Talk:Rape

Armistice
I must admit that I cannot make head or tails of what the war is about. It would be very helpful if AzureFury and TheLuca could work out a self-contained, joint, neutral description of what exactly it is they disagree about. Otherwise it will be difficult for other editors to provide useful input towards a resolution. However, it would probably be even more helpful if they did that on a subpage and then invited outside comment after they agree on a description of the conflict. Please? –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll write up a summary when I get home. The dispute has been more or less productive until lately.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 23:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Currently there are two disputed issues. The first that arose is regarding false accusations. Here's what it looked like originally:. There are two figures given: 2% and 41%, immediately followed by a refutation of the 41%. It turns out this is very one-sided. An anon noticed this and brought this to the talk page explaining that the 2% figure had no real study behind it, and was traced back to an unsupported quote by a judge. I didn't want to tackle such a contentious issue here, so I simply picked the broadest range I could find and gave a real brief summary with the hopes of directing readers to the main article Rape statistics. Luca accused me of "nonsense" and "misrepresenting sources" etc, and reverted. So instead I added the fact that the 2% figure was unfounded, and copied info from Rape statistics regarding FBI and UK studies on rape. She responded by adding the bit about the "several small studies confirm the 2% figure"  I found better sources for the FBI study's limitations showing unquestionably that the 8% figure they produced is out of all accusations, whether or not they were investigated.  Here's the point of contention: 40% of the cases for the FBI study were dropped. 8% of all cases were "unfounded" (this definition turns out to be very ambiguous as it is not standardized nationally). Anyway, some amount of that 40% will of course be false accusations, my guess would be more than 8% of that 40%. That number, whatever it is, is not considered in the 8% "unfounded" figure. Therefore, by excluding the 40% dropped figure from our considerations, we are under estimating the number of false accusations. On the other hand, the ambiguity of the term "unfounded" makes us over-estimate the number of false accusations. Note that *I* added the information regarding the ambiguity of the definition "unfounded". Luca seems to believe that we are two combatants with some neatly drawn lines in the dirt. But I am honestly just trying to represent reality here. The UK study (stating 9% of accusatons are false) said that 66% of cases were not pursued because of the lack of cooperation of victims. It is these two numbers that Luca wants to remove, thereby grossly inflating the number of actual rapes.

The second issue is more recent, and concerns the study in Canada: Rape. If that study is to be believed, one in three women in Canada has experienced a sexual assault, or attempted sexual assault. This is a study added by Luca with an offline source that I can not verify. I googled the magainze name, the figure, the year, etc, but I can't seem to find any more information on the subject besides the actual number "one in three." I did find another number from a study in the US stating that 27% of women had experienced a sexual assault or attempted sexual assault.(canadiancrc.com/Newspaper_Articles/IWF_One_In_Four_Rape_Stat_27APR06.aspx) However, in the US study, one of the questioned asked was, "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" This invites any woman who has had sex while not sober and then later regretted it to answer "yes." For the entire study, only 25% of women who researchers counted as rape victims described their event as a "rape." Four in ten of those labeled rape victims and 3 in ten of those labeled attempted rape victims chose to have sex with their assailants at a later date. Either there is some absolutely unbelievable psychological phenomenon occuring in the US, or these women were not raped. When the drugs/alcohol question is omitted from consideration, only 5% of women would be labeled as rape victims. Here is the dispute: the estimate in the US study is clearly a gross over-estimate. The survey from Canada gave an even higher number, 33%. Naturally, I've asked Luca if she could produce any information about the study's methodology. She has responded by saying I'm taking ownership of the article, treating it like my blog, being infantile, etc. It seems like a simple and good faith request to me, and I've pointed this out, but only received nasty responses.

So that's where we are at this point. The FBI/UK studies, and the Canadian survey. Most of what I've learned about rape I've learned during this dispute. I haven't found any of the studies presented to be particularly convincing, and I think it's necessary for us to describe their limitations, which has been my entire goal during this dispute.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 02:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't look like a joint statement. –Henning Makholm (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Luca is free to correct errors or ommissions.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 18:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several problems. And they are very serious because they concern WP:NPOV and WP:OR.
 * The first problem is that the Kelly, Lovett, & Regan (2005) study which was commissioned by the British Home Office was misrepresented by AzureFury. This is how he described the "UK study": "A study from the UK stated that between half to two thirds of rape cases were dropped before referral to prosecutors, and 9% of all rape cases were determined to be false allegations." As it turns out, the study (which is the largest and most rigorous study of attrition according to the researchers an this additional source) found that the actual number of false reports was 3% and that the 9% figure was based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators and that the classifications were made in violation of official criteria for establishing a false allegation. The researchers concluded that “one cannot take all police designations at face value” and that “[t]here is an over-estimation of the scale of false allegations by both police officers and prosecutors.” I pointed out to AzureFury that his misrepresentation is a breach of WP:NPOV but AzureFury has reverted my corrections three times and has completely ignored my explanation of the edit here.
 * Another problem is AzureFury's insistence that we should include information about "dropped" cases and cases that were "cleared by exceptional means" in a section that should be exclusively devoted to false allegations. As one of the sources states: "There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated." And this is exactly what AzureFury has been doing here: Trying to conflate false allegation with "dropped" and "cleared" cases. He keeps insisting that including the numbers of withdrawn or dropped cases is important because of his belief that the portion of withdrawn cases must include particularly many cases of false reports. This, of course, is his original research (and a rape myth) and the Home Office study actually mentions many cases where the perpetrator admitted his crime or was convicted through DNA testing but still the victims withdrew. Also the Home Office study is very clear: "Nine per cent of reported cases were designated false, with a high proportion of these involving 16- to 25-year-olds. However, closer analysis of this category applying Home Office counting rules reduces this to three per cent." 2,643 sexual assault cases were reported. Of these, 9% were classified as false by the police. Upon closer examination, the percentage dropped to 3%. Again for AzureFury: 9% of 2,643 cases were classified as false by the police; closer analysis reduced this to 3%.
 * AzureFury wrote: "Here's the point of contention: 40% of the cases for the FBI study were dropped. 8% of all cases were "unfounded" (this definition turns out to be very ambiguous as it is not standardized nationally). Anyway, some amount of that 40% will of course be false accusations, my guess would be more than 8% of that 40%. That number, whatever it is, is not considered in the 8% "unfounded" figure. Therefore, by excluding the 40% dropped figure from our considerations, we are under estimating the number of false accusations." This is original research and nothing else. The "contention" has no point unless you can present reliable sources which support this "contention." Before being dropped, those cases were investigated. 8% of all investigated cases (the dropped ones included) were classified as false by the police. All sources say that. No single source out there confirms AzureFury's original research that "by excluding the 40% dropped figure from our considerations, we are under estimating the number of false accusations." Therefore, it's not only "off-topic" but it's a breach of WP:OR. Synthesizing information to imply a conclusion not advanced by the source is a breach of WP:SYN.
 * Another problem is that I added a large Australian study and the source is this . AzureFury has reverted the addition of the study three times  and has completely ignored my explanation of the edit here.
 * The most ironic thing is that now that the Home Office study has been corrected, the Australian study included, and the conflation of false allegations and withdrawals tagged, he tagged the section as "disputed."


