Talk:Rape/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"I changed the link"

I'm the one who changed the Abu Ghraib link. The changes are my only contributions because they are simply my first contributions to Wikipedia.

The section describes societies and governments in which rape and sexual torture is a standard practice of the police and military. Linking to Abu Ghraib suggests this is a normal policy of the United States. To question the inclusion of the Saddam link by suggesting one would have to list all dictators would also apply to the inclusion of Abu Ghraib--there are plenty of much worse cases of rape and sexual torture that would better illustrate the information being presented. In fact, to say Abu Ghraib is simply more "notable" in the press doesn't matter if another example is more applicable. Saddam's Iraq was simply more applicable, as it was a government that was notorious for using rape and torture against the citizens of its society as a practice of its authority, which was the kind of rape described in that section. Abu Ghraib is an isolated military incident, not a standard policy of the government, in which captured terrorits were abused by their captors in various ways such as nude photography, but none were as egregious as the incidents of Saddam's Iraq. I assumed the link to Abu Ghraib was given because it was something "in the news," and going on that reasoning, Saddam's Iraq was also "in the news" but also more applicable to the information. Quite simply, the section was about governmental and social policies of rape and sexual torture, and Iraq under Saddam was a more accurate case of this than linking to Abu Ghraib, which suggests rape is a standard social and governmental American policy. To suggest such might constitute a political argument at this point in time.

As a resolution, I've instead linked to the Nanjing Massacre, also known as the Rape of Nanking, as a better historical example of government rape and torture of citizens, much more notable and egregious than both Abu Ghraib and Saddam's Iraq.

-- Rd syringe 20:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see your point that the section wording does seem to imply that rape as sexual torture is only found in countries "where torture is tolerated or accepted as part of the normal behaviour of police or security", and that this implies that the existence of Abu Ghraib means torture is considered normal for the U.S. Army. To my mind, this argues for changing the section text to clarify that where torture is found, sexual violation is frequently included as a component, whether that torture is an isolated military incident or set forth as explicit policy.

I still contend, however, that a better example than Abu Ghraib of the concept under discussion has not yet been found or suggested. This includes the Rape of Nanking, which will probably always be a better-known historical event than the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Even though the sexual violations at Nanjing were horrible war crimes that certainly outdid what happened at Abu Ghraib both quantitatively and qualitatively, no one has suggested that the Japanese soldiers committed rape there for any reason except that they could, and they wanted to.

This is in sharp contrast to Abu Ghraib; while there was certainly an element of self-entertainment for those who engineered the abuses, what they testified was that they were under orders to "loosen up" inmates for questioning, and that their actions were geared towards that goal. That is the central point: cases of rape committed by military or security forces are not, by any means, hard to find in the annals of history or in the world today. But what Abu Ghraib is the most notable example of is not 'sexual violation committed by military or security forces' but 'sexual violation committed by military or security forces as a means to coerce detainees.' I considered whether the infamous rape camps of Bosnia were perhaps a better example, but even there, there is no suggestion that rape was practiced specifically for the purposes of torture. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I acknowledge your point and do understand the reasoning behind linking to Abu Ghraib, as the situation is applicable to that section for the most part. I simply respectfully disagree about the impact the incident has as a historical illustration of the subject matter in comparison to other incidents in history of military rape and abuse. While inethical and wrong, Abu Ghraib was not as egregrious as other major incidents in history. Using rape against political dissidents to "soften them up" so to speak certainly occured on a wider scale under Saddam's Iraq, for instance. You mentioned that Abu Ghraib was the most notable example right now and therefore the most valid reference to make. I argue that Saddam's Iraq is simply a more accurate example, regardless of the level of publicity each event received. Also, it's difficult to avoid charges of political bias--a reader might wonder, "Why use Abu Ghraib as an example when there are bigger ones in history? Why discuss government torture policies and then link to Abu Ghraib as though it is standard policy of the US military?" Regardless of the motives of the writer, it is a politically-charged topic at this point in time, and some people who disagree with the Iraq war use Abu Ghraib as an example against the military actions of the Bush Administration. However, just about everyone agrees Saddam's Iraq was bad, regardless of political affiliation. Using that reasoning, it seemed a more suitable link in order to avoid potential political argument. But I stress that the main reason for changing the link was simply for accuracy.

