Misplaced Pages

But since I don't want to keep arguing with you about this, I struck my "03:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Presuming my level of knowledge with the literature and whether or not you're more qualified to discuss is not only absurd, it flies in the face of the yet unswayed consensus. I don't presume to know your thoughts, but speaking for myself: I'm not here to prove you or anyone else wrong, I'm here to improve the article. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You noted on this talk page your lack of familiarity with the literature on this particular aspect we are debating. And when you make comments about me like "the collaborative efforts of Misplaced Pages do not rest for whether or not Flyer22 agrees with them," you are categorizing my mindset based on your own assumptions; stop it. Stop taking disagreement and/or an editor's right to not want to debate you on something, especially when that editor is trying to avoid arguing in circles, so personally. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And when you make the kind of edits you made to the text in question, such as adding "some" in place of "majority," coming to the conclusion that you are not as familiar with the literature is understandable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I never said I was unfamiliar with the literature, I said that I don't have access to the source in order to find what it's quoting. Furthermore, knowledge of the subject has little to do with this discussion. Whether or not a statement is subjective enough to be attributed is a matter of a priori logic and my argument in this case is Socratic. Replacing "some" with "majority" was an attempt to compromise your refusal to attribute the claim. This was also based on simple logic: a less sensational claim requires less sensational support. If you equate this with unfamiliarity with the literature, that's your own bias. Likewise, that the discussion does not rest pending your agreement is simply an objective fact in response to your repeated declarations that you are done with a discussion. I'm not asking you to engage in the conversation or debate me, I'm simply informing you that a refusal to compromise will not be seen as an obstacle to resolving the issue.Scoundr3l (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge of the literature has much to do with this discussion, and that is displayed in spades across this talk page. Replacing "some" with "majority" was undermining the literature, pure and simple. No one familiar with the literature would have added "some" in place of "majority." The claim was already attributed. You were asking for inappropriate in-text attribution with your Template:According to whom tag. I've been clear above that such tagging would have resulted in inappropriate in-text attribution had someone unfamiliar with the literature answered that tag's request. It would have made that sentence seem like the matter is only according to that person or group of people. I never stated that I was done with the discussion; I stated that I was about done discussing things with you. You know, to avoid the type of circular argument we are having right now (I easily recognize when a discussion with a certain editor is going to be circular; I'd rather not continue to discuss matters with those type of editors). I then expanded the discussion to a WP:RfC, which clearly was not me stating that the discussion is over. If I or someone else does not want to discuss things with you any further, you should learn to accept it instead of resorting to all sorts of "you aren't playing fair" or "you are being difficult" claims, or other misguided assumptions. You love to debate, everything apparently. You couldn't even drop this debate after I struck through my above comment; removing my comment probably would not have even stopped you. An editor does not have to compromise on something they feel needs no compromising on. I tried compromising with you; that is clear from the very beginning of this thread; that was not enough for you. And now we are here. Below, I was clear about the only compromise I will accept on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That you continue to share your opinions on other matters, most of which are impertinent to the conversation, is the only reason we're still in discussion. I have every right to reply to your comments, especially when they've devolved into petty personal remarks, but the only person who can make you continue the discussion is you. Since you've not yet established a concrete case for exclusion, perhaps you've over-estimated your level of expertise on the matter or your ability to read other editors. It may be more constructive to contribute some additional rationale to the discussion, as merit alone has done little to impress support. Also, I think you may be quoting somebody else. I never made either of those claims. If you're still unwilling to further compromise, that's your choice, but ultimately the decision isn't up to you, so whether or not you're 'playing fair' or being difficult are not of concern to me. As for your refusal to compromise on the framing of an RfC, I've never seen that before, so I can only express bewilderment. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrong about all of that, with the exception that you have the right to reply. Now we'll see if you will debate "Wrong about all of that." too. The petty, personal remarks initially came from you, which is why I made my "05:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)" and "21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)" comments above. The "you aren't playing fair" or "you are being difficult" claims are the type of claims you've made in this discussion (and do spare me any "well, if you are seeing that, it must be true of your behavior" remarks), but nowhere did I state you made those exact comments. As for "little to impress support," that's your opinion. WP:RfCs commonly go slow these days, and the participation in this one is small so far. I'm not the one leaving notes in the WP:RfC in an attempt to influence it, and I'm not the one contacting an editor to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that leaving notes in an RfC is, by definition, the purpose of an RfC. Of the two of us, only one of us has challenged another commentator's comment. You're also the only one who keeps bringing up right and wrong, when it's clearly a difference of perspective. Your personal editing style and definition of civility is your business, but as you are a clearly a non-expert in the field of my opinion, your attempts at interpreting and paraphrasing my claims are to be treated as hearsay at best and petty stone-throwing at worst. I have indeed contacted many users, including those who support your claims, in order to improve participation in this page. Nblund has as well. Kudos on the detective work. If you've got comments that are related to the discussion, though, perhaps we should focus on those. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You stated, "I think you'll find that leaving notes in an RfC is, by definition, the purpose of an RfC." Not your kind of notes. And you've made more incorrect characterizations of me in your "20:01, 22 January 2016" post, as expected, I see. As for expertise, I've been quite clear about which of us is more familiar with the literature; my reputation on these topics (sexual topics, including sex offenses) speaks for itself; there is no need for me to justify myself to you. That you take my lack of interest in indulging you as a sign of lack of knowledge is silly, but it's clearly your right to think what you want. Yes, I saw that you contacted others; the others were contacted about the proposed wording section, and they are editors who already weighed in. They were contacted after you contacted that one editor to weigh in. You stated, " attempts at interpreting and paraphrasing claims are to be treated as hearsay at best and petty stone-throwing at worst." Yes, that is exactly how I feel about your claims toward me. Now if you are done with this particular debate, I will be WP:Hatting this bickering. Or is it that you want the WP:Last word, as you clearly seem to always do? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's Friday, both of our objections have been noted, and this thread has officially derailed. You misunderstood my comment about your expertise, I wasn't saying "in my opinion, you are not an expert" I meant "you are not an expert in matters relating to my opinion". But rather than continue to fight over semantics and baseless interpretations of character, can we agree to call it quits and work on the relevant discussion? Scoundr3l (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems like we're in agreement, though in the interest of your 'last word' comment, I'll point out that we wrote our above comments semi-simultaneously. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Hatted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Because of this and this, I have unhatted the discussion. I do not have the time or patience to debate every single thing with you. So fine; leave all the bickering on open display. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, but not every issue has to be all or nothing. Middle ground is the key to compromise. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You just don't stop, do you? This mess is another example. And you wonder why I don't want to discuss anything with you. I tried middle ground by compromising with you. I tried middle ground with the hatting; you acted like your reply to my rebuttal needed to be unhidden, as though editors can't click on my talk page and the template for further detail. This is exactly what I mean about you wanting to debate every little thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: For the record, I was going for a setup like this one, seen at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Example formatting. The difference, in addition to my extra headings, is that I added "Don't use" and "Use" headings instead of "Oppose" and "Support" headings, since "Don't use in-text attribution" and "Use in-text attribution" made more sense for the section. While the formatting for this RfC obviously could have been better, adding a "Proposals" heading or other additional heading in RfCs is common. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment below. More information is better here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Nblund (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose meaning 'show the cite(s)'. The RfC is asking about the line shown, which currently shows no reason to give it credence and for WP does not convey the factual phrase origin. Just follow the cites, convey with fidelity what is out there and show where it is from. A desire to avoid citing because it is from a single source indicates to me a problem with being honest about that, and also that the phrasing is generally NOT said in a relevant community consensus statement nor common among reputable sources. What is shown also conveys the impression of soapboxing, so seems pointless anyway, as well as bing one view above due WP:WEIGHT. Markbassett (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support This is a well known, often demonstrated and generally accepted fact, in-text attribution would be misleading.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support Explicitly stating all the mainstream, expert, reliable authorities that hold this to be true would take up far too much space. However, if adding an extra ref and tag or two would put Scoundr3l et al.'s minds at ease, it should be done. Using sources that people with different attitudes find convincing makes the article stronger. I suggested some possible sources in my other post, and that was a very cursory search. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support (a lack of use of in-text attribution; yeah, Flyer, while I support your position regarding the content here, this is an abysmally formatted discussion that will probably only muddy the waters and lead to further acrimony unnecesarily as a result of how this discussion has been approached). I absolutely agree that utilizing in-text attribution in this case would tend to minimize this statement. This is a profoundly pervasive trend with regard to sexual assault that is immensely well-documented by many thousands (indeed, probably hundreds of thousands) of sources originating from the psychological science, law-enforcement and other governmental agencies, policy groups and many other areas provided mountains and mountains of WP:RS sourcing for this statement. Trying to leverage in just one or two of these does a HUGE disservice to the impression of WP:WEIGHT that would be given to this statement as a result. We do not, as a general rule, include in-text attribution except as necessary to clarify highly controversial or nuanced claims, such as they don't mislead. This is about as clear a WP:SNOW content issue as I've seen in a good long while. This is a view broadly supported by virtually all legitimate authority in the area and policy clearly directs us to use normal reference citation in this instance, attached to a general statement. Snow 05:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Use in-text attribution

