complicated people will miss other bits or simply skip the article all together as too complicated. I see it sort of like bolding. Some like to add bolding to make sure others do not miss their prefered text. IMO bolding should be used very sparingly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, since I'm not pressing for those type of headings in this article, I don't feel that we need to request one or more related WikiProjects weigh in on this or something like a WP:RfC. Such headings are often a case-by-case matter, and often aren't even titled "General" or "Summary," but rather something more specific; again, all of this is done so that the reader does not accidentally skip the first part of the section's contents...or, especially in the case of more specific headings, so that the reader finds the content he or she is looking for. It's not always as simple as clicking on the first heading (though I often make sure to do so now). In the aforementioned third discussion of the Changeling (film) article talk page, for example, the problem was that I'd clicked on the "Critical response" heading instead of the "Reception" heading and therefore accidentally skipped "all the reception information above [the former]." I didn't think to click on "Reception" because I figured that was just the main heading that happens to be there to tie together its subsections; it didn't make sense to me that some major critical reception information would be above the "Critical response" section, but it was. Because I was certain that I was not the only one who that accidental skipping happened to at that article, I suggested that the "Critical response" heading be moved higher. What resulted instead was giving the summary information the title of "General response" and the specific information about the reviews the title of "Reviews"; as you can see, it's worked fine for that article for years. The absence of "General" headings from the Rape article isn't as much of a problem as the case I encountered at the Changeling (film) article. Like I stated, it's a case-by-case matter. Yes, I prefer that those type of headings be included if we're going to have information in the space between the main heading and the first subheading, but I also understand how that can be considered unneeded or excessive, such as in the case of what I did here at the Rape article, though I obviously don't feel that such headings generally make the table of contents problematic and cause readers to accidentally skip any sections. Without the aforementioned headings, some readers will accidentally skip information in our articles, and some won't; though it's good to help our readers as much as we can, it's not our job to pamper them. I don't view this matter as similar to bolding, which we have the WP:MOS BOLD guideline for, but I agree that bolding should sparingly be done. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

On a side note, I noticed that you split the Marital rape section apart from the Consent section. Without the "General factors" subheading, your split does help keep readers from skipping the general information about consent. But it seems odd that the Marital rape section is a main section of the Definitions section; it's WP:UNDUE WEIGHT with regard to the other specific aspects that don't have their own sections under the Definitions heading. I propose that the Marital rape section be significantly cut down and merged back into the Consent section; it was a part of that section without a subheading before it was significantly expanded earlier this year. After all, readers can go to the main article, Marital rape, for the in-depth information about it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Country level data

IMO this should go on the subpage rape statistics. Much of it is already there and we have just ended up with a cotract. Global data should be in the main article as an overview. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Have moved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Religion

Shouldn't a section about religion (the views and the response to rape that religions have) be added? I think it's important, because historically laws and social norms have been based to a very great extent on religious views; and religion continues to play a major role today and influences the legal systems of many (most?) countries.2A02:2F0A:502F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:ADDD (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

List of notables, Part 2

I have brought the discussion that I began here last September over to the BLP talk page, as was suggested to me here previously. Editors are encouraged to voice their viewpoints there. Nightscream (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)