 * Yet another point is his insistence that his approval of the methodology of a study is a necessary conclusion for its inclusion. The above mentioned Home Office study has this paragraph:
 * ""The most frequently cited research was conducted by Statistics Canada in 1992, which involved a national random sample of 12,300 women and used telephone interviews. Whilst most publicity has been given to the domestic violence findings, considerable data were collected on rape and sexual assault (Johnson and Sacco, 1995). The BCS findings on known men and repeat assaults were echoed, but a far higher prevalence rate was found (over one in three reported a sexual assault) and a lower reporting rate to the police (6% compared to 25% for domestic violence in this study).""


 * Based on the Home Office study I added this paragraph to the article:
 * ""The most frequently cited research was conducted by Statistics Canada in 1992, which involved a national random sample of 12,300 women (Johnson and Sacco, 1995). The research found that over one in three women had experienced a sexual assault and that only 6% of sexual assaults were reported to the police.""


 * AzureFury tagged the section and shared his thoughts on the methodology of the study (none of which where substantiated by research or reliable sources). I explained to him that this information was published in a very reliable source and that I hardly changed the wording of the paragraph. I also pointed out that if he has doubts about a specific scientific approach used by the researchers in studies of attrition, he should get a degree in psychology or sociology and publish his criticism in a peer reviewed journal. Then we could take it into account. Until then, we can't. His replied with threats: "If you refuse to add information regarding the methodology of this survey, then I will remove it per WP:WEIGHT. If this is "the most frequently cited research" in Canada, then we can find additional online sources for verification. If we can only find it in one place, adding it here is undue weight." I replied  that his opinion of the sources or the position advanced by the sources is irrelevant, I provided a reliable source which confirms that the the Canadian study used highly sophisticated methods, and I pointed out that the Canadian study is cited in 143 scholarly articles and is the most frequently cited research in Canada. Even without this additional information, the Kelly, Lovett, & Regan (2005) study which was commissioned by the British Home Office is a very reliable source. All of a sudden, he started to discuss false allegations instead of the Canadian study and then added "Why don't you demonstrate your good faith and objectivity by either describing to me or adding to the article their methodology, specifically what questions they've asked? If it is convincing, this will only strengthen your case, right? Or do you have something to hide?" One should note that this is the same editor who has misrepresented the Home Office study and has been trying to conflate false allegations with withdrawals and dropped cases. And this editor questions my good faith (which is a breach of WP:AGF btw)? Ironic.
 * The bottom line is that, the paragraph here is almost identical with this paragraph which is in the Kelly, Lovett, and Regan (2005) Home Office study: "The most frequently cited research was conducted by Statistics Canada in 1992, which involved a national random sample of 12,300 women and used telephone interviews. Whilst most publicity has been given to the domestic violence findings, considerable data were collected on rape and sexual assault (Johnson and Sacco, 1995). The BCS findings on known men and repeat assaults were echoed, but a far higher prevalence rate was found (over one in three reported a sexual assault) and a lower reporting rate to the police (6% compared to 25% for domestic violence in this study)."  AzureFury argues that we have no right whatsoever to include the description of the Canada study by Kelly, Lovett, and Regan (2005) because AzureFury doesn't agree with the methodology. He basically says that his opinion is more important than material published in reliable sources. He continues to bombard us with his thoughts on this paragraph from the Kelly, Lovett, and Regan (2005) study and refuses to accept the fact that his thoughts are irrelevant unless he can present a reliable source which supports them.
 * And then AzureFury ends with this gem: "I haven't found any of the studies presented to be particularly convincing, and I think it's necessary for us to describe their limitations, which has been my entire goal during this dispute." This sums it up nicely. It's your original research vs. reliable sources. Once again: Your thoughts of reliable sources are irrelevant. What you call "limitations" aren't limitations unless a reliable source (i.e., not you) says that they are and that they affect the results.
 * To sum up the reasons for the dispute:
 * The problem is that AzureFury misrepresented the Kelly, Lovett, and Regan (2005) study and keeps reverting its correction
 * That he continues to delete a large Australian study about false allegations because it found a rate of 2.1% of false reports
 * That he conflates false allegations with dropped, withdrawn, and cases "cleared by exceptional means" to advance the POV that the rate of false reports might be higher (although all sources warn that false allegations shouldn't be conflated with withdrawals)
 * That he insists that his approval of the material published in reliable sources is a necessary condition for its inclusion