You are right that editing the section text could have made the link more applicable. However, I just chose to use, in my opinion, a more applicable link. Saddam's Iraq was an obvious example that came to mind.

Linking Nanjing was an attempt to please both sides, but you are right that there is little on the Nanjing page linked to that discusses whether the rapes were carried out because of direct orders from higher officials (and also, it raises arguments about whether rape was "tolerated or accepted as part of the normal behaviour of police or security" in Japan at the time...another point to be made for clarification of the section text). But given that the rapes were committed by military troops during the occupation of Nanjing, the rapes were therefore a practice of the troops and were tolerated and not stopped by higher officials who were in authority at the time. As an illustration of widespread military practice, it would seem to apply better than Abu Ghraib, in my opinion.

I agree that some clarification of focus in that section would be helpful. --Rd syringe 08:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Treason

"...It is regarded by many as one of the most grievous crimes, surpassed only by murder and treason."

This seems rather arbitrary (and not to mention POV). Are there statistics showing that more people consider treason worse than rape? Perhaps just replace with something along the lines of: "It is regarded by many as one of the most grievous crimes a person may commit." — Asbestos | Talk 11:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Treason is way worse than rape, which can be evidenced by it being punished with the death penalty. If you want to measure the seriousness w which a crime is taken, measure the penalty. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How the state prosecutes something and how people regard it is not the same thing at all (and anyway, the article itself mentions that rape is punishable by death in many countries, and treason, btw, is not punishable by death in most countries. Or were you referring only to the US and the UK?). Absolute measures of the grievousness of different crimes do not exist. I still say that the statement is a point-of-view, and could be replaced by something neutral. — Asbestos | Talk 11:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would argue that the legal system (and religious law as well) are the best system of measurement of severity of crime which we can here quantify, and ought be mentioned. As far as death for treason, I am pretty sure that is the standard punishment in most parts of the world, but am open to informations to the contrary. "Absolute measures of the grievousness of different crimes do not exist." is your POV, and should stay out of the article. Many feel otherwise, altho I am not taking a stand on that here. I am merely pointing out that state and religious law is a measure, absolute or no. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As the article mentions, many other countries do use the death penalty for rape, so that argument is irrelevant. I'd also like a citation from the bible, koran or other religious text claiming that treason is worse than rape, or that argument is also irrelevant. But more importantly, I can't quite follow your reasoning for keeping the statement. Is an article on rape somehow better for saying that treason is worse than rape? — Asbestos | Talk 12:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heavy POV in this article?

"Clearly, an environment in which no one is prosecuted for filing false reports is an environment that encourages the filing of false reports."

Regardless of the merit of this claim, it is obviously POV. It is easy to object to the "logic" that absence of punishment automatically encourages a given act (indeed there are cases in which the converse is true), but even if this was a hard claim to hold wikipedia should not be in the business of making claims like this. This claim is not fact, it is speculation, and it is speculation being written as though it is the voice of wikipedia itself, given that it is not being attributed to anyone. And this gets worse:

" Even under these conditions, which would strongly tend to eliminate any false positive "false recantations","

Says who? Why are we going to assume that given the difficulty and humiliation in pursuing charges and the fact that any woman who does so would live with the fear of facing retribution, that a minor threat of fine or jail time would be "strongly tend" to rule out false positives? Most women are raped by someone they know, living a life in fear of that person while knowing that the judicial system can do very little to protect them is a very strong motivational factor to retract an allegation. But again, even if this were not true wikipedia should simply not be inserting such strong bias as this statement indicates, much less doing so without attribution. More junk:

"In localities where these factors do not apply, it might be expected that false allegations might be made more easily, and thus more often."