Note: There is no obligation to vote twice. Feel free to ignore voting in this section if you have already voted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, per my and Nblund's comments above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support since it provides context to the reader.Mattnad (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I would just like to clarify a few points on my position:
  • This is not a position on whether or not the statement is true.
  • This is not a position on whether or not the statement is cited and verifiable.
  • This is not a position on whether in-text attribution is required
  • This is only a position that there is a strong case for in-text attribution and a weak case against. -Scoundr3l (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support My reasons for supporting in-text attribution are as follows:
  • The current wording is prohibitive to further improvement of the article

The figure is being drawn from a specific source or sources of data. By not including the data source in the text, additional commentary related to those data sources is impossible. In this way, the quoted source is given artificial sanctity over any commentary related to the data source, when it is surely not the only source of commentary.

• The current wording is based on survey data

There are a number of conflicting estimates for this data, but they are all estimates. Uncertain facts should not be written in Misplaced Pages's voice.

• The current wording is time-sensitive

As time goes on and things change (in this case, the sooner the better), this statement may be found to be objectively false. An attributed statement would always be objectively true.

• The current wording is limited to the availability of data

If even one source emerges which contradicts this conclusion, the statement will be contentious. An attributed statement will never be a matter of contention.

• The current wording does not conform with the rest of the article text

The entire structure of this article is about providing a study and then balanced commentary on that study. In my opinion, this article is a monument to balanced commentary on a controversial subject. My by count, there are 82 statistical claims in this article's body text, of which 63 (76.8%) are directly attributed to their data source in the text. 13 (15.8%) are attributed generically to a "study" or "survey" which is then cited. 5 (6%) are not attributed but provide specific data. Only 1 other sentence in this article body is not attributed to a source, provides no specific data, and provides no further information (i.e. 'a study') as to where it came from. Perhaps coincidentally, that other sentence shares a source with this sentence.

• Attributing a statement can not unduly take weight away from the statement

The statement must stand on its own. The source of a statement is a verifiable fact. If revealing where the data comes from has any negative impact on the statement, it is solely the failing of the source and not undue reporting by Misplaced Pages. Contrarily, concealing the source of data can unduly lend weight to a statement that it may otherwise not have. The source is the source, for better or worse.

Given those points, and the lack of good points for exclusion, I see no reason this statement should not be attributed to its data source. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Even thought the statement is indeed widely agreed-upon, it is helpful to the reader to have the context provided by the attribution, due to the wide divergence in operational definitions used in this subject. Better still would be a note showing that this statement is supported by multiple studies that used different operational definitions and methodology. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, per Scoundr3l's reasons throughout. Stating survey results as fact is intentional misrepresentation and misleads readers. Statement should clearly be attributed to its source(s), and its origins and methodology discussed. This isn't scientific fact, as we're all aware human surveys elicit very specific behaviour responses, and cannot be treated as generalisations, no matter how many surveys are cited. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN (FoCuS), how is it misleading the readers when the "majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement" aspect is widely supported in the literature and there is no indication whatsoever that it is false? How does it make sense to attribute that statement to one or more sources, as though it's only according to those sources that "the majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement", when it's actually supported throughout the literature, in scholarly books, legal documents, etc.? How is providing in-text attribution for this not a WP:INTEXT violation? Sammy1339's support vote above does not even seem to be support for in-text attribution, which would be misleading, but rather for more context. Appropriate context. We include the "most sexual assaults go unreported" or "most sexual violence is unreported" aspect in rape articles and related articles here at Misplaced Pages, including in the lead of the Rape by gender article. Are you suggesting that we give in-text attribution in all of these cases, or further context even in the lead, when the statement is not at all contentious in the literature or validly disputed in the literature? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not judging the veracity of the literature, nor did I ever imply doing so. I'm saying it is undue to present it as a fact when in reality it's a poor statistic (exactly why surveys are rarely used as basis for policy), and as such it must be indicated. Surveys aren't scientific fact; they're sociological instruments subject to human behaviour and circumstance, reflecting opinion in response to often poorly-formulated questionnaires. I was summoned by the RfC bot, and provided my !vote after reading the above discussion. By the look of things, your attitude leaves much to wish for. Respect other people's views and let the RfC progress. Regards, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN (FoCuS), asking you to explain your rationale for your vote is not disrespecting your vote or you. Since you've been involved in a number of RfCs, you should know that. Needless to state, I disagree with your rationale, and have given ample reason why I do. As for attitudes, I feel the same regarding you judging by your "19:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)" response. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I provided my rationale the first time around. Deal with it. Your reputation precedes you. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 19:59, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN (FoCuS), indeed it does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's try to stay focused, guys. So far, this has been pretty productive, but there is already a lengthy discussion above which addressed these questions and came to no resolution, hence the "per <user>" commentary. Beginning the discussion again is a step in the wrong direction. Obviously, there is disagreement over whether this statement stands on its own or needs additional information. All the talk-page evidence in the world has no effect on the body text, nor does it aid the reader, which is what we're here to discuss. Let's please keep our opinions of other editors and interpretation of their comments out of the discussion for now. Scoundr3l (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support -- weakly, because I think the line should show sources but the discussion is saying the bigger issue is it's a bad line. Markbassett (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Kaldari (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. Snow 06:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Provide additional information for further context