 * AzureFury has misrepresented research, conflated false allegations with dropped and withdrawn reports, and argued that addition of new material from reliable sources depends on his approval. I suggest that AzureFury be banned from editing this article. Thank you and good day.TheLuca (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Misrepresented, lol. I copied and pasted it from Rape statistics.  Again, I've never claimed to be an expert, I did verify that the 9% figure was represented in the source.  With regards to Luca's new interpretation of 3% for the UK estimate, this is what her source (The National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women) says,
 * They then proceeded to evaluate each case using the official criteria for establishing a false allegation, which was that there must be "a clear and credible admission by the complainant" or "strong evidential grounds"...
 * For better or worse, this is returning to "innocent until proven guilty" which is a stance intentionally taken to favor one side, the innocent. She has traded an inaccurate statistic she didn't like for an inaccurate statistic she did like.  Keep in mind that this is still excluding the 66% of cases that were dropped due to complainant non-cooperation.  If we report 3%, as she is currently, without mentioning the 66% of dropped cases, those 66% of cases are added to the "not false allegations" group by implication, when they should really be in the "maybe false, maybe not" group.


 * More comments coming...  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that you are so careless as to "copy and paste" a study from somewhere else without reading it and then proceed to delete the ceorrection of your misrepresentations says quite a bit about the quality of your contributions. No, you never claimed that you are an expert and you certainly aren't. Yet you continue to insists that your original research has more validity than reliable sources.
 * The Kelly, Lovett, and Regan (2005) study which was commissioned by the British Home Office or, as you refer to it, the "Uk study" states many things :
 * ""Nine per cent of reported cases were designated false, with a high proportion of these involving 16- to 25-year-olds. However, closer analysis of this category applying Home Office counting rules reduces this to three per cent.""


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


 * ""There is an over-estimation of the scale of false allegations by both police officers and prosecutors which feeds into a culture of scepticism, leading to poor communication and loss of confidence between complainants and the police.""


 * ""International research contains salutary lessons about the ease with which cases are dismissed as ‘false’. In her analysis of 164 police files in New Zealand, Jordan (2001b) found 3 cases that had been designated false, which subsequently turned out to be early reports of serial rapists. In one of these, a young woman, who was discounted since she was on the fringe of a gang and had minor criminal convictions, named a rapist, who subsequently went on to commit at least 45 stranger rapes over 13 years.""


 * ""The belief amongst some CJS professionals that many complaints are false, that victims are to blame for ‘risk-taking’, places unreasonable requirements on complainants to demonstrate that that they are ‘real’ and deserving victims.""