Not only pure speculation, but very questionable speculation at that. All in all there are about three paragraphs in this section which have no justification for existing, and the rest needs to be cleaned up. Whoever is putting this forward, please step up and explain how this is not POV pushing. Kev 12:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please review the edit history of the article and the discussion that has taken place on this very page so that you understand why the material is there. If you think you can write a more neutral version that makes the same points to the degree they need to be made, we'd all like to see that, but since the version of that section that is in place now is just about the least POV-pushing version we've had since the section came into existence, it might be more challenging than you think. If you still feel up to the challenge, why not work on it on a temp article, like Rape/temp1? Then if consensus can be reached that it really is less POV and still covers the important points that need making it can go into the article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What are these supposedly important points? That removal of punishment for false allegations will obviously -encourage- false allegations? That is a load of BS, not an important point. Or how about the important point of how these conditions would strongly tend to remove false positives, which is total speculation and easy to disagree on? Or the speculation about how false reporting would be greater in other localities? This is just a load of BS piled one on top of the other. You tell me what these supposedly important points are and I will try my best to "save" them while removing all the trash around them. It is not an excuse to say that this is the "least POV version", when it is in such a bad state, it isn't acceptable to have wikipedia push such bias "while we wait" for consensus. Kev 00:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraphs you noted appear to be POV (even if the facts are true, the sections have been written in a manner that appears to push an agenda). The best way to change them, though, would be to try to re-write them yourself (possibly, as Antaeus Feldspar says, at Rape/temp1). — Asbestos | Talk 18:58, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Anything not already mentioned here is discussed on the talk page for rape/temp1. Kev 21:13, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Victim Blaming

This article is currently overflowing with unattributed speculation and POV pushing that needs to be either removed or justified. Here is more:

"Some people even attribute all incidents of false reporting, no matter how well-documented the falsity, to victim blaming."

First, this statement currently implies that these "well-docmented" cases were false. No matter how well documented the case or how convinced we are as wiki editors, wikipedia is not here to declare the cases false, the reader can do that on their own. Perhaps more importantly, there is no attribution. Who are these people who attribute all incidents of false reporting to victim blaming? Quote them and this junk can stand.

"Clearly, this is an extreme position, to believe that men can regularly make the criminal decision to commit the act of rape, but that no woman could ever make a false accusation."

Clearly, some wiki editor likes to use the word clearly as a warning sign for the rest of us that the voice of wikipedia is now being used to push his/her POV speculation.

"A commonly held belief is that even entertaining the possibility that even the most suspicious accusations of rape could be false would be an automatic deterrent to the low reporting rate for sexual assault"

Evidence? Is there a representative poll here, some survey amongst a particular group of people we are drawing this from?

"here are no other crimes for which it is argued that the policy of investigating to determine the truth of the charges would result in fewer true reports being brought."

This talk page already includes other instances in which this is the case, so it is already demonstrably false, and thus needs removal. Step up, step up, cause this junk is going away very soon otherwise. Kev 01:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see you haven't taken the suggestion to do your research, otherwise you'd already know the answer to some of the questions you're asking rhetorically. I must say the confrontational manner in which you're approaching this certainly doesn't argue well for your ability to deliver on your promise of a more balanced, more NPOV section. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Regardless of the validity of the claims being made, their presentation here is totally unacceptable. I have asked you to list the points you think are essential, please feel free to do so before I remove the blatant POV. Kev 06:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Custodial Rape

"Male-on-male rape in western cultures is believed to occur primarily in coercive institutional settings, chiefly prisons and detention facilities, but presumably also occurs in same-sex relationships."

The way this sentence is currently written it implies that male-male rape only occurs in prison or in same-sex relationships. It will thus be rewritten. Also, why is wikipedia presuming anything? Since when does an encylopedia presume? Finally, who believes that this occurs primarily in prisons and detention facilities, why is this "belief" being left unattributed? Kev 01:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence entirely given that no support is offered for it and it was followed by a dead link. The rest of my objections are now worked through in the sandbox of rape/temp1. Kev 21:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you want any constructive feedback it would be very nice if you could give the Wikipedia principles of assume good faith and no personal attacks a try. You seem to forget that even if you're right and those who came before you didn't create as NPOV a version of the sections that bother you as you can, it doesn't mean they didn't try. It doesn't mean they didn't care. It certainly doesn't mean that they deserve the insults you've been throwing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

? To my knowledge I haven't insulted anyone. I have been extremely critical to the point of insult concerning the text, and I do apologise if I hurt someone's feelings in the process, but the text deserves the criticism. Kev 09:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not "to the point of" insult. You've been directly accusing those who came before you of "POV-pushing", of "trying to play very naughty" by seeing different parts of a quote as significant than you did, of being "partisans", using Wikipedia as a sounding-board. That's not being "extremely critical to the point of insult concerning the text". That's goddamn slapping in the face the people who managed to eke out and preserve as much NPOV in the text as there was when you found it, in the face of repeated blatant POV-pushing assaults like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.

