This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Badmintonhist (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 21 July 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:53, 21 July 2013 by Badmintonhist (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Law C‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the False accusation of rape article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication: Rape Is Rape: How Denial, Distortion, and Victim Blaming Are Fueling a Hidden Acquaintance Rape Crisis by Jody Raphael (Chicago Review Press, 2013) ISBN 9781613744796 "...between 2010 and 2011, Misplaced Pages users edited and added some of the new studies—as well as Professor Lisak's critique of Eugene J. Kanin—to the site's "False Accusation of Rape" entry. As recorded by the entry's "Talk" page, the article's author, a rape denier, then removed some of the new material. These actions caused the new research, non-Kanin material to be unavailable to Misplaced Pages readers. The hullabaloo stands as a mini-version of the whole controversy." |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the False accusation of rape article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Definition
Please remember that Misplaced Pages reflects the definition used by the wider world, it does not dictate it. Since the bulk of the literature does not use "false accusation" to mean incorrect identification, police error, failure of forensic science, a real rape that didn't get a conviction, etc. it doesn't matter if a user personally thinks that the literature should - we use reliable sources here, and reliable sources use the term to mean an accusation by the supposed victim of an assault that did not occur. Even a really cursory search bears this out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Force
It was stated that rape is not always forced, please make your case by citing a source.
According to Merriam Websters dictionary Rape is "unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly."
The current definition is quoted from Kanin, Eugene J., "False Rape Allegations", Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, Feb 1994, p. 81. Where are you getting your definition from?
Thereandnot (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Suggest that going forward you learn and follow WP:BRD.
- Suggest you also read the full definition in Websters: " 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". This kind of cherry-picking could be perceived as tendentious editing, and I'm sure that isn't how you would like to be viewed. Federales (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- This is not tendentious editing because the current definition is quotes exactly from Kanin. And you stating that is AGAIN assuming bad faith. So the burden is on you to find an alternate definition for False accusation of rape because mine is from Kanin word for word and is consistent with M&W. (Thereandnot (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC))
- Again, learn policy: see WP:BURDEN. And stop misrepresenting sources - Kanin provides no such definition and you are ignoring 3/4 of M-W's definition. Federales (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- And you would be okay with it if Kanin did provide this definition? Cause it states "false rape allegations: the intentional reporting of a forcible rape by an alleged victim when no rape had occurred." You keep telling me to read policy but you arent even reading the source, just continously edit warring and assuming bad faith. (Thereandnot (talk) 03:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC))
- Quote the full sentence from the Kanin source, from start to finish (hint, the full sentence includes the part before the colon). Federales (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- "This paper deals exclusively with false rape allegations: the intentional reporting of a forcible rape by an alleged victim when no rape had occurred." Thereandnot (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Kanin does provide this definition. We could totally discuss whether a better one is available (I'm also skeptical that the literature at large considers force to be a necessary part of the thing), but there is no point in wasting our time arguing over a word that clearly appears in the source. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- That sentence doesn't define rape; it defines the scope of Kanin's study. You just picked the part that you liked and pretended that it means something other than what it actually says. Sort of like you did with Miriam-Webster, when you plucked out the part of the definition that supported your argument and omitted the rest. That's a clear and obvious misrepresentation of sources.