 * Notice how AzureFury admits that he has no idea about any of this and seems to have trouble understanding the source. Okay, I will try again: 2,643 sexual assault cases were investigated. Of these, (i.e., not of 60% of these but of all reported cases) 3% were classified as false by the researchers and 9% were classified as false by the police.
 * Once again for AzureFury: As the researchers point out, conflating false allegations with dropped cases or retractions (thereby indicated that no crime occured) feeds into a culture of suspicion (""The interviews with police officers and complainants’ responses show that despite the focus on victim care, a culture of suspicion remains within the police, even amongst some of those who are specialists in rape investigations. There is also a tendency to conflate false allegations with retractions and withdrawals, as if in all such cases no sexual assault occurred. This reproduces an investigative culture in which elements that might permit a designation of a false complaint are emphasised (later sections reveal how this also feeds into withdrawals and designation of ‘insufficient evidence’), at the expense of a careful investigation, in which the evidence collected is evaluated. These perceptions and orientations are not lost on complainants.").
 * You admitted that you have no idea about an yof this. You admitted that you misrepresent or simply don't understand the source. But you keep ranting about some 66%? Again: "Nine per cent of reported cases were designated false, with a high proportion of these involving 16- to 25-year-olds. However, closer analysis of this category applying Home Office counting rules reduces this to three per cent" I repeat: Nine % of reported cases. Nine 9% of reported cases. Nine percent of repoted cases. There were 2,643 of reported cases. So... 9% of 2,643 cases. Again: 9% of 2,643 cases. Closer analysis reduces this to 3%. So 3% of 2,643 cases. I can't make it easier.
 * I hope that everyone can see why I am requesting a block for this user. TheLuca (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Luca, in your 5000 character post, you did not demonstrate once an understanding of my point about the 66% dropped cases.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 22:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AzureFury wrote: "Keep in mind that this is still excluding the 66% of cases that were dropped due to complainant non-cooperation. If we report 3%, as she is currently, without mentioning the 66% of dropped cases, those 66% of cases are added to the "not false allegations" group by implication, when they should really be in the "maybe false, maybe not" group." Okay for the seventh time: "Nine per cent of reported cases were designated false, with a high proportion of these involving 16- to 25 year-olds. However, closer analysis of this category applying Home Office counting rules reduces this to three per cent" Again: Of the reported cases. There were 2,643 reported cases. Of these 9% were classified as false by the police and 3% by the researchers applying official rules. Again: Of the 2,643 reported cases. There is no way to make it clearer for this editor that he is wrong. AzureFury, you've made it clear that you believe that your opinion is more important than reliable sources. You've also made it clear that you have no idea about this subject and that you are so careless as to copy and paste material without reading it. So what does this say about your contributions?
 * You mean the dropped cases that were included in the analysis? An analysis of all the reported cases? Of all the 2,643 reported cases? I can post the quote again but it should be apparant by now what it is you want to accomplish. I request a block of this user. TheLuca (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In order for a case to be dropped, it has to be reported.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 22:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Pure comedy. Again: "Nine per cent of reported cases were designated false, with a high proportion of these involving 16- to 25 year-olds. However, closer analysis of this category applying Home Office counting rules reduces this to three per cent" Again: Of the reported cases. There were 2,643 reported cases. Of these 9% were classified as false by the police and 3% by the researchers applying official rules. Again: Of the 2,643 reported cases. These 2,643 reported cases include all cases that were lost or dropped during the investigative process. Do you understand this? The analysis is based on 2,643 reported cases. I don't know how to make this even more basic, sorry. TheLuca (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're correct so far. You're missing something though.  They are stating that they willing to call 9% false allegations, and are not reporting on those cases that were dropped.  So here are the numbers:  66% unsure, 30% rapes, 3% (if we use your number) false allegations.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 22:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As if your admission that you don't know anything about this subject and that you opine on sources without reading them weren't enough, now you have started a campaign of shocking dishonesty. Your credibility will be forever marred by this. '''Anyone who is reading this: Please check this source and be aware of this user. TheLuca (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For just a second I was worried that I might have misread that source, but I found the same table I was using before. The table establishes that victim withdrawl and false allegations are two non-overlapping groups.  See Table 4.2 in Luca's source.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 23:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, it's important to repeat that AzureFury admitted earlier that he doesn't know anything about this subject and that he has pasted and copied the study from somewhere else without reading it.
 * Second, it's important to repeat that the Kelly, Lovett, & Regan (2005) study investigates attrition. The researchers define attrition as "the process by which rape cases drop out of the legal process, thus do not result in a criminal conviction" (p. 7). Translation for AzureFury: All reported cases are investigated, particularly those that "drop out of the legal process." AzureFury claims that the researchers lied about their research and that they actually didn't investigate how and why cases are lost or dropped during an investigation. He claims that instead, the researchers only focused on the cases that proceeded to the last stages of the investigation.
 * To quote the text before Table 4.2: "In Attrition point 1, which focuses on the decision to report to the police, findings are based on the full casetracking sample of 3,527 cases, i.e. both unreported and reported cases; analysis from Attrition point 2 onwards is based only on cases reported to the police." (p. 35). Can anyone explain this to AzureFury? Based on reported cases. Again: Based on reported cases. Translation for AzureFury: All reported cases (including cases that are dropped or lost in the investigation).
 * The researchers write: "Analysis of the case-tracking database was undertaken comparing the 2,643 cases who reported to the police" (p. 41). Translation for AzureFury: 2,643 sexual assault cases were reported to the police. These 2,643 cases included all cases that were later dropped or lost. "Eight per cent of reported (i.e., 2,643) cases in the sample were designated false by the police." (p. 52 of ). "The authors’ analysis suggests that the designation of false allegations in a number of cases was uncertain according to Home Office counting rules, and if these were excluded, would reduce the proportion of false complaints to three per cent of reported cases (i.e., 2.643 cases)." (p. 53 of ).
 * Here is another source which confirms this: "The largest and most rigorous study that is currently available in this area is the third one commissioned by the British Home Office (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005). The analysis was based on the 2,643 sexual assault cases (where the outcome was known) that were reported to British police over a 15-year period of time. Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. Yet the researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators, based on the victim’s mental illness, inconsistent statements, drinking or drug use. These classifications were thus made in violation of the explicit policies of their own police agencies. The researchers therefore supplemented the information contained in the police files by collecting many different types of additional data, including: reports from forensic examiners, questionnaires completed by police investigators, interviews with victims and victim service providers, and content analyses of the statements made by victims and witnesses. They then proceeded to evaluate each case using the official criteria for establishing a false allegation, which was that there must be either “a clear and credible admission by the complainant” or “strong evidential grounds” (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005). On the basis of this analysis, the percentage of false reports dropped to 2.5%" (p. 2 of ).
 * The researchers of the Home Office study conclude: "There are false allegations, and possibly slightly more than some researchers and support agencies have suggested. However, at maximum they constitute nine per cent and probably closer to three per cent of all reported cases. An overestimation of the scale by police officers and prosecutors feeds into a culture of scepticism, which in turn leads to poor communication and loss of confidence between complainants and the police." (p. 83). AzureFury, are you reading this? Of all reported cases. Okay? Of all reported cases. Again: Of all reported cases. Another quote: "Nine per cent of reported cases were designated false, with a high proportion of these involving 16- to 25-year-olds. However, closer analysis of this category applying Home Office counting rules reduces this to three per cent." (p. XI of )
 * AzureFury, once again, your credibility as an editor is forever marred by your lies and prevarications. The ironic thing is that AzureFury admitted that he knows nothing about any of this and hasn't even read the study before copying and pasting it. Another ironic and deeply disturbing thing is his emotional appeal to stop "hurt[ing] the falsely accused" by demanding that research be presented neutrally and accurately. Sorry, AzureFury. Not all of us are willing to misrepresent research to advance a certain POV. It's very simple: Find clear and unambiguous support for your original research, i.e., find a reliable source that says that the Home Office researchers are big fat liars that said that they based their analysis on 2,643 cases (=all reported cases) but actually excluded all dropped cases. I wonder if you have any idea how humorous it is that you claim that a study of attrition failed to account for cases that were lost through attrition. Anyway, then we'll talk. Until then, your original research must be deleted aggressively and immediately per WP:NPOV and WP:OR.TheLuca (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You didn't demonstrate once an understanding of the concept of overlapping sets, or my purpose for pointing to the table. Instead, you, like every source you've quoted, merely repeated the 9% figure over and over again. I haven't once accused the researchers of "being big fat liars."  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 18:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for admitting that you know nothing of the subject and that you didn't read the Home Office study prior to copying and pasting it. Second, thank you for admitting that the study itself as well as every source I've cited repeats the 9% (or, more precisely 8%) and, most importantly, the 3% figure. By now everyone should know why you try to hide the 3% figure. You don't want to "hurt the falsely accused" by reporting the actual rate (which was 3%). Now that we have established the fact that the researchers themselves and other sources fully agree with me (unsurprisingly, since I've been quoting them for the most part), you still continue to insist that your original research is more important than the actual sources. Your continued insistence that you and you only are right and that researchers are wrong about their own research is humorous but disruptive.
 * The researchers stated several times that their analysis was based on all reported (i.e., 2,643) cases. You can see some of the quotes in my previous reply. You, however, insist against all evidence that the analysis was based only on the cases that weren't dropped or lost. The implication is that the researchers are either big fat liars or forgot to mention this crucial piece of information. So you accuse the researchers of lying or of being careless. The sad truth, however, is that you simply haven't read the study. You actually admit that you didn't read the study. The other option is that you deliberately misrepresent the study to advance a certain POV which isn't advanced by the source. However, I still try to assume good faith and prefer explanation number one.