If you'd taken seriously the suggestion to tone down your accusations and look at the history of the article then you might have gotten a better idea why the section as currently written stresses points that in a better world would not have to be stressed: False reports can and do indeed get made. The fact that (insert arbitrary information source) says the percentage is X% and does not mention any controversy over the figure does not mean that is automatically the correct figure that makes all others lies. The fact that (insert authority figure) refuses to regard false reporting as anything but a myth does not mean it is a myth, especially not when that authority figure is referring to a proven instance of false reporting that happened right in her metaphorical front yard and is still referring to it as a myth. The fact that astoundingly few prosecutions for false reporting occur does not mean that astoundingly few false reports occur, not when you realize that there are district attorneys whose duty to the public is to prosecute crime and yet who have declared as a public statement that this particular crime is one they will never prosecute. You cannot simultaneously look at the crime of rape, say "this is a horrible thing to do and it often has severe consequences for the rapist, but some people will still do it" and then turn and argue about the crime of false reporting "this is a horrible thing to do and it often has severe consequences for the false reporter, therefore clearly no one ever does it."

In a better world, these points would not need to be stressed. In a better world, one could simply say "false reports do exist" and one would not automatically be accused of victim-blaming. And perhaps in that better world, people who can research and say "Ah, I would have chosen to include the whole^* of this quote, so whoever it was before me that did not choose to quote the whole^* of her remarks must have done it in a 'very naughty' attempt to 'shove' POV 'into the mouth of Wikipedia" could instead say, "Hmmmm, I wonder why this section seems so POV, and I've been told that if I looked into the history of the article I could find out why it's so strongly written" and would actually do so. But nah, that's all an elaborate fantasy on my part. That would never happen when it's so much easier and rewarding to say that the text is junk and that those who wrote it could only have been trying to push an agenda.

^*'whole' meaning "the portion of it that the one source I found it in chose to quote", clearly, since there are different sources which chose to quote different portions of Ms. Wallace's remarks.

-- Antaeus Feldspar 21:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV

I have reverted POV from the 4.166 IP range. Be careful in watching for this IP on the article. Mike H 06:49, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

My edits

I made substantial edits to the page, and would be interested in hearing comments. One area that clearly needs improvement is the discussion of FBI statistics on false reporting, and a discussion of the controversial statistics applied to rape (like the "1 in four women have been raped", which altho commonly used, I have heard debunked). Concepts like 0% - 100% of rapes are false reports need to be cited or removed, they don't give us much credibility. Also we should seriously consider if the concept that False reporting is "impossible", and particularly the quote by carol wallace, have a legitimate place here. I happen to know that false reporting is quite common, not only of rape, but of a whole host of disturbing crimes. The psychological motivations are complex, but not impossible to understand. Some men (perhaps many) do everything possible short of rape to have sex, and then immediately lose all interest in their partner, sometimes imediately after sexual intercourse. This can be very hurtful. Also there is the factor of alchohol, w many young people drinking heavilly and doing things (often sexual) which they later regret (indeed, the previously mentioned "1 in 4" figure is based on including both consensual sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol, AND consensual sex which is later regretted, as "rape"). This is clearly a very delicate subject, but it also needs to be expressed a bit better. Thank you for your time, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 11:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

medical emergency

Can you justify "Rape is a medical emergency"? That's a strong sentence, requiring that every single rape is a medical emergency. I don't think that's true. --Khendon 12:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hunh... I thought rape always being a medical emergency was an obvious fact, so... I don't know what I else I can say. Lets allow some others to join in, and then respect consensus. Can you explain why you think it isn't a medical emergency, or when it might not be one? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, suppose a rape takes place in a relatively unviolent manner; perhaps the victim doesn't struggle, and the offender isn't particularly aggressive. The result may be physically indistinguishable from consensual sex; where does the emergency lie? --Khendon 13:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess it's not ipso facto a medical emergency. I suppose that having sex with a 17-year-old might be statuatory rape in many places, but might not constitute a medical emergency. — Asbestos | Talk 13:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An even better example, thanks --Khendon 13:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mental health. Psychological trauma requires emergency attention as well. If the woman isn't traumatized, its hard for me to understand how a rape occured. for example, statuatory rape is a misnomer. It doesn't fit the standard definition of rape, that much is sure. IMO it cheapens the importance of the term. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade writes, "If the woman isn't traumatized, its hard for me to understand how a rape occured." I don't follow this. Rape is the taking of sex without consent. A victim will very probably experience distress in such circumstances, of course, but it's still possible she may not be emotionally traumatised, but nevertheless legitimately feel that her rights have been violated. The existence of 'trauma' is not essental to the definition of rape - and it's rather dangerous o make it so, I think. Paul