Note: There is no obligation to !vote in each section. Feel free to only !vote where you feel it is needed. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil Einne, your note in this section is misplaced because voting "use in-text attribution" or "don't use in-text attribution" is not the same thing as supporting "additional information for further context," as is clear by editors' comments in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. There's never any requirement to !vote in any specific section in any RFC. Frankly as I said before, it shouldn't really be necessary to note it and if it is, it would be better at the beginning of the RFC. Except that wouldn't work here given the beginning in such a mess. But if you are going to note it, it's quite wrong to only note it one specific section as if one section only is unimportant. Editors are free to participate in whatever part of the RFC they wish to. The fact that for some reason it was felt better to list two mutually contradictory options rather than simply give a neutrally worded single option to choose between them doesn't change how we should handle stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

And I disagree. I never stated that there is any requirement to !vote in any specific section in any RFC. My "19:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)" comment is clear. And, as you know, further reasoning was stated at WP:ANI. And as for there being "two mutually contradictory options," that depends on how you look at it; I don't see two mutually contradictory options. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2016‎ (UTC)

• Could support...if done right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Question Have you got any specific examples of alternatives you could support? Scoundr3l (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support This would no doubt be a happy compromise for all of us. I would like to at least see a range of figures. Such figures do exist, and the oft-quoted range is 68-90%, but this is from data compiled from several surveys. I am able to provide additional sources on figures if needed. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Due to the complexity and wide divergence in methodology of the different sources, claims such as this one (which, as far as I can tell, is 100% true) should be clarified in maximum detail. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Conditional Support I think the additional context is sort of provided by subsequent sections, and I think my own proposed edit is a little unwieldy because it introduces a survey-based measure of sexual assault before explaining why survey-based measures of sexual assault are necessary. Still, I think this is fine if we think it's a necessity to include more in-text information. Nblund (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Yes Yes YES !!!! It seems that the text is from one source and showing that is not liked so consensus to work on the wording ('numerous studies' or whatever) to something that does not draw these concerns seems more indicated than talking about whether or not to continue with what presents an appearance of a bad-WP soapboxing exaggeration. Markbassett (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Could support: The best solution to most edit wars is to cite something. Needed or not, WP:POPE or not, it probably will help. Won't de-escalate the trolls from trolling, but at least they will be more obviously exposed as trolls. Montanabw 22:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Not necessary but wouldn't hurt What seems to be going on here is that Flyer and others think that in-text attribution is not necessary because an inline citation is already used and that it might make the fact cited look less mainstream and accepted than it really is and Scoundr3l and others think that the in-text citation is needed to prevent the text from looking more mainstream and accepted than it really is. The sources that are already there certainly look reliable, but adding one or two more (preferably from the most mainstream source possible), probably would disrupt the flow of the article less than adding extra words. Here are some that might suit (some of these are used elsewhere in the article): U.S. National Institute of Justice Time Magazine UMD A Canadian newspaper Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed wording

The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement. From 1995 to 2013, 67% of the sexual attacks against non-students and 80% of the sexual attacks against college students reported in the National Crime Victimization surveys were not reported to police. (citing this, already in the refs) Nblund (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I would support that, Nblund. Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• I like the second sentence and appreciate the attempt at compromise. However, my concern is that the cited survey is only related to college-aged females in the United States, specifically 18-24. This would be approximately 15 million people in a very specific cultural demographic represented by this survey data. I'm not trying to tear down the house before it's built, but it doesn't seem like a fair representation of the initial statement. Scoundr3l (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is one possibility which borrows terminology from the citation (thank you, Nblund, for providing): "Research has consistently shown that the majority of sexual assault victims do not report their attack to law enforcement."

This would then go on to cite specifics, as necessary. Notice it is not a direct attribution, so as not to immediately favor any of the 11 some-odd surveys which support the claim in the citation, but at least provides context as to where the data comes. It also plainly acknowledges the majority of the viewpoint. This is also quite open to modification, so feel free. Scoundr3l (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think "research has consistently shown" works, especially if subsequent statements bolster that point. Regarding the overall average: we could use the most recent NCVS available: 34% of rapes/sexual assaults reported on the 2014 NCVS were reported to police. Or we could use this report that aggregates over four years: this source "between 2006 and 2010, 65% of rapes or sexual assaults reported on the National Crime Victimization surveys were not reported to the police". I might add a couple of additional sources specific to college students after that. Nblund (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Nblund - rewording seems the right area but what the second line shows is only that there is disagreement among reports, not a support for the first line. I'm now twigging on the topic is supposed to be campus sexual assault, so the whole first line and ensuing discussion about statistics accuracy seems a bit WP:OFFTOPIC or at least the context by title of this section "Campus sexual assault", "Prevalence and incidence of rape and other sexual assault" subsection would need to convey why is Prevalence all about how the statistics do not agree ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not what you mean by disagreements. The second line in the wording I proposed says that there are differences between two different populations (college vs. non-college), but I don't think that really reflects a disagreement so much as an actual difference between the two populations. Can you clarify what you're saying here? Nblund (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Like Nblund, I would prefer you clarify what you mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no issue with Nblund's material, there is a statement, with two examples that are included. We can add more citations, we can add 20, 30, 50 studies. There is no disagreement that most attacks go unreported, it's as obvious as the nose on your face, the only question are specific numbers for specific populations; 8 in 10 is commonly cited, the range above probably represent the outliers. (this reminds me of the climate change disputes, where they decided, basically, who cares if it's 80% 90% or 97%, the point is that the consensus is overwhelming) Montanabw 22:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Montanabw. There is no disagreement, just different levels of non-reporting. Scoundr3l's objection that the cited example is limited to college-age women in the U.S. doesn't make sense to me. College-age women in the U.S. are probably the most likely people in the world to actually report sexual assault. If anyone is aware of any study showing that most sexual assaults are reported (anywhere in the world), that would be a valid reason to object to the wording. Kaldari (talk) 00:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The demographics of a study are specifically linked to its conclusions. If a study in the US concludes that 95% of households own a car, this is not indicative that "most people own a car", nor would a reliable source make that claim, nor can Misplaced Pages make that claim. The car study wasn't representative of all people and a worldwide study would find a number closer to 15%, making the conclusion likely false. Whether or not this is the case with unreported sexual assault is not our place to conjecture, our place is only to accurately report the information and where it's coming from. If there is a consensus, we should be able to find a source of that consensus. Otherwise, an absence of evidence to the contrary should not be treated as evidence of absence. Well supported information (which I know this is) should have no fear of attribution. What are your thoughts on the proposed "Research has consistently shown that the majority of sexual assault victims..."? Scoundr3l (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nblund to respond with further explanation then: Your proposed words are not about the prevalence of Campus sexual assault, so they seem astray from the section title. The words proposed are to the topic of underreporting rather than the prevalence of assault, such as given in the end of the section: "The 2013 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimated that 0.43% of women were victims of some form of sexual assault, with attempted or completed rape at approximately 0.35%. Other research estimates anywhere from 10% to as many as 29% of women have been victims of rape or attempted rape since starting college." But what you're talking is where the article has a mismatch to the section title. There would at least need to be some content to say why Prevalence is going into how statistics disagree and how things are not reported instead of talking just to the title how often assault happens.