 * Again: The analysis is based on all cases of sexual assault that were reported to the police (in the course of a certain period). 2,643 sexual assault cases were reported to the police. The analysis is based on these 2,643 cases. These 2,653 cases include all dropped and lost cases. This is a study of attrition. The researchers investigate why and how cases are dropped and lost and why some cases proceed to the final stages of investigation. The basis for this analysis is the 2,643 cases.
 * Your theories about "overlapping sets" and how the 8% or 3% figure isn't based on the 2,643 cases are original research. I've provided quotes from the study and an additional source which summarize the results of the study. But you simply refuse to accept the results offered by the researchers and you continue with your disruptive comments. I offer you again to remove your original research and the unjustified tags. You must understand that you are only harming yourself and your credibility as an editor with your behavior.
 * And once again: The rate of false allegations which was found in the study is 3%. 3%. 3%. Actually closer to 2.5% according to the appendix. It's sad that you continue to deny it.
 * Anyway. This is settled then. Please make sure to remove the tags on the section "False accusation" and remove the off-topic paragraph where you conflate the rate of false allegations with the rate of dropped or cleared cases, thereby synthesizing information to advance a POV not advanced by the source (which is a breach of WP:SYN). TheLuca (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to see if I can get in touch with Home Office about this.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 20:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The number of people prosecuted for rape in the UK has nothing to do with the number of people getting raped and reporting it. I saw a program once on this woman who was drugged and raped calling the police, they not taking it seriously, saying she could come in and feel out a report if she wanted to.  Judges have been known to taunt rape victims for wearing red underwear, among other things.  You have the police letting serial rapists off with warnings at times.  Only 1 in 20 rape trials end in prosecution.  This is because their jury system is setup so that they randomly select people for it, without any chance of the prosecutor or the defense to eliminate potentially bad juries as is done in America and other nations.  Get one bad jury member, and they won't take the case seriously, and the rapists gets away with it, if they know the mindset of the local populace will be against the victim.  Also prosecutors throughout the world won't prosecute certain cases.  In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in America, there was a news story about even with DNA evidence, the prosecutor didn't proceed with a rape case because he didn't think he could get a conviction, since the woman had been drinking.  There have been cases where they have video footage of a woman too drunk to even stand, getting raped by two men, and the jury didn't find them guilty of raping her.  I'll try to find some links to news programs that allow their episodes to be seen online.  My point is, the prosecution rate and the conviction rate, have NOTHING to do with the number of false reportings.   D r e a m Focus  20:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you should add that info regarding the UK's jury selection, if you can find a reliable source that connects it to rape as you have. However, this doesn't address my point about the two values given in table 4.2 of the UK study.  That table clearly shows no intersection between dropped cases and false allegations.  So one of two things must be true here.  Either a case that is dropped and found to be a false allegation is only counted in the false allegation cell, or the cases that are dropped are not counted in the false allegations cell at all.  The former of these two options will produce a smaller number of false allegations, and the latter will produce a larger number.  I'm going to see if I can contact Home Office about this tonight.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 20:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * AzureFury, the researchers summarize their results:
 * "There are false allegations, and possibly slightly more than some researchers and support agencies have suggested. However, at maximum they constitute nine per cent and probably closer to three per cent of all reported cases. An overestimation of the scale by police officers and prosecutors feeds into a culture of scepticism, which in turn leads to poor communication and loss of confidence between complainants and the police." (p. 83)AzureFury, are you reading this? Of all reported cases. Okay? Of all reported cases. Again: Of all reported cases.
 * "Nine per cent of reported cases were designated false, with a high proportion of these involving 16- to 25-year-olds. However, closer analysis of this category applying Home Office counting rules reduces this to three per cent." (p. XI of )
 * "The authors’ analysis suggests that the designation of false allegations in a number of cases was uncertain according to Home Office counting rules, and if these were excluded, would reduce the proportion of false complaints to three per cent of reported cases (i.e., 2.643 cases)." (p. 53 of ).
 * Here is another source which confirms this: "The largest and most rigorous study that is currently available in this area is the third one commissioned by the British Home Office (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005). The analysis was based on the 2,643 sexual assault cases (where the outcome was known) that were reported to British police over a 15-year period of time. Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. Yet the researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators, based on the victim’s mental illness, inconsistent statements, drinking or drug use. These classifications were thus made in violation of the explicit policies of their own police agencies. The researchers therefore supplemented the information contained in the police files by collecting many different types of additional data, including: reports from forensic examiners, questionnaires completed by police investigators, interviews with victims and victim service providers, and content analyses of the statements made by victims and witnesses. They then proceeded to evaluate each case using the official criteria for establishing a false allegation, which was that there must be either “a clear and credible admission by the complainant” or “strong evidential grounds” (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005). On the basis of this analysis, the percentage of false reports dropped to 2.5%" (p. 2 of ).
 * You dismiss what the researchers say and insist on your original research. You can contact the British Prime Minister, the Pope or Flying Spaghetti Monster if you want but you need a written published statement by them which says "The researchers of the Home Office study are liars. They claim that they the analysis is based on 2,643 cases but my great deductive powers say that it isn't." That and nothing else would be acceptable.
 * You have two editors who are disputing your edits. Actually, you could have three hundred editors supporting your edits but WP:NPOV and WP:OR override such things. The bottom line is that you dispute what the Home Office researchers say about their own research. You dispute what another source says about the results of the Home Office study. Your continue to violate WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYN.
 * You have officially become disruptive. Your contributions to this amount to vandalism. I offer you for the last time to stop misrepresenting research and adding your original research to this article. TheLuca (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Does your source say "91% are not false allegations" ?  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 22:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You are still in denial about the 3% figure. I see. The source says this: "There are false allegations, and possibly slightly more than some researchers and support agencies have suggested. However, at maximum they constitute nine per cent and probably closer to three per cent of all reported cases. An overestimation of the scale by police officers and prosecutors feeds into a culture of scepticism, which in turn leads to poor communication and loss of confidence between complainants and the police." (p. 83) AzureFury, are you reading this? Of all reported cases. Okay? Of all reported cases. Again: Of all reported cases.
 * And this: "Nine per cent of reported cases were designated false, with a high proportion of these involving 16- to 25-year-olds. However, closer analysis of this category applying Home Office counting rules reduces this to three per cent." (p. XI of )
 * And this: "The authors’ analysis suggests that the designation of false allegations in a number of cases was uncertain according to Home Office counting rules, and if these were excluded, would reduce the proportion of false complaints to three per cent of reported cases (i.e., 2.643 cases)."''' (p. 53 of ).
 * Another source says this: "The largest and most rigorous study that is currently available in this area is the third one commissioned by the British Home Office (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005). The analysis was based on the 2,643 sexual assault cases (where the outcome was known) that were reported to British police over a 15-year period of time. Of these, 8% were classified by the police department as false reports. Yet the researchers noted that some of these classifications were based simply on the personal judgments of the police investigators, based on the victim’s mental illness, inconsistent statements, drinking or drug use. These classifications were thus made in violation of the explicit policies of their own police agencies. The researchers therefore supplemented the information contained in the police files by collecting many different types of additional data, including: reports from forensic examiners, questionnaires completed by police investigators, interviews with victims and victim service providers, and content analyses of the statements made by victims and witnesses. They then proceeded to evaluate each case using the official criteria for establishing a false allegation, which was that there must be either “a clear and credible admission by the complainant” or “strong evidential grounds” (Kelly, Lovett, & Regan, 2005). On the basis of this analysis, the percentage of false reports dropped to 2.5%" (p. 2 of ).
 * If you want to misrepresent research you can do so to your heart's content and write a blog. This, however, is Wikipedia. There are rules: WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYN being the three most important ones. You continue to violate them. And you indicate that you intend to do so in the future. This is officially a valid reason for reporting you. TheLuca (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should underline those studies next time you paste them.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 22:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I ask you for the last time: Will you remove the unjustified tags from the section "False accusation" and remove the off-topic parts as soon as the protection expires today? Will you stop violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYN? A simple yes or no will do. TheLuca (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You've yet to demonstrate an understanding of my concerns. Until you do, this dispute is ongoing.  Azure Fury   (talk | contribs) 16:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, home office's website said it could take up to 20 days to respond.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 21:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, the Canadian Study discussed is by Johnson, Holly & Sacco, Vincent, published in the Canadian Journal of Criminology; Jul95, Vol. 37 Issue 3, p281. I briefly browsed the article, and the claims made on the wiki page are supported there. Unfortunately, I have access to the article using a university search engine, and cannot post the link to it here. However if you have access the EBSCOhost search engine, the full text is there. -Anon 18 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.35.76 (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck is cookie vandalism
And why am I being accused of it? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape&diff=next&oldid=389380175