I agree with you, but I also agree with Khendon that rape isn't by definition a medical emergency. Perhaps something like "Rape is usually a medical emergency", or something along those lines? I think that we should be careful not to cheapen those instances of rape that occur that are not medical emergencies, saying that if it isn't an emergency it isn't rape. — Asbestos | Talk 20:25, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think rape is always a medical emergency, but I'll respect the current concensus, you may make your proposed changes without my opposition. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 20:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You could simply change the statement to read "Rape can be a medical emergency." That would state that not all rapes are medical emergencies while getting across that the possibility of being a medical emergency is there. Words like "probably" or "usually" should be avoided unless there are cited percentages to back it up. Rd syringe 23:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Can be" is a particularly bad wording, IMO. Nobody is suggesting that they are often not, indeed I am suggesting they always are, and others are suggesting unusual circumstances in which they would not be. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 01:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've put "Some believe that rape is always a medical emergency" in; how's that?

I think that's also poorly worded, actually. "Some" might be only you. We need statistics here. I agree with Khendon and Asbestos -- I can easily think of several other situations where what is legally described as "rape" would not be a medical emergency. Consider things that are indisputably medical emergencies like heart attack, spinal trauma, and acute peritonitis. Rape can be violent and result in physical or mental trauma, but I think it's really stretching it (and NPOV) to suggest that it is always or usually a "medical emergency" without some numbers to back that up. I think "rape can be a medical emergency if force is used or ... .. .." (however you want to construct the sentence) would be better. Jeeves 23:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Howsabout, "When rape occurs, the victim should seek medical attention immediately. Most instances of rape are considered medical emergencies. Even when no serious physical harm has come to the victim, law enforcement officials blah blah physical evidence blah blah catch the rapist blah." Well, obviously not those exact words, but I think you can all see what I'm getting at. Being concise is a good thing, but it's not the end of the world if it takes three or four short sentences to say something, especially when it's a complicated issue like this. --Corvun 17:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 18:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think we should be saying "should"; wikipedia shouldn't advise particular courses of action. --Khendon 18:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Except for possibly Christian Scientists and others who oppose medical attention regardless of the circumstances, I can't think who would oppose that course of action. I don't think it would be particularly controversial to phrase it as "Authorities almost universally agree that the victim should seek medical attention immediately" or something of that nature. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:34, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also disagree. I hate to be the wet-POV-blanket, but I imagine the number of deaths annually as a direct complication of sexual assault is rather lower than the number of deaths from heart attack, stroke, head injury etc. Thus I keep balking at "most instances of rape are considered a medical emergency". Let's do away with the term "medical emergency" altogether and just say something like "The victim should seek immediate medical attention if s/he is injured. Even if s/he is not injured, the victim should consider visiting a hospital or trauma center so that evidence can be collected promptly." Or something like that. Jeeves 20:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the problem here lies not in the nature of rape itself and the damage it does, but in our disagreement as to what constitutes a "medical emergency". Clearly there are some of us who believe that a medical emergency must be potentially fatal, and while I would mostly agree, there are exceptions to this. For instance, I personally know a few doctors who would consider a cluster headache a medical emergency, since even though it is benign (non-fatal), the level of pain experienced by the sufferer far exceeds what any ethical doctor would allow a person to endure without immediate medical attention. A broken leg, though usually not fatal even without medical attention, is considered a medical emergency because if left untreated it can lead to serious disfigurement. From a legal perspective, any instance of rape would be considered a "medical emergency" since immediate attention is needed, if for no other reason, than to gather evidence while the evidence is still there.