- If this is a serious proposal to shape this article in such a way that it ignores the existence of non-violent rape--such as date rape, statutory rape and rape by deception--we will need much wider input from the community. Federales (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
No Federales, what we have is consensus and a solid source that we are quoting word for word and YOU are edit warring and assuming bad faith AGAIN. The only reason we don't undo your edit right now is because we are nice people who continue to assume good faith. Thereandnot (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Federales, I don't think we need to read the source in such a way as to say Kanin is defining false rape allegations for the purpose of the study as different from the regular definition of false rape allegations. However, Thereandnot, I think Federales is correct that using this definition omits incidents that studies we cite would include. I could check the studies to make sure, but David Lisak, for instance, does a ton of research into rape that doesn't fit the conventional stranger-leaping-out-of-a-bush narrative and I doubt that his study only dealt with allegations of "forcible" rape as we generally interpret the term. As such, I don't think we are a "we" at the moment - the source does say what you are citing it to say, but it's not necessarily the best we could do for reasons that Federales explained. (As a side note, the Kanin study is widely discredited, though not on the basis of its definition of a false rape allegation per se so maybe that's neither here nor there.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I understand what you are trying to say. Do you have another more accurate sourced definition? The abstracts of many literature papers define the topic they are going to discuss. Thereandnot (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation says that Katz and Mazur's book in 1979 used "a deliberate lie by the alleged victim accusing a man of a rape that did not occur. It may also be a fantasy report that the female believes is true" (and that Katz and Mazur went on to explain that part of the reason for statistical discrepancies is differing definitions). Practical Aspects itself uses the definition "falsely alleging that a sexual assault has occurred against one's person, or the person of another. The assault may be in the form of touching or penetration, or having been forced to touch or penetrate another in a sexual manner." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am okay with definition "is the intentional reporting of a rape by an alleged victim when no rape has occurred. The rape may be in the form of being touched or penetrated by, or having been forced to touch or penetrate in a sexual manner". I would think this definition that we would probably all three agree on. Any disagreements? Thereandnot (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation says that Katz and Mazur's book in 1979 used "a deliberate lie by the alleged victim accusing a man of a rape that did not occur. It may also be a fantasy report that the female believes is true" (and that Katz and Mazur went on to explain that part of the reason for statistical discrepancies is differing definitions). Practical Aspects itself uses the definition "falsely alleging that a sexual assault has occurred against one's person, or the person of another. The assault may be in the form of touching or penetration, or having been forced to touch or penetrate another in a sexual manner." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- I understand what you are trying to say. Do you have another more accurate sourced definition? The abstracts of many literature papers define the topic they are going to discuss. Thereandnot (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary or desirable for this article to define rape. The opening sentence is fine as-is. Federales 06:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federales (talk • contribs)
- That's a good point. If there is anything that needs clarification it's that false accusation = by supposed victim, no actual assault happened (as opposed to mistaken identity, etc.) and that's clear in the current version. Thereandnot, is there a reason you would prefer to go into more detail? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary or desirable for this article to define rape. The opening sentence is fine as-is. Federales 06:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Federales (talk • contribs)
I dont really care for more detail to be honest. I just want a source to back up whatever we write. (Thereandnot (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC))
What is considered rape and how you can commit it depends on the jurisdiction
And this[REDACTED] article is not limited to the anglophonic world. At least nowhere it is said so.
Polish Criminal Code Article l97. § 1. Whoever, by force, illegal threat or deceit subjects another person to sexual intercourse shall be subject to the penalty of the deprivation of liberty for a term of between 2 and 12 years. § 2. If the perpetrator, in the manner specified in § 1, makes another person submit to other sexual act or to perform such an act, he shall be subject to the penalty of the deprivation of liberty for a term of between 6 months and 8 years. § 3. If the perpetrator commits the rape or commits it in common with other person, he shall be subject to the penalty of the deprivation of liberty for a term of no less then 3 years § 4. If the perpetrator commits the rape specified in § 1, 2 or 3 with particular cruelty, or commits it in common with other person, he shall be subject to the penalty of the deprivation of liberty for no less then 5 years.
Source it has been changed since and I don't see an "official" english version,
This is one of many articles defining different sexual crimes but article 197 is the only one defining "the crime of rape" in the Polish Criminal Code. So as you see at least in Poland you can commit rape without the use of force, but with deceit such as promising someone that you love him or you are going to marry him. Mieciu K (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages isn't a how-to guide / Revert war "Protection against false accusations"
Since I've already explained at length why Mieciu K's new addition is unsuitable on his talkpage, I'll sum up briefly here: Misplaced Pages policy states (WP:NOTHOWTO) that Misplaced Pages is not an instruction manual, and I don't think a section that a) the user explicitly intends as advice about avoiding false accusations b) is sourced to news stories about non-notable events is exempt from that requirement even if it doesn't use the actual phrase "This is how you can avoid..." It does not contribute, nor is it intended to contribute, to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject. The user also does not appear to understand what "notable" means on Misplaced Pages, asserting repeatedly that the events are "notable" because they can help men avoid false accusation, rather than citing extensive or persistent coverage, and evidently using the word as a synonym for "I like it." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- "because they can help men avoid false accusation" - are we talking about the same article? Because I am talking about the "False accusation of rape" article. Nowhere had I written or was my intention to "help men avoid false accusation". IMHO the information I have added is notable to any person accused of rape male, female or transgender. Mieciu K (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- In response to the recent reverts I would like to complain about user's Roscelese overzelous deletionism and breaking the Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles policy by deleting notable, sourced information from Misplaced Pages.