I've edited the article to say:
 * A 2006 review by Philip Rumney in the Cambridge Law Journal found one small (545-case) study that could be a source of the 2% figure

because the I read the Rumney study, and in it, I find only 1 small study (Hursch; 545 cases) identified as a possible source of the 2% figure. Feel free to name any other studies I have missed, if any that do so. The closest I found to an add'l study is some hearsay from a judge with no reference to any study (Cooke).

Perhaps it's a terminology issue, Luca. It's true that other studies Rumney found provide numbers close to the 2% figure, but none of them could be considered sources for the 2% figure.

Heartening, IMO: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8115219.stm

Glad to see the larger studies getting more prominence as I suggested. I wish we had better stats. (Better, as in not higher or lower, but based on a clear and sensible definition of false. But in the US, it's impossible to have good nationwide stats as the definition of rape is different in different states.  Perhaps there are good stats for one of the world's larger states US's larger states (CA, TX, or NY) that we can use instead.

-- W☯W t/c 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. It's not everyday that I see profanity in talk page titles made by registered editors and not IP editors. Thanks for making me grin. Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I, for one, find this offensive... Just kidding. I also found it refreshing to find some blunt-language with all the passive-aggressive sniping at people under a banner of civility that I see around WP.  WP is not censored and I, for one, don't consider profanity uncivil either in the right context.  I found that BBC story pretty shocking btw... but, perhaps this person can explain the cookie vandalism issue:?--Cybermud (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL!!! Perhaps that person can, Cybermud. Priceless! Flyer22 (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

hors293 stats
I just changed the 9% to 8% to match what was actually in the study. (e.g. "There were 216 cases classified as false allegations: as a proportion of all 2,643 cases reported to the police this amounts to 8 per cent")

Where is the 3% in the study? Doing some SYNthesis on the 3%. 216 cases classified as false allegations, 120 of them had pro formas with explanations, of which in "53 cases the police stated that the complainant admitted the complaint was false, most commonly within days of the initial accusation; 28 cases involved retractions" ... "three non co-operation and in 56 cases the decision was made by the police on evidential grounds." 53+28=81, 3+56=59, 81+59=140. So is that 120 with explanations or 140? Or are the 28 a subset of the 53?