And that led me to twig to the bigger problem that the article is supposed to be about campus sexual assault but it mostly isn't. The whole first part -- almost half of the article -- seems just about how incidence statistics argue. I'd think that due WEIGHT would have the article mostly for the prominent court cases and the prevention or enforcement programs and surveys a minor note. Surveys disagreeing seems more suited to a summary table of about 8 lines in a section title about range of studies outcomes or information unclear. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(p.s. If actual coverage of the topic is really 40% coverage in studies disagreements then OK, just follow the cites and convey the actual weight. My impression that isn't the case, but say what the body of works looks like, whatever that may be) Markbassett (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the reason under-reporting is mentioned in the first sentence is so that readers understand why we usually rely on surveys to measure sexual assault to measure its prevalence. For most crimes, we would probably rely on police reports or statistics reported by universities themselves, but the problem of under-reporting means that these sources aren't very reliable.

I think the issue you raise is probably beyond the scope of this RfC, but I do agree that the prevalence and incidence section is too long and too involved, and I think that it covers too many specific studies and overemphasizes criticisms and disagreements while downplaying the general consensus among experts. I would support shortening it as long as the general confines of the debate were still given due weight, but that would be a potentially contentious undertaking. Nblund (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: So I'm not actually clear on this: is anyone opposed the approach of stating "Research has consistently shown that the majority of sexual assaults are not reported to police; between 2006 and 2010, 65% of rapes or sexual assaults reported on the National Crime Victimization surveys were not reported ". Nblund (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's controversial (to me anyway) to make that kind of a statement, particularly if we provide the intext attribution which was the genesis of this discussion.Mattnad (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I am, of course, in favor of this. If we need additional statistics, Darkfrog provided a great resource below: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/653101?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents which found, upon review of a number of studies, that as little as 14% are reported. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nblund -- just to point out, there may be objections to the "or" in "rape or sexual assault" since that means either, as opposed to "rape and sexual assault" which means both the specifically that rape is mostly not and that the overall topic is not. I think the line would be clearer if that was expanded a bit, to 'rape is mostly not reported and sexual assaults as a class are mostly not reported'. Markbassett (talk)

Shall we call that a compromise? There's a near-unanimous support for providing additional information and most users have either weighed in on proposed wording or been directly asked to weigh in. I'm not sure we're going to squeeze much more participation out of this. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think using "and" is fine here, and I agree that it seems like there is a general consensus on the major points here. Maybe we can park this conversation for a day just to be totally sure, but I'm okay with closing this one. Nblund (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Editors not strongly opposing additional information is not the same thing as supporting a qualification like "Research has consistently shown"; a number of editors in this RfC have been clear that we should simply state the matter as fact because all evidence points to it being fact. I'm certainly not going to tolerate editors going around adding "Research has consistently shown" type of wording (WP:Weasel wording) to all of our articles that report this aspect as the fact that it is. But it's a compromise I can go along with for this article; I'd already suggested something similar (my "The literature indicates that" wording) at the start of this big dispute. I'd prefer that "rapes or sexual assaults" be changed to "rapes or other sexual assaults" since rape is a form of sexual assault. This is why I usually change "sexual assaults" to "other sexual assaults" in cases like these. I'd also rather this RfC officially close before we make changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point that several editors see this as a reasonable compromise for this case rather than an ideal solution, so this probably isn't a precedent that applies elsewhere. "Rapes or other sexual assaults" also works. Nblund (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Further commentary

I think there are valid concerns being expressed by both sides here, but I also think there are a couple of important points to keep in mind.

• 1."It's not necessary" or "it's unhelpful for readers" is actually a perfectly valid reason to oppose including something in an entry. I think there are additional concerns that are more central here, but I don't think we should dismiss that consideration out of hand. The section on WP:INTEXT specifically discourages using in-text attribution when a footnote would suffice.
• 2. Not including an in-text citation is not the same as not including a citation at all, and it doesn't prevent readers from checking facts or forming their own opinions. For the vast majority of cases, a footnote citation (like the one we use) is considered sufficient.
• 3. Most importantly: survey research is science. There's no precedent for handling surveys any differently than any other form of scientific evidence on Misplaced Pages, and I think the argument "surveys can't be factual" would require us to rewrite vast sections of not only this entry, but of a vast swath of Misplaced Pages entries. Virtually every piece of demographic data cited in the entry for Demography of the United States, for instance, comes from a survey, and most of those statements do not include in-text attribution. Even if you think this should be the standard, it clearly isn't the standard right now, and imposing it would require more than an RfC. Nblund (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe we have common ground on these points, but I have a few additional perspectives:

• 1. Those comments ("it's not necessary", "it's unhelpful") are indeed valid considerations. Their weight must be carefully considered, however. To an article with a stable status quo, any change at all is generally more unnecessary than necessary. Yet, in the interest of collaboration, Misplaced Pages encourages bold edits and discourages reversion. Only in cases where an edit clearly makes the article worse should reversion be considered, so perhaps the better question is whether or not it's necessary to exclude the change.
• 2. Indeed, there is no argument that the statement is cited. However, relating to my first bullet point above, the statement is commentary related to some sort of data. By not including the source of data in the text, it makes it all but impossible for other editors to include additional commentary on that data (which certainly exists) and thus inadvertently gives the sources sole authority over the conclusion. This does not seem to be in the best interest of the reader or the other editors.
• 3. Agreed. Sociology (forgive me if this is not the accurate term for this type of survey) is a science and it follows a method. Like all sciences, this method is generally an ongoing process of examining previous data, drawing conclusions, adjusting methodologies, and further testing hypotheses. The cited survey in particular put a great deal of effort into ensuring the accuracy and objectivity of their data. I think it's important that we give the conclusions all the respect they deserve: they are not guesses, their methods are sound, and we have every reason to believe the conclusions are accurate. However, there are still a great many debates ongoing in this area of study, notably among sociologists themselves. Even if all surveys show a greater than 50% incidence of non-reporting, it is unlikely that there is consensus on the methodologies nor is it likely that others surveys will replicate the results, making the conclusion potentially contentious. At least uncertain enough that it should be written in the commentator's voice, not Misplaced Pages's, or at least attribute where the data is coming from. But I'm not asking you to take my word for it, I'm only asking that we improve the wording of this statement enough that additional commentary can be easily added. If the results of the US Demographics statistics were a matter of serious contention, I have no doubt Misplaced Pages would accurately report on that. This subject, as it stands, is a bit more controversial. Scoundr3l (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You keep saying that the subject of under-reporting is controversial, but without offering any evidence. There are countless sources stating that most rape goes unreported. Many sources cite estimates of 90% unreported. 2/3rds unreported is also a common estimate. If you have any sources stating that (1) most rape cases are reported, or (2) that the claim that most cases are unreported is controversial, please present them. Misplaced Pages does not allow original research, however. Kaldari (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

In all fairness, the burden of proof is not on me, or any other source really, to provide evidence that a statement is uncertain. Rather the burden is on the statement to prove itself. Until the exact claim is attributed, it is not possible to provide such commentary on those claims. However, as this represents a perfect example of the problem, I'd be happy to indulge the exercise for the sake of this discussion. Let us bear in mind, however, that no additional sources or rationale worked out in this discussion are benefiting the article text or the readers. I do not have access to the reference section of any of these links, but if you can provide me with their primary source, I will attempt to provide evidence of controversy. Without the reference, as far as I can tell, it's possible that all 5 of these links are referencing the same survey. I don't think "Sexual Decisions: The Ultimate Teen Guide", for example, will show up in many professional commentaries, but its data source certainly will. This is exactly the same problem the article text has, at the moment, and the questions presented in this discussion are the questions the article should be answering for the readers. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Scoundr3l, what kind of sources do you find convincing? Government? Professional scientific studies? Newspapers? Most of the books Kaldari supplied are reliable but they cover the matter of rape in passing. A book that is specifically about sexual violence, perhaps? I'm confident we could find something that would put your mind at ease regarding this matter. Whom do you consider a reliable authority? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Scoundr3l:, there actually is a word for the thing you're talking about: "meta-analysis." That's when a group of scientists gather all the surveys and studies of a particular issue and evaluate them to identify overall trends. Here is one comparative analysis. Even in most regular studies, a single fact can be supported by multiple surveys. This one covers a single national sample Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the primary issue has more to do with the wording than the source, although it certainly doesn't help that the article's listed source may be poorly worded. As you say, many sources mention the statistic only in passing and so the phrasing is less important to their overall point. However, most academic sources (and, I hope we'll conclude, encyclopedias) prefer the more precise wording. So perhaps the issue is in replacing the source. The meta-analysis you've provided is a great resource and, if not included already, I hope it'll be added to the article. The wording I'm seeing in that source is "In the past 15 years in Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Scotland, and the United States, victimization surveys show that 14 percent of sexual violence victims report the offense to the police." To rephrase that statement as simply "The majority of rape goes unreported" would misrepresent the statement in terms of voice, conclusion, date range, and demographics. Granted the former statement would support the latter statement, if we assume the initial point, but it would be fallacy to do so. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Kaldari - actually it's not hard to find mentions of dispute on the whole topic of 'under-reporting' as something out there. See here , here, , Dana Goldstein, “The Dueling Data on Campus Rape,” and so forth. I'm thinking more that the topic is supposed to be assault itself, and the issues of dueling statistics just isn't an actual sexual assault and just isn't due this amount of coverage. Markbassett (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

None of the 3 sources you cite say anything about under-reporting of rape or sexual assault to law enforcement. Those articles just argue that sexual assault rates are lower then what is commonly reported in the media or by surveys. Even if sexual assault rates are actually very low (as those articles argue), it's still possible (and very likely) that the majority of incidents are not reported to law enforcement. Kaldari (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] - There is controversy. It seemed silly to ask Scoundr3l for it "You keep saying that the subject of under-reporting is controversial, but without offering any evidence" when such was easily google findable, but I gave a few of the first ones I found to show there is some 'over-inflated' versus 'under-reported'. This is to show there is partisan dispute here, not that partisans use the term of their opponents or talk seriously and fairly about the alternate views. I additionally offer that this all seems a bit WP:OFFTOPIC and not proper for the article to lead with as it's focusing instead into whether partisans exist or that claims are hyped or understated and leaving assault prevalence down at the third para and things other than surveys in the bottom half of the article. If the article topic was 'Survey disputes about Sexual Assault' or 'Partisan sides in sexual assault topic' would be one thing but for 'Campus sexual assault' it looks to me as a poor match to the titles. So again: there is dispute, here are a few examples.

• here Media matters slamming right-wing as having differing info 'New Study Once Again Debunks Right-Wing Media's Favorite Myths About Campus Sexual Assault Statistics ';
• here Weekly Standard flaming left-wing for wild definitions and false underreporting 'More College Rape Hype — This Time from the Washington Post';
• here National review article on also saying Washington Post made bogus claims;
• here Dana Goldstein, “The Dueling Data on Campus Rape"

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@Markbassett: Only 2 of those 4 sources mention reporting rates (as opposed to assault rates) and they both support the statement that the majority of sexual assaults are unreported:

• "Among female sexual assault victims, only 12.5 percent of rapes and 4.3 percent of sexual battery incidents were reported to any official."
• "Virtually none of these students went to the police, nor did most report any incident to their colleges."

I'm still not seeing any controversy about reporting rates. I firmly agree with you that there is controversy about sexual assault rates, but that's not the rate we are talking about here. We're talking about the reporting rate, not the assault rate. Specifically we're talking about the claim that "The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement." Do you have any sources that dispute that claim or even state that it is controversial? So far, I haven't seen any. Kaldari (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

This may be an issue of seeing the forest for the trees. Each of these sources seems to show controversy over the research methodology, specifically with the definition of sexual assault. This definition is certainly central to a statement on underreporting, whether or not the sources specifically mention that datum. At the very least it should be enough to support my original statement, "there are still a great many debates ongoing in this area of study, notably among sociologists themselves. Even if all surveys show a greater than 50% incidence of non-reporting, it is unlikely that there is consensus on the methodologies nor is it likely that others surveys will replicate the results, making the conclusion potentially contentious." It's not our place as Misplaced Pages editors to put the statistic on trial, so finding a source which specifically contradicts this statement is neither our burden nor is it necessary to resolving the discussion. Instead, as we can demonstrate that this statistic is derived from estimates (and that there is disagreement on the source of these estimates) we need only determine if it should then be written in Misplaced Pages's voice or the voice of the data source. Scoundr3l (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Wording Kentucky finding

Regarding this. I left out "attempted" but the wording should be something like: "A separate, mandatory, survey conducted by the University of Kentucky found that 5% of college undergraduates experienced completed or attempted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration while unable to consent due to drugs or alcohol, or by force".

The placement of the sentence and the emphasis on the higher response rate seem to imply that it was somehow methodologically superior to the AAU, but that's not necessarily true: low response rates don't necessarily indicate bias, and high response rates don't necessarily indicate a lack of bias. More importantly: simply saying they measured "sexual assault" is misleading. They only measure completed or attempted penetration in the last year. The 5% finding is actually higher than the most directly comparable finding from the AAU survey: (table 3-21, page 117 of the pdf) an average of 3.1% of undergraduates experienced completed or attempted penetration using force or incapacitation in the past year. As it stands, i'm not really sure why this finding is important, or why it belongs in the AAU section. It's not very well-documented beyond the brochure, and it seems sort of irrelevant to the AAU survey itself.