- As you all know Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and that calls for constant collaboration between editors if we delete new information from Misplaced Pages we have nothing to improve. Would we ever have more then 1 million articles if we kept nitpicking and deleting all content that was deemed not notable for some reason? My edits are just a begining of possible expansion of this article and so far I have tried to use NPOV, gender neutral language. I am not an English native speaker so I encourage others to rework, change and expand the content that I have added. Thanks in advance for your opinions. Mieciu K (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, this is not an argument for the content. Adding content three times and complaining about user behavior when it gets reverted isn't the way to do it - building consensus by convincing other editors is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- So according to you reverting my good faith hard work in seconds without an explaination on my talkpage or on the talkpage of this article is building consensus? I don't think so. Your first revert was at at 19:25, 9 July 2013 and you didn't post on my talkpage before 19:56, 9 July 2013 after my first revert. You use your own criteria for non notability without seeking opinions of other redditors. This article's history shows that you have eddited it often which makes me belive you may have become overly attached to it, and consider it your own to police and be very critical of any new additions to this article. I do not agree with your judgment and calling my additions "a manual". I do not judge nor do recommend any "method" I just mention that those methods exist. And that we are here to do. Let's the viewers decide what is notable or not. Misplaced Pages is not made of paper we have plenty of space. Mieciu K (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, this is not an argument for the content. Adding content three times and complaining about user behavior when it gets reverted isn't the way to do it - building consensus by convincing other editors is. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- To begin with you should have followed bold, revert, discuss. You were bold and added new content to the article, Roscelese reverted your bold edit. The next step is to discuss the edits not revert yet again, and again. You were both edit warring and no one was discussing it where it should be discussed, right here on the article talk page. I would suggest you drop this portion and just concentrate on the discussion of the new text itself about whether it belongs in the article or not. GB fan 22:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- I think you need to address the key issue here, WP:NOTHOWTO, before you continue. Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a scientific journal, texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics, Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability, and neatness of our articles. Mieciu K (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can you please explain how this addresses WP:NOTHOWTO in regards to your edits to the page, because I do not see that you addressed it at all. GB fan 00:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- "Misplaced Pages is not a scientific journal" and after my edits have been reverted this article is one big review of scientific studies. Why does this article even exist if it sole purpose is to compile scientific journals. There are scientific journals that do that and it's not Misplaced Pages's job to copy (edit:removed the word "them") what they are doing. Do we not use newspaper articles as references in other[REDACTED] articles? Newspapers are not great reference points but they are good enough before they can be replaced with better sources. "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability, and neatness of our articles" - after the revert this page is all about the statistics. In conclusion on Misplaced Pages everything that is not explicitly forbidden should be allowed. The judgment of what is considered notable is becoming more lenient as Misplaced Pages expands. It is my opinion that when in doubt, sourced information should be kept, then revisited and reviewed in a few months time to see if it was a good choice. After all Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. Mieciu K (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- So your comments have nothing to do with how WP:NOTHOWTO applies to your edits? GB fan 00:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- So I'm violating WP:NOTHOWTO (which specific policy exactly?) until I can prove my innocence? Did User:Roscelese prove anything except that in his opinion my edits are non notable? Mieciu K (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't say your edits violated anything, haven't made up my mind, still looking at it. You appeared to be replying to Gamaliel's question about WP:NOTHOWTO, but I understand now that wasn't what you were responding to. GB fan 01:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- So I'm violating WP:NOTHOWTO (which specific policy exactly?) until I can prove my innocence? Did User:Roscelese prove anything except that in his opinion my edits are non notable? Mieciu K (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- So your comments have nothing to do with how WP:NOTHOWTO applies to your edits? GB fan 00:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- "Misplaced Pages is not a scientific journal" and after my edits have been reverted this article is one big review of scientific studies. Why does this article even exist if it sole purpose is to compile scientific journals. There are scientific journals that do that and it's not Misplaced Pages's job to copy (edit:removed the word "them") what they are doing. Do we not use newspaper articles as references in other[REDACTED] articles? Newspapers are not great reference points but they are good enough before they can be replaced with better sources. "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability, and neatness of our articles" - after the revert this page is all about the statistics. In conclusion on Misplaced Pages everything that is not explicitly forbidden should be allowed. The judgment of what is considered notable is becoming more lenient as Misplaced Pages expands. It is my opinion that when in doubt, sourced information should be kept, then revisited and reviewed in a few months time to see if it was a good choice. After all Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. Mieciu K (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Can you please explain how this addresses WP:NOTHOWTO in regards to your edits to the page, because I do not see that you addressed it at all. GB fan 00:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a scientific journal, texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics, Excessive listings of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability, and neatness of our articles. Mieciu K (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Paywall vs newspapers By the way how is it OK to quote a study (Rumney 2006) that 99% of[REDACTED] users will not be able to verify because it is behind a paywall but information form newspaper articles avialable to anyone with an internet connection is not? I'm supposed to believe the 90% false rape accusation rate because someone punched those numbers into Misplaced Pages? Mieciu K (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Examples of articles with similar lists/"how-to articles"
