Talk:Estimates of sexual violence

Lifetime incidence of rape in USA women

The deleted line states a 14.8% lifetime incidence. This number comes from a justly disparaged CDC survey that counted affirmative answer to questions "When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people have ever ...". I do not believe most readers would consider any woman who has ever had a glass of wine prior to sex a rape victim, nor do such questions address instances when both parties are under the influence drugs. 24.63.85.142 (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

We must go by what the references report, not our own interpretations of the CDC's methods. The CDC survey used the proper phrasing, and also they use different forms of the same question (like most of these types of surveys do) to alleviate the possibility of misunderstanding. The original survey can be found here, and you can see the wording of the question is not as you're interpreting it, unless you've only read the truncated version. Ongepotchket (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am unsure of what you mean by "proper phrasing". The fact of the matter is, the CDC study includes affirmative answers that describe acts that neither the federal government, nor any state nor city in the United States consider to be the crime of sexual assault. If you can contradict this with evidence, please do. Otherwise, this line should be removed. I don't mind the inclusion of this statistic in the body of the article so long as the extremely controversial questions it uses are referenced, but to include it in the introduction at all, especially without referencing its contentious nature (feel free to google the statistic and read many articles criticizing and dismissing it) would be disingenuous and irresponsible. 24.63.85.142 (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you list examples of reliable sources which invalidate the survey, the results, or call the questions controversial? That is, examples in places other than opinion columns? I am not seeing any objections except from right-wing blogs and opinion pieces by writers (most of them quoting Christina Hoff Summers). To call the survey contentious based on opinion of a select few seems inaccurate. It's criticized by conservative commentators, but in non-opinion sections of news publications I see little to no criticism. Under these circumstances, I would disagree with cited information being removed. Perhaps a section saying commentators on the right find the survey dubious? Ongepotchket (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. Do I really have to use outside sources to explain how having sex after a glass of wine doesn't qualify as rape? The question fails to ask whether the partner was also drunk or high, so it assumes that only women can be raped due to inebriation, or that there exists some sort of "double" or "mutual" rape. If the woman is married to the partner she's sharing a bottle of wine with, do you still think that this can somehow be considered rape? It's nonsense, and that definition of rape/sexual assault is not consistent with legal definitions of sexual assault anywhere in the US, where the "study" (read: advocacy research) was conducted. It simply isn't remotely credible since it contradicts both the law's and the average person's definition of rape and/or sexual assault. If you would like to read dissenting opinions, just google "1 in 5 rape debunked" to read a slew of them by people from all ends of the political spectrum. Anyone who can think critically and isn't pushing a feminist, "rape culture" agenda can see those statistics are completely bogus. There is no way to "invalidate" the survey, as it simply makes up its own definitions of rape. Anyone can do that, but that doesn't mean anyone need agree with them, and ALL "validations" and "invalidations" will be done in opinion columns. That's how advocacy research works: you can't disprove it, per se, you can just disagree with its blatantly biased methods and resulting conclusions. It was also a non-representative sample with a low (<50%) response rate. You can't invalidate it, it's merely been widely discredited for failing to measure anything anyone actually cares about due to its slanted methodology. For a different take on things, the Bureau of Justice Statistics comes up with a rape incidence of something around 2% using sane methods that are in line with the average person's idea of sexual assault. See for yourself: (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs00.pdf). I cannot grasp why you are being so stubborn and pedantic when your argument hasn't any legs to stand on. If I presented you a study that said 99% of people are murderers, but I defined murderers as people who'd ever uttered lines such as "I'll kill you" or "I hope he dies", would you accept it? There is never any need for a biased researcher to fudge numbers; all they need to do is use biased methods. Sheesh, have you done any academic research in your life? 24.63.85.142 (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. Your claims of advocacy research and debunked surveys have yet to be proven. Many articles across WP cite this same exact survey. You are engaging in massive POV pushing and forcing your own original research into the article. You have yet to prove the CDC, DOJ, and NIJ are widely disparaged organizations, as you claim. If you want to criticize their findings with citations to back it up, add that information to the article. Removing the information already there is unnecessary, especially when your reasons for doing so have yet to be verified. If you remove reliably-sourced content again without consensus, either you can do an RfC, or I will. I'll also thank you to not accuse me of sockpuppetry or personally attack me again, on talk pages or in your edit summaries. Ongepotchket (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

If you would like some reliable data I have already linked to a study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs00.pdf), which is part of the DOJ. This puts the annual incidence of rape at 1 in 6000, not 1 in 6. If you assume women live to be 100 and that their chances of being raped are equal at all ages, that still only gets you to 1 in 60. One more time, the study I provided is by the Department of Justice. Please feel free to make a RfC or bring in arbitration; you are showing a complete unwillingness to engage with primary sources. Refusing to blindly accept anything that's been published is not pushing a POV. Addressing serious and obvious limitations in methodology, however, is standard practice in technical editing. You say that I haven't verified the fact that the conclusions of the CDC study haven't been debunked, but technical journals do not generally publish articles addressing other articles and "debunking" them, they merely publish their own conflicting results. If I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia's general process is to add information, revert the change if it is questioned by other editors, and THEN reach consensus. With that in mind, you should be waiting until you've convinced me prior to adding this questionable blurb back in. Just to show that this is in good faith, even if I am getting exhausted with your stubborn defense of dubious and widely maligned source, I will provide a list of mainstream media articles that paint the CDC's methods as misleading and/or worthless (starting with Time magazine):

http://time.com/2934500/1-in-5%E2%80%82campus-sexual-assault-statistic/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html http://thefederalist.com/2014/12/11/new-doj-data-on-sexual-assaults-college-students-are-actually-less-likely-to-be-victimized/ http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-1-in-5-women-have-not-been-raped-on-college-campuses/article/2551980 http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.85.142 (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Please let me know which other articles use this completely unreliable source. Within common academic standards, a response rate less than 50% is reason enough to discount the validity of studies. 24.63.85.142 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The first article is an opinion piece by Christina Hoff Sommers, an idealogue. The second is a link about IWD, a conservative Libertarian women's forum (so unbiased!) which refers to the same Christina Hoff Sommers article. I stopped reading there because neither of those links are even about the 2000 survey used in the citation, they are about totally different surveys done later in the decade. Regarding your edit warring on another article about rape statistics, I think it's hilarious that a report by the British government was removed by you for being "advocacy research", and for being too "biased", but an OP-ED by CHS is no problem at all. Wikipedia is not the place for pushing a conservative agenda, or any agenda. I see you've been reported, so I will just bide my time for now. Ongepotchket (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Those articles were offered only because you asked for them. For anyone accustomed to academic research, the methodology of the research speaks for itself. I also happen to be a socialist, not exactly someone pushing a conservative agenda. The source in the other article was simply complete garbage. It stated a quantitative estimate of something without so much as a reference explaining why the fabrication should be considered realistic. Very, very telling that you would whine that you need articles to "prove" poor methodology, and then whine that the provided articles aren't good enough. Those tactics really reveal how much valuable input you bring to a debate. 108.203.162.123 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I also had not noticed that the sentence preceding the removed line states that there have been small studies with representative samples. This study comes from TWO southern colleges, and had a 45% response rate. That is NOT a representative sample. 24.63.85.142 (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Estimates of sexual violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110514045035/http://www.unpac.ca/economy/g_migration.html to http://www.unpac.ca/economy/g_migration.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Estimates of sexual violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629152038/http://english.bnrm.nl/reports/third/index.aspx to http://english.bnrm.nl/reports/third/index.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120408140041/http://english.bnrm.nl/reports/fourth/index.aspx to http://english.bnrm.nl/reports/fourth/index.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002222727/http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/netherl.htm to http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/netherl.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bka.de/lageberichte/mh.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)