This edit is essentially a word-for-word reproduction of the same as the material I have objected to in the past. Reasonable people can disagree, but it's tendentious and time-wasting to keep re-introducing disputed material without making an effort to resolve the issues. Nblund (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's problematic that we lack access to the primary source and newspaper wording seems to have a bit of a willy-nilly attitude about conflating different terminology. The statistic appears to count attempted, but not completed assaults, as well as cases of intoxication which might not meet the legal definition of sexual assault. I would suggest not including it unless we can find the original study, or at least making sure our wording closely matches what's written in the brief summary that U Kentucky made public. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is what I am reading in the linked brochure: " reported unwanted sexual experiences (vaginal, oral, or anal sex) that occurred because: they were slipped drugs or alcohol and unable to consent; they were unable to consent due to voluntary drinking or taking drugs; they were threatened with physical harm; or they were physically forced. This percentage also includes individuals for whom someone attempted to force them to have sex, but they were able to escape." I agree with more specific wording, as opposed to "any sexual assault", as the more details provided the better the context for the reader. However, I would even suggest we change it to "unwanted sexual experience" so as to match the text and so there are no squabbles over the definition of sexual assault. Also, it doesn't seem necessary to round this number to 5% if I'm reading the relevant content, as often these numbers have already been rounded from a more specific decimal. The second sentence does indeed seem lax in its wording, but I think it's enough that we mention that this includes attempted. Given all that, my personal wording for this sentence would be "...encompassing 80% of students (24,300 respondents) found that 4.9% of that school's students in the past year were victims of unwanted sexual experiences, including completed or attempted oral, anal, or vaginal sex without their consent." I hope that helps. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I just realized that "including" may be contentious phrasing, but I have no objection to "defined as". Scoundr3l (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this is exactly the point. It should state clearly exactly what is being measured, and this is required by WP:PRIMARY. Your abbreviated wording, omitting e.g. "unable to consent due to intoxication", is original research. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand where your objection lies. My statement mentioned exactly what the text said was measured and mentions that it was without their consent. The various methods that may produce a lack of consent seem unnecessary to that point, but you're welcome to include intoxication if you like. Surely some amount of content can be reasonably omitted for the sake of WP:PARAPHRASE, so I'm not sure what you qualified as OR, but otherwise we might as well make it a direct quote. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Because differences in operational definitions and standards of consent are key to this topic, it's critical to completely describe them. Otherwise meaning is lost. This would be a very bad use of WP:PARAPHRASE (which is an essay, not policy). The situation here is closer to the sort of thing WP:MEDRS was written to deal with. In medicine, epidemiology is a notoriously fickle subject, which is why MEDRS warns against using primary sources at all if it can be avoided. Although sexual assault poses serious dangers to physical and mental health, this is arguably not a topic where MEDRS applies; nevertheless, we are dealing with similar sourcing issues. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you objecting to the source or only to the paraphrasing of the source? If the latter, what else would you include that would be an accurate representation of the source, in your opinion? Scoundr3l (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If we are including this survey, I would prefer to be explicit about what was measured. My concern is that it looks like we're making a comparison between Kentucky's findings and the findings of the AAU, even though those results really aren't comparable because they measure different types of sexual violence. Nblund (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be a two way street then. Nblund wants to be explicit about the Kentucky Survey, but wants to minimize the detailed findings of other surveys that tout higher numbers, including how often the "victims" don't think it's serious enough. Here's the theme - report high level numbers (per the lede), with no attribution about what and how they are measuring it. Also, try to argue that surveys that have very high rates are just as good, no, better than surveys that indicate lower rates. See the theme?

Regarding Nblund's queries about the differences in methodology between the AAU and Kentucky studies, the AAU study used responses from non-random and voluntary sample with a low participation rate. This creates the risk of Sampling bias. Per the AAU study itself, "An analysis of the possibility the estimates were affected by non-response bias found that certain types of estimates may be too high because non-victims may have been less likely to participate." The Kentucky survey represents nearly the entire population, was not voluntary, which means it's more representative of the student body.Mattnad (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, this is exactly what I think we should avoid trying to imply. A sample with a high response rate can potentially be less representative than a sample with a low response rate and vice versa. Whether or not a response bias exists is actually a pretty tricky empirical question: notice that the AAU report dedicates about 30 pages (appendix 4) to analyzing the sample for bias. The KU survey may be worse, or better, but they either didn't check for bias, or haven't released those results. It's really speculative to say that the survey is of better quality. It certainly isn't something that you could cite a reliable source to support. Nblund (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It's more than an implication. It's a basic fact about surveys and sampling and it's overtly stated by the AAU study designers themselves. I'm confident you know the difference, but let me explain to other editors. The closer the sample is to capturing the entire population the better. If you can poll everyone, then the results reflect the entire population. If you cannot capture the entire population, you then need to control for sample bias. One way this is done to is make sure the sample is random. Kentucky does a good job because it captured more than 90% of the population, and did not have any issue with self-selection bias because it was mandatory. AAU is closer to 15%, and was not random. So 85% of students did not respond to the survey, and of the 15% who chose to respond, the AAU itself states they may be more inclined because they had been assaulted. I don't think you really believe the two approaches are equivalent, but you want readers to think they are. You carefully avoid the Complete Sample, vs. Random Sample vs. Self-Selected Sample issues to make your argument, and that's just misleading. Mattnad (talk)

Yeah, it's not true that higher response rates are always better. There's actually quite a bit of recent research on this topic that suggests that bias can be the same or even higher in surveys with very high response rates. The AAU authors cite some of this literature in the report (footnote 1 on page vi of the introduction). The AAU does say that there is evidence of a response bias on their survey, and that is noted in the entry. However there are no indications of the quality of Kentucky's data, and the claim that one is superior to the other doesn't appear to be something that you can support with a reliable source. Nblund (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's a very specific source commenting on the KU survey which I quote:

"Until now, the school has had to rely on information that was volunteered. Follingstad explained that volunteered data is not always representative. “A survey that goes out to a campus is relying on whomever is willing to complete it,” she said. “There is always a concern that samples are skewed.” That’s why campus officials decided the survey should go out to entire student body."

Can we drop this now? AAU study was voluntary. Kentucky was not.Mattnad (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say that the data quality is superior to the findings from the AAU? Where does it say that they have empirical evidence of reduced response bias? That statement explains Kentucky's reasoning, but it doesn't say anything directly about the quality of the current data, and it certainly doesn't offer any support for making a comparison across data sources. This is a very complex statistical question, it's not really something that we can reasonably speculate about. Nblund (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Now you're just being difficult. The AAU designers say their study is skewed. The KU say theirs is not, with the same reasoning.Mattnad (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult, but it seems like you're putting words in the mouths of these researchers. The AAU says they have some indications of a response bias. They draw this conclusion after running some fairly rigorous empirical tests. KU says that volunteered data isn't always representative, but they don't actually assert that their results are free of bias, and they absolutely don't make a comparison between data sources. Doing so would be pretty irresponsible, because they don't appear to have analyzed the data for response bias -- at least not yet. Again, this is a question that requires some fairly sophisticated statistical know-how and technical skills, it would be pretty clear-cut OR to assert something like this without a reliable source. Nblund (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Again quoting, "There is always a concern that samples are skewed.” That’s why campus officials decided the survey should go out to entire student body."" What part of that do you not understand? How about I add what KU and the AAU people say about their own studies then, with quotes? Or will you object to that?Mattnad (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It would depend on the wording and arrangement, if you arrange the quotes in a way that appears to be making a comparison between the two, I would say that still poses the same problem. Others are questioning whether this belongs here at all, so maybe you should propose something above and see what others think.

The AAU is making a statement based on a fairly rigorous response analysis. Follingstad, on the other hand, is discussing how KU's novel approach might alleviate the issue, but it's not something that has empirical support, nor does it suggest anything about the AAU. I think this comparison is also a stretch, but KU does compare their results to the Campus Sexual Assault study. Their findings actually indicate a higher rate of sexual violence than the CSA (5% in the last year vs. 3.4% since entering college). Nblund (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The AAU study is clearly flawed due to the low response rate, while we just don't know enough about the U Kentucky study. There are problems with mandatory surveys too, such that some students may not read the questions and just try to get it over with. I don't think we can reasonably compare the results unless we know that the methodology was similar, and I'm bothered that we don't seem to have access to the original study, just the summary of results. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, there's also the problem that the 80% completion rate appears to include students who completed the survey but selected "prefer not to answer" for certain questions. The number of valid responses for each item is probably lower than the total participation rate. Again, this is something that would probably be laid out in the full report.

Looking over the entry, I think the section on "prevention efforts" probably should contain some information on the strategy of using climate surveys, and I do think some info on the Kentucky, Michigan, and Yale approaches (as well as the AAU) might be useful there. Kentucky did get some press coverage for the idea of making this survey mandatory, and I think that approach is noteworthy even if we're unsure about how to deal with the results themselves. Nblund (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

A whole lot of speculation going on. How about we use what's stated by the survey designers themselves as it relates to sample. There's this thing called WP:RS that Misplaced Pages is founded on.Mattnad (talk) 12:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you have an RS where the survey designers say anything about the item-by-item response rates or state the number of students who gave valid responses to the sexual assault questions? Nblund (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not required since we're not citing a source that makes any points to that level of detail. Simply put, we have the AAU (and others) stating there's selection bias in their survey, and we have Kentucky saying they decided to go with the entire student body to avoid that issue. It's sourced. Your speculative opinions on why this is not valid is not supported by any source you've offered. So I put it to you - do you have a sources that says the AAU study was more rigorous, or better executed than Kentucky? If so, how? Also, you previous asked me for a source regarding Kentucky, I provided it, and now you're shifting the goal line.Mattnad (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I asked for a source that supported the argument that the KU survey was better than the AAU, and you haven't provided that. I really doubt you can. For my part: I don't know whether the AAU is more rigorous, and I would oppose suggesting that in the entry. My view is that we lack enough information to make a comparison and so we should avoid implying one. Like I said: maybe you should propose a wording above so we have something more concrete to work with. Nblund (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

According to Diane Follingstad, director of the Center for Research on Violence Against Women at UK, who was quoted extensively in a reliable news source, KU made the survey mandatory to avoid problems of skewed responses. That's the comparison in the passage and according to her, the KU study is unique. Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. We rely on reliable sources. Your POV is showing, and if you keep it up, this might have to go to ANI.Mattnad (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Mattnad, and I have explained at length why a comparison is still not really okay. You might not agree -- but there is not a consensus for inserting this material in the way you have worded it, and you're not really engaged in any effort to create consensus. You absolutely should take that accusation to ANI. It's uncivil and disruptive to keep making the accusation on talk pages. Either take it to ANI or stop saying it. Nblund (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Minutiae

The UK study which is being pushed by Mattnad is a somewhat flimsy primary source that may not belong at all. But I'm also a bit perturbed by edits like this by Nblund. While the edit summary is accurate in a sense - this particular source doesn't make the specific claim that the BJS criteria were narrower - we also all know this claim to be true, and it can be sourced elsewhere. On both sides, there is an effort to control almost every word in this article, which is going to preclude it from being developed. I would suggest you stop arguing over these small issues and instead open a (hopefully friendlier) discussion about how to significantly restructure the article. It needs work one way or another. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As you previously noted, the AAU doesn't even purport to measure sexual assault at all, so the comparison seems a little problematic on its face, but I don't think that the claim is true at all. Different surveys use different definitions, and some surveys (NISVS, for instance) measure other types of sexual violence in addition to rape and sexual assault, but I don't see reliable sources that claim that they define sexual assault more or less "narrowly" from any other data source. The National Research Council Report on the NCVS methodology actually conducts a pretty in-depth review of the definitions used by different studies. They do note that the NCVS definition needs improvement, and say that needs to explicitly include sexual assault by incapacitation, but they don't reach the conclusion that any particular definition is "narrower" overall.

More importantly, the statement gives a misleading impression that isn't supported by reliable sources: definitions vary, but no scholarly source supports the notion that differences in definition are the primary reason for differences on the "not serious enough" response, or on any other measure. Indeed, the distinction generally portrayed as more important for differences across surveys in the scholarly literature is the wording of survey questions. Surveys that use behaviorally specific questions (like the CSA and AAU) generally find more sexual assaults than studies (like the NCVS) that ask respondents whether they were raped without defining explicitly what that term entails. This discrepancy holds true in controlled experiments, where the only difference between two studies is the wording of the survey questions themselves (see the results of the "quasi-experiment" here)

I agree that there are problems here, and the best solution is to avoid a deep dive in to particular study, but I'm not just quibbling about minutiae here: statements like the one I removed mis-characterize the science in order to make arguments that aren't supportable by a reliable source. It's a Trojan Horse for introducing a bit of editorial, and it's a persistent problem. Nblund (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You wrote, "the AAU doesn't even purport to measure sexual assault at all" and yet the article states, "The 2015 Association of American Universities (AAU) Campus Survey on Sexual Assault, one of the largest studies ever of college sexual violence" If not sexual assault, then a) why is it even in this article, and b) what does "sexual violence" mean in this context? As for what reliable sources say about this, I've presented several newspaper accounts and even the survey itself. What do you have that refers to the AAU study?Mattnad (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sexual violence generally includes a wide range of non-consensual sexual conduct including harassment, sexual coercion, and forcible or incapacitated sexual contact. These are all measured in the AAU survey. It's in the article because its a study that measures -- among other things -- acts that generally fit the legal criteria for rape and sexual assault on college campuses.

The source you provided doesn't actually say that the NCVS definition of sexual assault is narrower than any other, nor does it say that differences in definition result in differences in the "not serious enough to report" response. It also doesn't make any comparison to the AAU (because it predates it). This is sort of odd, actually, given that you argued that citing past research to talk about the AAU violated SYNTH. I provided sources in the discussion above. Nblund (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight for criticism section

The "criticism" section seems disproportionately large and it includes a bullet style list of specific cases where the university apparently treated the accused male student unfairly. But there is no bullet style list of notable cases in general, just a bullet list for cases where the male student was apparently treated unfairly. It seems wp:undue to give this sort of detailed attention to only one specific type of campus sexual assault case. I don't think the answer is adding bullet lists of campus sexual assault cases in general, because that would quickly overwhelm the article, and such details aren't really appropriate in an overview article anyway. It seems the criticism section should be trimmed to just overview information. Another option seems that a break-away article could be created to cover this specific type of case in this sort of detail-BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a "review" article. It's an article on the topic, and this section and content are topical. We have thousands of words over several sections dedicated to presenting the maximal interpretation of sexual assault rates, and you're concerned about a few examples of more recent mishandling of cases? Since this is evolving policy and law, the details help. If there's any undue weight, take a look at the preceding sections which present mainly one side of this.Mattnad (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, and this is an issue that others have cited as well. Colleges have been criticized and sued by both accused students and their accusers for their handling of sexual assault cases. My preference would be to avoid mentioning specific cases all together, and to instead include more general statements about criticisms and lawsuits over adjudication of sexual assaults on campuses. Barring that, we at least need to avoid choosing specific cases that seem to imply something non-neutral or that only represent a specific set of criticisms. Nblund (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Are the examples inaccurate? Do they not help to illustrate the problem better than just saying "some students have sued their former institutions"?Mattnad (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Best practice is to incorporate criticism into the main text. This line of discussion does not seem like it will be fruitful, given that larger edits to the article are being discussed elsewhere which will hopefully make this issue irrelevant. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Mattnad: Bobo and I raised a question about due weight, not about accuracy. Even accurate statements can be undue if they give a misleading impression about the prominence of a specific viewpoint. See: WP:TRUE. As it stands, the section offers details on five lawsuits by accused men, and zero lawsuits by accusers. I think that's a fairly clear-cut case of undue weight.

I don't think it's particularly helpful to have multiple specific cases, and I think it likely raises some major BLP and neutrality concerns. I could be persuaded otherwise on this point, but it's very difficult for me how that section, as currently written, is neutral. Maybe you could propose an alternative arrangement since it's pretty clear that multiple editors share this concern.

Sammy: We discussed changes to the prevalence section, but the portion in question here is under "prevention efforts". Nblund (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, so the natural solution would be to add criticism by accusers, which I hope will be part of the general discussion about expansion of the article that you are discussing with Mattnad. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were considering shifting the focus more toward the political and social context, and away from placing the statistics front-and-center. Was I misreading the discussion on your/my talk pages? --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The immediate concern was altering the prevalence and incidence section to make it shorter and more general. Changes to the other sections are probably something that should be discussed separately. One problem at a time.

I don't think, regardless of whether we change the focus of the article, that detailing a long list of college sexual assault cases is going to be helpful for the entry. I don't think any of the specific cases mentioned here are particularly notable, and this level of detail is probably already inconsistent with the encyclopedic purpose of Misplaced Pages. If we just did a fifty-fifty split, we would be detailing ten specific college sexual assault cases. How do we pick them? Which ones are notable? How do we avoid BLP issues and other points of contention? Nblund (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the accusers perspectives are more than well represented in the 1 in 5 stats that pervade the article, as well as the related Obama/OCR sections. The issue which has become more interesting is the recent shift by schools to follow OCR dictates, and the fall-out. Nblund and others have argued the challenges for schools handing of these cases should be limited in detail, but it's those details which provide texture to what would otherwise be a sentence or two. But the courts are weighing in here, as are legislators and this is all very new and not simply summed up by pronouncements about sexual assault rates. I'm strongly in favor of also capturing how schools and police have given victims short shrift which is a huge part of the problem here.Mattnad (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what you're saying: you say that accusers perspectives are already well-represented, but you also say you're in favor of capturing how schools and police give victims short shrift. Could you be a little more specific about what changes you're suggesting?

I think you're misinterpreting me: I am totally in favor of adding more detail about the difficulties faced by schools, but I don't think we need to focus on individual cases in order to do that, and the specific cases presented in that section are clearly not representative. The courts and legislatures are weighing in, but there's no information on that in the article, nor is there any information on general questions that readers might have about these cases such as "how many cases have been filed?", "what are the outcomes?". Nblund (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure. The article is top heavy on statistics, with emphasis on the findings from people who are in the business of pushing this issue for money or political gain (your "experts"). The 1 in 5 and related theory comes from this camp. That's fine to have, but it's overweight. However, what we are missing, nearly completely, is the failure of schools to take sexual assault seriously leading up to the OCR action (with examples) - and it's important as a lead up to the current debate, and the pendulum shift that has been noted in the last couple of years which has schools doing slipshod investigations and ignoring the rights of the accused which is far more in the press these days. This NPR article sums up the the parallels. As for the examples in the bullets, they are exemplary of the learning curve for schools and the challenges of taking a victim-centric approach. The article likewise highlights Emma Sulkowicz and other activists who are hardly representative, but included with the endorsement of Nblund and Bobomeowcat.Mattnad (talk) 19:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So are you saying we should only cover pre-OCR cases where colleges mishandled sexual assaults? I understand that you see these as exemplary cases, but it sounds like you want to use these examples in order to push an opinion that colleges have overcorrected, and that interpretation is really a matter of opinion that not everyone agrees with.

Are you open to: replacing specific cases with summaries, editing these cases to make them more neutral and less detailed (by reducing the coverage of the assaults themselves and focusing on the legal cases) or introducing some material about women who have sued colleges for mishandling sexual assault? Or do you have an alternate suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nblund (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Side note: if you're unsure whether or not researchers like Bonnie Fisher qualify as experts, I'm sure we could request a 3rd opinion to clarify. They are experts by any standard, and their views are supposed to get more coverage. I don't think it helps your credibility to imply some sort of conspiracy or corruption on the part of respected academics, and this isn't going to be a successful article if you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the mainstream viewpoints, even if you disagree with them. Nblund (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that the colleges have over-corrected. It's the courts and the cases as covered in many reliable sources that cite them. Not all colleges have run roughshod over student rights, but we have reliable sources including NPR that are citing emerging case law in these matters. These are exactly the cases that you and Bobo seem to want to eliminate from the article. They sources as presented (and edited heavily by Bobo herself previous) speak for themselves. User:Sammy1339 has several time proposed we focus more on the controversy and that's my proposal. As for commenting on Fisher, I note that you've wholesale dismissed the perspective of Follingstad and insisted we remove any mention of KU's study that she designed, or quote her reasoning, because it doesn't support a narrative you prefer. She's a woman who is also expert in these matters, but you don't agree with her, so you've edit warred to keep KU's survey out.Mattnad (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

It may not be your opinion, but it is an opinion -- this is also something that I think would be easily solved with a 3rd Opinion if you're sincerely unsure on the distinction. Some people think colleges have over-corrected, others do not. As it stands, the article strongly implies that opinion without stating it explicitly, and without really acknowledging that others might disagree. That's a major problem. Three editors have suggested that this section might be an issue, do you have any suggestions for improvements? Do you disagree with everything I suggested above? Nblund (talk) 03:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

We have multiple secondary reliable sources capturing the challenges of colleges balancing the goals of advocates (low threshold for findings of fault, limited rights for the accused) and the fallout being cataloged in the courts. Even Janet Napolitano has serious concerns about the current approaches by schools following OCR guidance. There are many, many articles on the tight spot schools are in on this, and how legislators and the courts are objecting to the OCR guidance and how schools are applying it. Now, you say there are other opinions. Who is voicing those opinions? Are they are neutral as the courts? Or are they advocates? There's a big difference between what an advocate who has a POV says, and what secondary reliable sources say. Mattnad (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I noted you completely dodged my point your preferential selection of experts, while excluding Follingstad. You continue to suppress her views, not because she's inexpert, but because you don't like what she has to say. If anything, her work is more focused on victims than Fisher, who you prefer. Of course Fisher explicitly states the some of the perspectives you like are derived from feminist opinions on the matter. Instead, you selectively pick aspects of her writings that not longer mention that, even though the cat is out of the bag. You must regret sharing that quote, particularly since other editors have not amassed your selective library of sources and "experts". 14:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not dodging, but I do want to stay on topic. If you have general grievances about me, you should put them on my talk page. Most of these sources note that the overwhelming majority of the most of the lawsuits filed by men have been unsuccessful. They also cite pushback from people like Kristen Gillibrand over attempts to push colleges toward using higher standards of guilt. There are clearly disagreements here, and they all come from opinion sources. Don't you think that should be acknowledged? Nblund (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Campus sexual assault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090829131749/http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us:80/CPD/reports/1997/rape.html to http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/CPD/reports/1997/rape.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)