- So you tactic is to discuss all kinds of other things other than if your edits belong in the article or if the arguements presented so far that they don't apply. GB fan 01:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- That is one of my tactics this article is just a small piece of a larger project and should not be judged alone. Mieciu K (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Except that, again, these methods/preventions have been discussed as a subject in reliable sources, whereas you're trying to extrapolate your own list of tips from a series of anecdotes. If your argument is that this article is part of a larger project, surely you must understand that it is subject to the same policies that govern all articles, even if you really want to make an exception in order to help people avoid being falsely accused. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you not want to discuss these particular edits here? GB fan 09:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
3O Response: The 3O question is: "Should a section about how a man can avoid being falsely accused of rape, sourced to news articles on specific incidents of acquittal, be included?" The answer to the question, as posed, is a definite no. This is not a "How to/not how to" issue. Rather, the concern is OR. Consider, a trial is held & the defendant is acquitted -- does the new source about the trial parse how to avoid the false accusation? No, it will recap the prosecution & defense presentations to the judge/jury. How does that tell any reader how to avoid the false accusation. Beyond the new sources of acquittals, what sort of HOWTO info might be presented? Things like "Always go on double dates." "Video or record the dates you go on." "Video/record your every movement outside the home." "NEVER engage in any sort of amorous activity." The list of methods could go on & on. And what RS is there, beyond news stories about trials, that actually gives advice on how to avoid a false accusation? Do not include such a section. – S. Rich (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
.
sections
I hope I don't have to copy/paste examples (i will though if i need to) of the the organization of "Estimates of the prevalence of false accusations" with most of the studies discussed have the criticism along with the main description while the criticism for the "Kanin" section is separate with it's own subheadNailo1234 (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
On the scientific validity of Lisak's study and methods
David Lisak's study is presented in such a way that it is being used to suggest that allegations that aren't shown to be false with evidence should be assumed to be true. In science, a statement usually is considered false without evidence supporting its truth. No evidence should be required to suggest that a claim is false when there is insufficient evidence establishing a claim's truth. This isn't intended to be a personal attack on Lisak or a discrediting of rape allegations, this is just a criticism of Lisak's methods. Astrohoundy (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
- If "Lisak's study is flawed in this way" isn't just your personal opinion, you should be able to find the same opinion in a reliable source. It is actually quite simple. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Weasel words
I tagged the following paragraph as containing weasel words: "Rates of false accusation may have been misrepresented as larger than they are. A rape case may be closed as "unfounded" without a conclusion, but there are many reasons other than falsity for which a report that is not false may be classified as "unfounded."'
This is an awful introductory paragraph for a number of reasons: 1. It attacks a position without identifying that position. 2. "May have" are weasel words. 3. Its second sentence makes a point that is irrelevant, since, again, the alleged misrepresentations have not been identified or discussed. Until you can point to someone calculating false accusation rates by "unfounded" classifications, the sentence has no place here. 4. It's true that rates of false accusation may have been misrepresented as larger than they are. It's also true that they may have been misrepresented as lower than they are. In fact, considering the range of estimates, BOTH are almost certainly true. Discussing one without the other, implies that these rates tend to be overrepresented rather than underrepresented. Considering that all numbers in this area are estimates, it's very hard to see how such a claim can be proven. 5. The paragraph is poorly sourced: the first source links to an entire book, and the second source redirects to a blank search page. It's impossible to see what the sources for this paragraph are supposed to be. 6. In any case, the paragraph is gratuitous. Simply quoting the various studies and estimates on the matter is sufficient, without a biased editorial comment to introduce them.
At first I simply tagged the more problematic words of this paragraph ("may have", "misrepresented" by whom?) but these tags were deleted by editor Roscolese, who, judging from his numerous edits to this article, has an agenda to push. At this point, I am removing the paragraph for the reasons cited above. JudahH (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
- Various responses: The sentence perfectly reflects what is stated in the source. We can't make our own decisions about what it really means or about whether we think the evidence supports it. The paragraph is appropriately sourced and your inability to access the sources doesn't affect their reliability; I'm looking at page 185 of the book and a cached version of the article. It's not intended as an introduction to the studies, but rather as a reliably sourced fact about the prevalence of false rape accusation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, first of all, in terms of sources: a reader's ability to access the sources may not reflect their reliability, but they do reflect their verifiability, to the reader, at any rate. Thanks for clarifying what page the material was from (maybe that information should be in the footnote). As for the second source, apparently you need to have a subscription to something for that to work; it would be better if a free version were available, but if one isn't, would you quote the relevant part, please?