I still like my suggestion, but I now think we should see what the medical authorities have to say on the matter. Does a sizeable majority of the medical community feel that "most instances of rape" should be treated as "medical emergencies"? If so, I would reiterate my original suggestion and also Antaeus' ammendment. If not, we need to figure something else out and possibly do away with the term "medical emergency" as Jeeves suggests. --Corvun 20:44, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps this would work better: "When rape occurs, most doctors agree the victim should seek medical and psychological attention immediately. Most instances of rape are considered medical emergencies until the severity of physical harm (if any) can be determined. Even when little or no physical harm has come to the victim, serious mental disturbance often results, and law enforcement officials blah blah physical evidence blah blah catch the rapist blah." Or something to that effect. --Corvun 00:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Best phrasing yet, IMHO. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had the opportunity to ask a paramedic about it, and he was quite resolute in saying that he considers it to be a medical/psychological emergency. So perhaps I'm being too pedantic here. Corvun's suggestion above is a good one; let's go with that unless there are more issues. Jeeves 23:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't be so hard on yourself Jeeves. You were just being a perfectionist, trying to make sure we had the best and most accurate possible phrasing. While that may cause friction here on the talk pages, it eventually leads to one hell of a damn good article that is as exacting and as precise as it can be, and provides people with unambiguous information. We should all be so careful.

Now, does anyone have any suggestions as to what we replace "law enforcement officials blah blah physical evidence blah blah catch the rapist blah" with? I ain't so good at the legalese. --Corvun 00:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) in the US, rape is a medical emergency. http://www.acep.org/1,32848,0.html NuclearWinner 05:38, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like Sam's inclusion of this reference much better than the previous wording. --Khendon 13:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thanks much NuclearWinner, its amazing how much good a reference can do :) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 13:19, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FBI stats on false reporting

Figures vary wildly on the issue of false reporting, with no apparent consensus. There is even widespread disagreement on what the published FBI statistics of false reporting of rape are, though this is a matter of public record: lawyer Alan Dershowitz has claimed that the FBI statistics show rape to be the most frequently falsely reported crime, at a rate of 8.6 percent; yet in numerous places one can find it listed as a "myth" that rape is falsely reported with any frequency, and claims that FBI statistics show it to be falsely reported at 2%, no more often than any other violent crime, or even less often.

what are the real statistics? We shouldn't be talking about how often they are misrepresented if we don't even know what they are... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The real statistics are unknown, just as they are for incidence of rape in the first place. Any study can be easily skewed one way or the other, or simply subject to outside factors. Likewise, do you count only those who recanted their story, or those whose accusations were found to be groundless, or those who simply lost their court battle? Either way, it's a very real occurance and I believe it deserves its own wikipedia entry, just for false accusation rape (and perhaps domestic violence), including reasons that women false accuse, impact of accusation and so on. To make a detailed section on the rape page itself would probably piss feminists off no end, and it doesn't really belong as rape and false accusation are hardly the same thing (but both serious crimes in their own right). User:Merrick (sig added by Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 18:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC))

We largely agree, altho I could give a flip about what facts might annoy PC feminazi's. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 18:46, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please protect against run-in edits

Because of this Slashdot post, it looks like we're going to get a flood of run-in editors who have not been following the talk page discussion and who don't understand NPOV but think that they should come here and remove the link to Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse because they heard half the story and thought they heard all. I don't think we want to set a precedent for run-in editors suddenly rushing in to ignore the ongoing discussion and edit according to their political agenda (since, of course, Rd syringe was kind enough to omit several important details for why his link-removal was opposed -- like the wording he keeps referencing even now having changed -- and instead characterize it as "politically motivated" "hardcore guys with an agenda" who opposed him. Thanks, Rd.) I'd suggest that short-term page protection might even be in order. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Causes of Rape

This article needs to include a discussion about the causes as well as the effects of rape. It is by knowing the unbiased truth about such causes that we have a chance of preventing rape. To see absurd statements like 'rape is a crime of power but not of sex' shows me that the cause of rape is being used as a political weapon. We need to study the science of rape here and use evidence to back up claims. Susan Brownmiller's ideas on rape have been challenged by feminists and others and seem to have no basis in fact. 128.111.95.55 00:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)