OK, WTF? On page xi (in the summary), it says "Nine per cent of reported cases were designated false"! Well, 216 / 2643 ~= 8.17% At least I find the 3% # there too: "However, closer analysis of this category applying Home Office counting rules reduces this to three per cent." But this apparent error doesn't give me confidence in the report!

More detail is on p. 53:"The authors’ analysis suggests that the designation of false allegations in a number of cases was uncertain according to Home Office counting rules, and if these were excluded, would reduce the proportion of false complaints to three per cent of reported cases." Would love to know how they got to 3%. 53 / 2643 = 2%. 81 / 2643 = 3%. 81 / 2643 *(216/120) = 5.5%...

-- W☯W t/c 21:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

trouble rape victims had with police

 * New York Magazine Jun 23, 1975, has an article in it which you can read through Google book search: . Shows how the police handled, or mishandled rape cases, acting hostile to the victim.  When they started letting women officers handle this, more women came forward, and they got those who showed up to report something to talk to them.   D r e a m Focus  23:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I do see that. My problem wasn't with a claim that when women officers started handling rape cases they did a better job though, but rather that the 2% statistic it included is controversial and was stated without qualification or attribution and conflicts with other information in the article.  Perhaps it can be rewritten to acknowledge that women officers handling rape cases were better at getting convictions, getting women to come forward and helping victims tell their stories without the added controversial statistic that says women basically never lie about rape.--Cybermud (talk) 04:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

First sentence
In a continuation of a long tradition of debate on this topic and, more specifically, building upon the discussion that seemed to trail off without consensushere

To re-iterate from the prior discussion a rape is a sexual assault, but a sexual assault is not a rape. Red is a color, but color is not a red. If you've any background in set theoryorobject oriented programming this concept should be clear.

These, first sentences, are pretty poor:

In criminal law, rape is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with another person without that person'sconsent. Outside of law, the term is often used interchangeably with sexual assault,[1][2][3] a closely related (but in most jurisdictions technically distinct) form of assault typically including rape and other forms of non-consensual sexual activity.[4][5]

Ostensibly this sentence gives the impression that it is trying to compare and contrast the legal definition of rape with that which is in common usage. While a worthwhile goal this effort falls completely flat. For starters, "sexual assault" is much more of a legal term than rape is. Secondly, and more importantly, while the second sentence begins with "Outside the law..." it contains the parenthetical "(but in most jurisdictions technically distinct.)" Either we're "outside of the law" or dealing with legal definitions "in most jurisdictions" but not both.

Now I may not be representative of anyone but myself, but I do not use sexual assault and rape interchangeably (though I am prone to using legal jargon), but I would also be surprised if anyone did except perhaps someone politically motivated to say something like "all men" (or at least as many as possible) are rapists. Rape is to sexual assault what murder is to regular assault. Not every sexual assault is rape and not every assault is murder. In fact the latter is an extremely small subset of the former and represents its most extreme manifestation. Three references are provided to support this interchangeability. The first is a book I do not have. The second is a broken web link and the third actually says (emphasis mine):

"The terms rape, sexual assault, sexual abuse, and sexual violence are often used interchangeably. However, these terms may have very different meanings and implications in varying situations and locations.11 The first two tend to be defined legally, with rape often being more narrowly defined than sexual assault. Legal definitions may vary from medical and social definitions and can also vary between countries"

Based on my own intuition and reason and, having checked the references, I don't think the second sentence is appropriate and should be removed altogether. Though I do think more can be said on the shifting definitions of rape. In particular terms like "verbal rape," "mental rape," "emotional rape," are not uncommon, nor is it rare for rape studies to include some extremely non-intuitive things as rape or even include some very broadly defined instances of "attempted rape" in the, even more broadly defined, group of "rape victims." As an aside, though I expect I can source it short order, such rhetorical acrobatics trivialize rape and re-victimize rape victims by making them respond to, or be the subject of, questions as to what they really mean when they say the are "rape victim". It should go without saying that when the word "rape" can mean anything, it really means nothing.--Cybermud (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We had this discussion before. Webster dictionarydefines it at as
 * unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent

Other definitions are also there. And what is unlawful, that is, illegal, in one country may not be in another. Do other countries call it "rape" more than "sexual assault?" Do notable books including textbooks published on it refer to it as both? What about coverage in the news media? The terms are interchangeable, so its fine. The fact that "rape" is used in slang doesn't change its proper meaning. The dictionary defines "sexual assault" the same as it does rape. Same thing.  D r e a m Focus  02:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Even using the definitions offered by Merriam Webster they are not the same thing. For rape it says (in the only definition of 10 entries that comes close to what we are treating):


 * "Definition of RAPE
 * 1 an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force


 * 2 unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault,statutory rape


 * 3 an outrageous violation"


 * For Sexual Assault it says:


 * "illegal sexual contact that usually involves force upon a person without consent or is inflicted upon a person who is incapable of giving consent (as because of age or physical or mental incapacity) or who places the assailant (as a doctor) in a position of trust or authority"


 * It does list rape as a synonym for sexual assualt, but it also lists "outrage" as a synonym for rape.


 * More to the point this entire article is about rape not sexual assault. If they really are the same (and I don't think they are by any stretch) the articles should be merged (or at least have the same content.)  Per  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) the lead should reflect the article.  It also bears mentioning that Wikipedia is not a dictionary (I also like to link thisblack woman article every time I cite that WP policy) --Cybermud (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, in regards to the manual of style, I think making the terms interchangeable does somewhat reflect the article. It also says "child sexual abuse" is a form of rape, which I think is wrong for all of the same reasons.  The Definitions section does a better job (and the lead should reflect it) where it says "The term sexual assault is closely related to rape. Some jurisdictions define "rape" to cover only acts involving penile penetration of the vagina, treating all other types of non-consensual sexual activity as sexual assault."  Though it also has problems with how it says, "For example, Michigan, United States uses the term "criminal sexual conduct".[8]"  MI penal codes are not using CSC as synonymous with rape (which is what the statement, in context, implies.)  They use it as synonymous with "sexual assault" with an array of degrees of CSC from what could be public urination to actual rape (interesting how I can say "actual rape" and be pretty sure people are clear on my meaning btw.)  Likewise Florida uses the term "sexual battery" for the crime of rape.   Which comes back to a point I alluded to earlier, rape is oftentimes not the technical legal term used in the statute because it's a word that enjoys popular usage (hence the use of words like larceny and embezzlement for what we commonly call theft or stealing or illegal removal/retention and custodial interference for parental child abduction.)


 * Another point about dictionaries, I actually just looked up rape in my Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. and it exclusively defines rape as intercourse between a man and woman where the woman does not consent and is not the wife (6th ed. is 19 years old though... the latest edition is something like $300.)


 * I don't think anyone here would disagree that someone groping someone else's genitals while passing them in a subway would be committing a clear case of sexual assault (in most legal and laymen's terms.) I also don't think most of you would disagree with me when I say the same act is not rape.  You can call all rapes sexual assaults but you can't call all sexual assaults rapes (ie, they are not interchangeable.)--Cybermud (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I fixed my link to Webster dictionary. Rape has more than one definition, the third one listed is the definition I quoted, which is also EXACTLY the same definition, word for word, for "sexual assault".  See rape and sexual assault.  And I don't care what was used as a term 19 years ago, we're talking about how people refer to it under the law, modern dictionaries, textbooks, and in the news media.   D r e a m Focus  09:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Webster's also defines rape as an herb or plant. To summarize my point though, since it appears that you missed it, I don't particularly care what the abridged definition of Websters says, or any dictionary... and neither does Wikipedia.  In any case, since the article pains itself at taking a legal view of the topic with a criminal law sidebar and the first sentence starts with "In criminal law.." if you're particularly fond of dictionaries, Black's Law Dictionary is the definitive dictionary for legal terms and is routinely cited by judges and lawyers across the English speaking world.  BLD may have modified its definition of rape since my edition, but that is pure speculation on my part and irrelevant in any case.--Cybermud (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That Black's Law Dictionary has been around since 1891, and I'm sure many terms have changed over time. You said the version you have is 19 years ago, so I don't see as how that would be considered a reliable source.  We need to find someone with a more recent version, since I find it unlikely anyone uses a 19 year old version of it anymore.  A website by the federal government(Justice Department, FBI, etc.), or various state websites defining the term, or using "sexual assault" and "rape" interchangeably in their official documents, would resolve this issue.   D r e a m Focus  04:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nineteen years isn't a whole lot of time when it comes to a word as well established, understood and popularly used as rape. But I'm not saying we should use BLD's definition either.  Men can be raped and so can married women, making BLD's legal definition of rape overly narrow (In contrast to M&W broadly defining rape as an "outrage.")  My point was the unsuitability of dictionary definitions generally (and BLD 6th edition still trumps M&W abridged online for a legal definition any day -- so if you want to use a dictionary you have to use it or a newer edition of it.)--Cybermud (talk) 06:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My only problem with the current lead is that it doesn't clarify that sexual assault and rape are not always the same thing. A stranger grabbing a woman's breast without her permission is sexual assault, but it surely is not rape. The lead thus needs to be tweaked a bit. Flyer22 (talk) 05:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it to this. Flyer22 (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. That is even better.--Cybermud (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is the sociobiological section there?
Does anyone believe rape is do to "evolutionary pressures"? Does any school out there teach this? Any qualified professionals take this seriously? Are there any credible reports of someone raping women as an "evolutionary strategy" to pass on their genes? And then they have this crazed Camille Paglia person quoted as some men and women are genetically encoded to "allow themselves to be more vulnerable to rape." Have you read her page? Is this wacky art professor who wants to legalize drugs, considered a credible expert in this field? How about we change it to, "although not a single school or credible institution teaches this, during slow news days the media sometimes covers crazed crackpots with these ridiculous theories, so we'll link to a poorly made article about that."  D r e a m Focus  14:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article it links to sums up the situation rather well. "Such theories are highly controversial, as traditional theories typically do not consider rape to be a behavioral adaptation. Some object to such theories on ethical, religious, political as well as scientific grounds." The mentality of the rapists who targets the mouth or ass is the same as the one going for the vagina.  Also, battered women are raped constantly, but the abuser isn't trying to impregnate them ever chance he gets, he just wants sex.   D r e a m Focus  15:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sociobiological mentions have been heavily debated here on the talk page, mainly due to one editor who kept trying to make the sociobiological theory more prominent in this article (under different user names and such); just check the talk page archives for that mess. It used to simply be under the title Theories (if my memory is correct on that front). I would say it having its own section under Causes is WP:UNDUE, given that it is not as prominent a theory as the other suggested causes/motivations and is highly controversial. Some of the other causes/motivations should have their own sections before the Sociobiological theory should. The main point is that it was cut down due to all the issues with mentioning it, and it should probably be cut down again...to just a link. Flyer22 (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it. There is already a section called "Motivation for rape", linking to the main article by that name, where it is listed, and its own article linked to.   D r e a m Focus  05:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly support removal- it had much more space in the main article than it should relative to other content. sonia ♫  05:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)