- Second, sourced or not, it's an inappropriate sentence to pluck out of a book and use as the introduction to a sentence. We do have to make our own decisions about what information to present and how to present it, and I believe this is a poor choice for a number of reasons. 1) It's skewed to one side. I have little doubt that I could find a source to state that "the frequency of false rape accusations may often be understated". If I found such a source, would it be appropriate for me to use that as the introductory sentence instead? Introductions should be balanced, and this one is not. 2) It's vague. It doesn't help to have a reliable source if that source is making only the vaguest of statements. I've read the original source now, and I'll copy the paragraph here for reference:
- Because of this method of "closing" an investigation, rates of false allegation may have been inflated and misrepresented. For example, it may be reported that false allegations of rape occur at the rate of 30%, when what is really meant is that 30% of cases have been closed as "unfounded
- This is not making a definite statement about anything. It's saying "this may plausibly have happened in some places at some times". It's simple speculation. I'm not saying that this doesn't have a place in the article at all. It could be included as part of a discussion of what goes into counting false allegations, and the classification of "unfounded" being one potential pitfall. However, as an introduction to the whole topic, I believe that it is one-sided and misleading.
- As a sign of good faith, I won't take the paragraph out again before giving you a chance to respond, but I honestly believe that this paragraph should not be the introduction. JudahH (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Like I said - We can't do our own background research to find out which studies (or even which popular ideas) the source may be talking about. It's not an introduction, but simply a fact cited to multiple sources that doesn't belong in any subsection since those are all about particular studies; your insistence on misunderstanding as an excuse to remove sourced material is childish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
JudahH, I agree wholeheartedly that it should either be taken out of the article altogether, or be included with other studies that are currently being removed despite having the same, or even more stringent, standards of evidence and encyclopedic content. Astrohoundy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Astrohoundy, you've already stated that you're coming at this from the scientifically unsound position of "all accusers are perjuring themselves," so I'm not inclined to believe this professed interest in including well-conducted studies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I've never said anything of the sort. I've said that, in science, a positive statement is considered to be false until evidence suggests that it is true. This is the Closed World Assumption. Astrohoundy (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Astrohoundy
- What about rape is scientific? Rape is a social problem, not a scientific problem. Binksternet (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Binksternet wrote "What about rape is scientific? Rape is a social problem, not a scientific problem. " Any process that involves determining truth or falsehood is inherently an attempt at science. This includes the analysis of all social evils. Perhaps I was incorrect to state that any statement is considered false until evidence suggests its truth, as the Closed World Assumption isn't always used(though it is used the majority of the time), but I was abundantly correct to state that it is patently unscientific to assume that all false statements have evidence supporting their falseness, especially when there is no, or insignificant, evidence supporting statements' truthfulness. It's like this:
Consider 100 accusations made. Of these 100 accusations, 30 have strong evidence such as blood, positive DNA, and poisons like ketamine supporting their truthfulness. Say 6 have strong evidence supporting their falseness such as alibis, negative DNA testing, previous statements from the accuser indicating a likely plot to make a false accusation, and video footage. What about the other 64 accusations? There isn't much evidence that they're false, but there isn't much, or any, evidence of truth either in these cases. In this case, it would be incorrect to assert that the false accusation rate is only 6 percent, as this implies that 94% of the accusations are correct. However, there's no evidence to support the 94% accuracy rate. There's only evidence to support a 30% accuracy rate. This is the heart of the matter. The proven, or demonstrably, false accusation rate ranges from 2%-8%, which is not necessarily the actually false accusation rate.
Given all of the awards and accolades prosecutors receive for pursuing spurious rape trials often, considering the contracts Wendy Murphy got after defending Mike Nifong, considering statements often made by former prosecutors like Craig Silverman and Linda Fairstein, it's reasonable to consider this true-until-proven-false mentality to be ridiculous.Astrohoundy (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Misplacement of "Estimates of the prevalence of false accusations"
The placement of this two sentence paragraph, the second and third sentences of the article, is absurd. Why would we bring up the issue of the possible over counting of false accusations before any information about the amount or frequency of such accusations is even presented? B-A-A-A-D!! Badmintonhist (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Categories: