Talk:Campus sexual assault

"The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement."

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is to include additional information, such as in the form proposed by Nblund in the second half of the "Proposed wording" section. The "for/against in-text attribution" voices are almost balanced, while the "additional information" section is unopposed, and Nblund's specific proposal has specific agreement from some of each camp. I also have to echo the comments of several participants that this RfC could have been better formatted. I don't know if I would go as far as "abysmally", as I have now closed a fair number of these, and have actually seen worse; but not many. --GRuban (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

---

I've gone ahead and expanded this discussion to WP:RfC input. For those viewing this from the WP:RfC page, my and others' arguments are below on the talk page. The RfC concerns whether or not to add WP:In-text attribution to the "majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement" aspect of the article and/or additional information for further context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

_____

Scoundr3l took issue with the following sentence: "The majority of rape and other sexual assault victims do not report their attacks to law enforcement." He added an "according to whom?" tag. I reverted, stating, "Read Template:According to whom. Also, we don't add in-text attribution in a way that can mislead; see WP:In-text attribution. [...] The source is right there at the end. Adding 'so an[d] so stated this' can make it seem like some sole person's opinion." I tweaked the text and duplicated the references via WP:REFNAME so that the material was left in this state. As this link shows, Scoundr3l then added "some" in place of "majority," stating, "That is precisely that point, I'm afraid. Since it's impossible to know how many of a thing are unknown, to say it is a majority is an opinion and I would recommend an in-text attribution in lieu of this much softer wording. Who said it was a majority?", and I replied. "We go by the WP:Reliable sources, not personal opinion. And, per WP:Due weight, we don't need to stack many sources to validate it." I then compromised by adding, "The literature indicates that" in front of "the majority." This also was not enough for Scoundr3l, and he added Template:Specify to "the literature indicates" part, stating, "We've come full circle. There is no reason this statement can not or should not be attributed directly to its source This is standard practice throughout this and similar articles and conforms to all your linked policies, as I'm sure you know."

Scoundr3l is wrong; we do not directly attribute something (meaning with in-text attribution) that is widely supported by the literature to one or a few people; WP:In-text attribution is very clear about that. And that most rapes go unreported is widely supported by the literature. That most sexual assaults go unreported is widely supported by the literature. There is no need to specify what is meant by "the literature"; anyone with common sense should know that we mean "the rape and other sexual assault literature." I just saw that Nblund also reverted Scoundr3l, stating, "This is consistent across several decades of research, attributing it to a specific group seems unnecessary, because it's a consensus that isn't really questioned. We can discuss in talk." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Scoundr3l, to answer the question about how these figures are derived: these estimates are derived from surveys that ask people about criminal and other victimization, and that ask victims whether they reported the crime to the police. Surveys have a margin of error, of course, and there are reasonable disagreements about things like wording and survey context, but the finding that most sexual assaults are not reported is something that is consistent across -- quite literally -- every single data source discussed in the entry, and really every data source I'm aware of. I don't know of any experts who seriously question this finding. Where there's a consensus in a field, it's really not necessary (or possible) include attribution to any particular individual. Indeed, it can give the false impression of a disagreement where none exists (see WP:INTEXT). Nblund (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2016‎ (UTC)

Indeed surveys have a margin of error. They also do not fact-check, which is precisely why survey results are never presented as facts, but as survey results. Even the worst journalists know better than to present survey results without attributing them in-text because no amount of gallop polls will make "Most people's favorite color is blue" a fact. If I had access to the primary source, I'm sure even it would agree with me: it's a statistic, not an objective conclusion. "According to polls, 68% of people say their favorite color is blue", on the other hand, would be considered a fact (assuming there was a source to verify) and as an objective fact, it could be presented in Wikipedia's voice. If we can't rely on common sense, I'll instead point out Wikipedia:When_to_cite specifically suggests "Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work should be cited and attributed to their authors in the text." and you'll find this practice throughout every survey result in this article and other articles that rely heavily on conflicting surveys. If I'm not mistaken, though, Flyer22's motivation for reverting my request for attribution was not based on his assertion that it's an objective conclusion, but that he did not want it presented as a minority or sole opinion, which I don't disagree with. But I disagree with presenting second-party survey comments as facts in Wikipedia's voice. I don't even dispute the truth of it, only the wording. I know of several surveys that show numbers between 68% and 90% unreported, all we need to do is attribute them. Again, I don't have access to the original source, so I don't know what survey or surveys it's citing, hence the tag. If anyone has that information, or would like to provide other sources, perhaps we can agree on something like this "According to a numerous surveys, such as the National Department of Justice and the Bureau of Crime Statistics, most rapes go unreported", as an example. Or "between x% and y%" if we're going for accuracy. 2001:57A:400B:101:3409:7F75:9DFC:8974 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

preceding IP is me, btw. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's the wording from Unsafe in the Ivory Tower (the first cited source): Despite the prevalence of sexual offenses committed against college women, the majority of women who are victimized do not report the incident to the police (Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003a). There's parenthetical attribution, but it's stated as a fact in the text. The book goes on to cite seven other studies with this finding, and that's not an exhaustive list. Citing seven surveys, in-text, seems excessive, and it's probably not necessary.

Peer reviewed surveys generally do involve fact checking, critique, and replication, and I don't think you're correct that Wikipedia articles always provide in-text attribution for statistics. The entries for diseases, for instance, usually provide an estimate of the prevalence of a disease without in-text attribution, because these numbers are basically uncontroversial.

I think the "When to Cite" guideline is referencing cases where a specific statistic is attributable to a particular author -- for instance -- we attribute the finding about repeat offenders to David Lisak, because that is a finding that is unique to his work. In this case, however, we're citing a tertiary source that makes a general statement about findings of multiple authors.

I think that sentence is un-problematic, but I would be open to including subsequent sentences that bolstered the statement by pointing to specific sources for this finding. Nblund (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for isolating the primary source. Here are the end conclusions as taken directly from that source "Acknowledging sexual victimization as rape: Results from a national-level study." Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner (2003) Justice Quarterly:

*'Our findings, though not definitive, have clear implications for this debate. By building on the best measurement strategies available-in essence, synthesizing the work of researchers like Kilpa [...] we have attempted to develop a measure of rape that is less susceptible to the criticism that we are counting as rape acts that really do not qualify under this legal category'

*'Thus, using a different measurement approach, our findings lend support to the proposition of Koss and other researchers that the acknowledgment of rape is a real problem, not a methodological artifact. We found that only about half the rapes were acknowledged by the victims. Our estimate, as noted previously, is about twice as high as that reported by Koss'

*'In any event, our study suggests that over half the women in the sample who were raped did not acknowledge this event as a rape'

Implications, supports, estimates, and suggestions. The writers of the report at least acknowledge the difference between a datum and an objective truth. You'll find the same thing in any reliable study, I'm sure. Survey results are not facts and second parties who draw conclusions from the data should be attributed as it is their opinion and often not the conclusion present in the primary source. I hope the proposed compromise helps establish that this is a majority finding across all major studies (at least as far as we've seen), but still attributable to those studies and not Wikipedia. That should hopefully make everybody happy. Hopefully. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The entry cites Fisher's 2009 book, which itself cites Fisher et. al 2003. The quotes you're providing are actually a different 2003 publication by Fisher et al. from the one cited in the source, and those statements don't reference findings about non-reporting to the police. Here's the referenced article. Here's the relevant quote from that source.

Quote

Despite the prevalence of sexual offenses, a large proportion of victims did not report their sexual victimization to the police or to other authorities (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Results from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) have consistently shown that rape and sexual assault have been the most widely underreported violent crimes. In fact, the 1999 NCVS results revealed that only 28.3% of these crimes were reported to the police (Rennison, 1999). Notably, other research has provided even lower estimates of reporting (Bachman, 1998; Finkelson & Oswalt, 1995; Gartner & Macmillan, 1995; Kilpatrick, Edmunds, & Seymour, 1992; Kilpatrick, Saunders, Veronen, Best, & Von, 1987; Koss, 1985; Russell, 1983; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Similarly, sexual victimizations of college women have gone largely unreported. To illustrate, Koss et al. (1987) found that only 5% of college student rape victims reported their experience to the police. In a national study of college students, Sloan, Fisher, and Cullen (1997) found that only 22% of rapes and 17% of sexual assaults were disclosed to local police, county sheriff, campus police, campus security, or other authorities

This formulation is similar to what I proposed: it begins with a general conclusion about the prevalence of non-reporting, then cites specific supporting evidence. This seems like a reasonable way to address your concern. If your proposed standards were applied, it seems like virtually every bit of statistical information would require in-text attribution. This clearly isn't the case: the entries for unemployment in the U.S., voter turnout, the epidemiology of Parkinson's disease are all rely on statistical estimates, and -- in every entry -- statistics are cited without in-text attribution. Are these problematic as well? Nblund (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, once again, I do not have access to the source, which is why I requested attribution. With only the citation to work with, I had to assume what quotes are being referenced. As for the new quote, I hope you've noticed that every claim in this quote attributes it either directly to the source or to "other surveys" which it then cites. Only the vague claims like "a large proportion" are not directly supported in-text. I would be fine with changing the text in this article to "a large proportion", as an example, but I'd rather reflect a more accurate number and where the information came from. As with your previous example, the obvious difference is that HIV epidemiology, voter turnout, etc are objectively measurable. You don't survey people and ask if they have HIV or if they voted, you measure quantifiable data. That is not the case with these surveys, so their conclusions are not "x amount of people were affected by z" it's "x amount of people reported being affected by z". And since we're not here to call them liars, or debate onus probandi, what we have to do instead is accurately report the information as it was received. I'd be interested in seeing an example of your proposition because I don't think we're disagreeing as much as it may seem like we are. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Totally understandable, the first quote is from the source cited in the entry. The second quote is from the source cited by the source cited in the entry. Both quotes provide citations, but they also both make general statements of fact about the prevalence of unreported rape without providing in-text attribution. The first citation uses "a majority" without in-text attribution, so it seems like this is a perfectly reasonable way to do it in the entry. We could bolster that argument by citing specific studies in subsequent sentences.

BLS unemployment data come from a monthly household survey. HIV/AIDS data comes from asking health departments how many people they diagnosed. Those numbers don't necessarily count all diagnoses, and are usually adjusted to account for under-reporting. I'm not sure I follow the distinction you're drawing between self-report surveys and other kinds of data, but it seems like other entries attribute widely accepted survey data any differently from any other scientific fact. Nblund (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Which part of the distinction did you not follow, exactly? A self-reported survey is an unsupported claim, while other forms of data are objectively verifiable. If a conclusion is not based on objective data, it's not a fact, it's a proposition or an estimate. Additionally rape is a crime and all crimes, at least in my country, are subject to due process. The accused are innocent until proven guilty in court of law, so any unreported crime is inherently an unverified claim. I can't imagine any of that's what confused you, so are you disputing that it's based on an estimate or merely that estimates don't require attribution? If we're using examples from other articles, I'd be happy to find 8 examples of attributed estimates for every unattributed example, but perhaps we can save time if you'd just explain why this statement should not be clarified. Aside from 'I don't think it's necessary', have you got any reason to dispute me clarifying where this information came from, assuming of course that it's objective and balanced? I have plenty of sources I can use if you aren't willing to use your's, I just need to know if and why good information will be reverted.Scoundr3l (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Scoundr3l, I disagree with you per what I stated above. You stated, "Flyer22's motivation for reverting my request for attribution was not based on his assertion that it's an objective conclusion, but that he did not want it presented as a minority or sole opinion, which I don't disagree with. But I disagree with presenting second-party survey comments as facts in Wikipedia's voice." Well, just to get this out of the way: I'm female. As for your points, not only do I not want the "most rapes and other sexual assaults go unreported" data presented as a minority or sole opinion, which is indeed what your in-text requests would have resulted in, I do not want it to seem like it's something that is less supported in the literature than it is. I repeat: It is widely supported. It is consensus. There is absolutely no reason at all to alter the text to name a few researchers or a few organizations, when many researchers and organizations state the same thing. Above, I pointed you to Google Books sources stating the same thing. Many WP:Secondary sources state the matter as fact. And so should Wikipedia. Other than that first compromise I gave you, I will not compromise on this. We can take it to a WP:RfC, but I won't be changing my mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

On a more personal note: There is the fact that I've know many teenage girls and women throughout my life who were sexually assaulted in public in broad daylight and never reported it; by this, I mean a breast grab, a slap to the butt, and so on. And I don't mean by boyfriends. I mainly mean that this was done by male acquaintances who were not at all romantic with the girls or women, or was done by male strangers. I can't say how many times I've seen this happen with my own eyes. The girl or woman usually just hits the guy with a "jerk!" type of face, calls him a name, or laughs it off. I have no doubt that many other women have seen the same. So not only do I believe the data that most sexual assaults go unreported, I have personally seen it in life. One fault with the data is that it mainly focuses on female victims, but that's because girls and women are documented as the majority of victims of rape and other sexual assaults. For machismo and other cultural reasons, it also seems that males are less likely than females to report being victims of sexual assault or rape. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Do what you need to do. My requested changes do not have any effect on how well supported the statement is, it merely attributes the statement to its source rather than presenting it in Wikipedia's voice. Wikipedia isn't the one drawing that conclusion, the source is drawing it from survey data, so it's the source's conclusion. Your change to "the literature" was a step in the right direction, but unfortunately I find it too vague and unencyclopedic to be useful to the reader. Surely "the literature" doesn't all share this conclusion, and it's been demonstrated that it does not (Fisher, et al. does not present this conclusion). Instead, let's attribute it to what it is: survey results. We don't need to list every survey to do that, only where the conclusion is coming from. So why then would you not accept "multiple surveys", "numerous surveys", or even "general consensus" in lieu of "the literature"? Admittedly, we should source the consensus (per WP:RS/AC) but it's demonstrable and a step up from attributing it to divine providence. Also, I apologize for assuming you were a 'he'. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your honesty, but for obvious reasons, we should try to set our personal feelings aside for this issue. It's not my intention to diminish the validity of the statement, so let me know if you think of any way we can attribute it without doing so. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

We agree to disagree then. I would not accept "multiple surveys" because "multiple" is often interpreted as "three or more" or "a few." I also don't think we should state "surveys" unless that is directly supported by the sources. "Numerous surveys" is WP:Weasel wording and is unnecessary. I could accept "general consensus," but it's not needed.

And apology accepted. It's well known that Wikipedia is mostly made up of males; so I expect others to assume that I'm male unless otherwise stated.

As for personal feelings, I don't edit with my personal feelings (well, not unless I'm in some heated dispute where emotions tend to spill over); my user page and talk page are clear about how I edit. I was simply offering you a perspective that you likely have not witnessed, at least to the same degree as females. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

'Numerous surveys' was shorthand for the original demonstration above, which provided examples. This original example was more than enough to satisfy WP:WEASEL and any other slippery slopes of citation overkill.Scoundr3l (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"Numerous studies," "many studies" and similar (yes, things like "numerous surveys" too) are sometimes needed, but I've also seen some Wikipedians argue (or seem to argue) that the wording is weasel wording or close to it; so I prefer to avoid it when I can (as you know, I believe this is one of those "can" cases). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as the technical name for weasel words is "unsupported attributions" and I'm the one in this discussion on the side of an in-text attribution, I don't think weasel words will be an issue on this end. Any of the above examples are simply more specific synonyms of literature. Scoundr3l (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Numerous" has been argued as vague, just like "many" has been argued as vague, and "vague" is one of the primary things that the WP:Weasel word guideline addresses. But like I noted, such terms are sometimes needed; not in this case. I don't see how "multiple surveys" or "numerous surveys" are specific synonyms of the literature in this case. As made clear by Nblund and me above, the literature usually states this matter as fact; this is because it's rarely disputed. WP:Due weight allows us to simply state the matter as fact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll remember that my original suggestion was a direct attribution, so factor into your calculations that anything vague or resembling weasel words is an attempt to comprise with your refusal to attribute the statement. In other words, unless you have an alternative suggestion, citing what constitutes a weasel word is both ironic and unnecessary. Additionally, by refusing to attribute the statement, you are interfering with the ability to provide the additional information you deem required to attribute the statement. I can not elaborate on a statement if I don't know what statement is being used. Due weight only comes into play if I were attempting to promote a minority viewpoint when in fact I am attempting to provide additional information on the cited majority viewpoint. Kindly assume good faith in that regard as I am assuming you are not attempting to hide the original source of information behind vague but verifiable claims. Aside from undue weight, what other objections might you have for providing this additional information? Scoundr3l (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean; the statement is already attributed, just not directly attributed to any one person or group of people. There is no need for a "direct" (meaning in-text) attribution. I've already made my case against in-text attribution above and against other suggestions you've made. So has Nblund. To state more would be repeating myself. WP:Due weight very much applies in this case. Nowhere have I stated anything about your lack of good faith. And my refusal to compromise further on something that does not need to be compromised on is not about any lack of good faith on my part; it's about what I've already stated on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The only reason you've provided so far is that in-text attribution would provide undue weight to the idea that this is a minority opinion. Nowhere does this policy allow you to prevent the addition of source information because that information might somehow lessen the strength of those claims. It's either supported as strongly as you claim or it's not. Providing evidence of the support couldn't unduly take weight away from the claim, unless of course the article text is inaccurate. Or unless you're assuming it'll be done unfairly, which you've no right to assume. If providing the source in any way weakens the statement, this is a failing of the source and not of Wikipedia in reporting on that source, nor is there any legitimate reason to prevent the addition of that source under due weight. IF your stance is that there is an academic consensus, by all means, find a source other than a Google search to support that there is a consensus. That'd be a welcome addition to the article because it would at least provide some measure of objectivity to the claim. What we can't do, however, it conceal where the information comes from in order to actively protect a viewpoint, majority or otherwise. Yes, there is a citation of the comment, but not to what it's referring. By concealing that information, you prevent the addition of other commentary and details from the source. The facts must support themselves and the readers and editors need to be provided with enough information to verify that. Any personal thoughts you have on whether the change is necessary are not under consideration, but just to be polite, I'll share one simple and valid reason I need the change: I want to know the exact figure. I can't do that with vague commentary. I also feel the sentence should be written in a way that is not subject to cultural bias or data rot. Did you know that the Fisher & Daigle report was US only? Because this article doesn't. I can't correct it until the text reflects what's being cited. By all means, don't repeat yourself, but if you have a reason I have not yet heard, please let me know; although we should probably break line as it's getting cramped over here. Scoundr3l (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

With regard to your "IF your stance is that there is an academic consensus, by all means, find a source other than a Google search to support that there is a consensus.", statement, WP:Due weight is about what the preponderance of sources state; I linked to two Google Books links showing that "the majority of rapes and other sexual assaults go unreported" aspect is widely supported. That wide support is also why the lead of the Rape by gender article currently states, "Since only a small percentage of acts of sexual violence are brought to the attention of the authorities, it is difficult to compile accurate rape statistics.", with two sources supporting it. Unless you can show that the preponderance of sources state otherwise on that, I've satisfied my WP:Due weight argument in that regard. And the "the majority of rapes and other sexual assaults go unreported" aspect is not at all limited to the United States. You stated, "I want to know the exact figure." There is no one figure, but the figure is generally that "the majority of rapes and other sexual assaults go unreported." I know how WP:Due weight works and how WP:In-text attribution is supposed to work, and that's what I've been arguing above. I'll only accept additional information for further context if done right. You can assume my thought processes (such as the incorrect assumption of "concealing information"), but unless those thought processes are made perfectly clear, it's better not to assume. My discussion with you on this has pretty much ended. I've now turned it into a WP:RfC for further input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be merging two of my points, so I apologize if I was unclear. I've made no argument that it's not a majority viewpoint. As such, your Google search results are not germane, nor admissible as evidence of a anything related to my position. 5 million search results is not the same thing as 5 million sources, as I'm sure you know, but it's irrelevant to the conversation. Above, you directly claimed there was a consensus (which I don't quite equate with a majority viewpoint) to which I assume you meant an academic consensus as defined by Wikipedia policy. You'll find your statement above and in bold. Since you seemed quite sure of it, I asked you to find a source since proof of a consensus would be a happy resolution for both of us. It seems by consensus you meant your Google results, which you may consider proof of consensus, but unfortunately Wikipedia does not. Otherwise, it appears you're not pursuing the consensus argument any more, so we'll table it. It was a secondary point, anyway. That leaves us with majority viewpoint, to which I've made no argument, nor do I have opinion, so I have no reason to pursue that counter argument. For this discussion, let's go ahead and agree that it's a majority viewpoint. So instead, when I'm asking is how my changes are promoting a minority viewpoint. My proposed changes are only to bring more information in from the existing citation, which supports this majority viewpoint. Since you are sticking with Due Weight, I invited you to explain how providing additional information from these sources promotes a minority viewpoint. You've not yet answered that question and it's the initial reason you've provided for contesting my changes. Due weight is not a license to prevent any changes you deem may be harmful to a position, so please explain what part of that policy warrants the prevention of an in-text attribution. As you've hopefully re-read WP:INTEXT during the course of this discussion, you'll remember that it takes no explicit stance on when you must or must not include an in-text attribution, so your opinion on how that policy is supposed to work is hearsay. And since you're the one who initially took issue with my edits, there is generally a greater onus on you to explain your reverts than I to explain my bold edits. You've linked policies which don't seem to support your revert and been challenged to support them. This is why we have talk pages. Your declarations that you're done with the conversation are understandable but not to be confused with a conclusion. Nobody can make you engage in this discussion, but neither are your insights necessary to finding a resolution. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

My Google Books argument was germane, per what I initially stated at the beginning of this section. You added tags, then wording, to the sentence at hand in a way that was inappropriate; why they were inappropriate were noted above.

Anyway, like I noted, unless I am discussing proposed wording with you below, I don't have anything more to state to you about this, especially since you keep assuming what I meant in instances when it's not what I meant. In my opinion, I can't be any clearer than I've been. You and I have different understandings of how Wikipedia works in this case. For example, your assertion that WP:INTEXT "takes no explicit stance on when you must or must not include an in-text attribution [and so my] opinion on how that policy is supposed to work is hearsay" is incorrect; that guideline (not policy) is very clear that the type of in-text attribution you were initially asking for would have been misleading. If anyone not familiar with the literature had answered your tag, it would have resulted in a clear-cut WP:INTEXT violation. You even added "some" in place of "majority," which clearly undermined the literature. You and I also have a different definition of WP:ONUS. The onus is on you to convince others why we should not report the "majority of rapes and other sexual assaults go unreported" aspect as the fact that it is. WP:ONUS states, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." And if I were stating that this discussion is done because I am about done talking with you about this matter, I would not have started a WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I was using the traditional, dictionary definition of onus, from Latin meaning "responsibility". As in, "its the responsibility of the reverter to show and prove the consensus in question" as taken from the WP:DRNC page, in the context of words as they may sometimes be used outside of Wikipedia articles. This onus would logically precede your above onus, despite both being irrelevant to a discussion on policy, not consensus. Still, while you were able to quote that article, what we really need are your quotes from WP:INTEXT or WP:Due weight which support your position to exclude this information. If we focused more on that, I think the discussion would have moved along a lot faster. Scoundr3l (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

*Please note We are current discussing the formatting of this template on Flyer22's talk page. You may wish to hold your comments until the resolution of that discussion.Scoundr3l (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC) Strike-through mine. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll respond to the RfC as phrased about the line stated, but feel I should offer the view that the wording of the line creates an self-defeating impression of unsupported soapboxing or an internet-exaggeration, and the mentioned 'numerous studies' might at least have avoided that impression and the whole in-text RfC. Markbassett (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't use in-text attribution

Note: There is no obligation to !vote in each section. Feel free to only !vote where you feel it is needed. Nil Einne (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support, per my and Nblund's comments above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Flyer22 Reborn and Nblund. Kaldari (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Flyer22 Reborn and Nblund. Neljack (talk) 12:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - why not disclose the sources in text? So the reader cannot as easily understand where it's coming from. That does a disservice to the reader. Mattnad (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
• Objection - The framing of this RtC is unusual. I don't see the need for two opposing areas of comment to answer one question. To prevent redundancy and over-complication, I will post my comment to the simplified question Should this statement include in-text attribution? only in the section immediately below. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page to Scoundr3l, noting that the framing is not unusual. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the discussion was slow and fruitless, so I've noted my objections here in order to proceed. There is nothing usual about this framing of an RfC, hence it is unusual, and also wholly unnecessary. That you can find other examples of unusual framing do not explain why it was done this way or explain why this framing is necessary. The redundancy and over-complexity should be self-evident. Rather than a simple list of yays and nays, we now have a partial list of yays and nays to the affirmative and a partial list of yays and nays to the negative, some who've commented on both. If you would like further information on how to RfCs are usually framed, there are examples on that page. Since it's too late to be corrected, I only hope you'll consider this in your future attempts at framing RfC. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate this matter with you too. I was clear that I disagree with you and why. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that I also considered redundancy, but felt that the setup would be fine. My voting twice doesn't mean others have to as well. I also considered voting once. I voted twice because it is common to do so in RfCs. From what I see, this RfC is largely fine, along with the "Proposed wording" and "Further commentary" sections developing in the way were designed to develop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Your disagreement has been noted, but the collaborative efforts of Wikipedia do not rest for whether or not Flyer22 agrees with them. If you're not inclined to debate, perhaps you should take less stock in what you personally agree with and focus on things everybody can agree with. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

And there you go again presuming what I think or don't think. On Wikipedia, despite its collaborative nature, no one is obligated to debate something they don't want to debate, just like they are not obligated to do so in real life. Even so, I indulged you on the heading matter. Then it was over because the matter is no big deal. It would be wise for you take your own advice when it comes to disagreement, since it is your disagreement with two editors who are clearly more familiar with the literature on rape and sexual assault than you are that led to all of this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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, "[my] attempts at interpreting and paraphrasing [your] 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 Wikipedia: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)

Water under the bridge, at this point. I do see what you were going for, but please keep this in consideration for future. Thanks. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I already have, going by RfCs I've created since this one. I just hope that if I ever create a RfC with "Support" and "Oppose" headings (those exact headings) in the future, people don't feel that they have to vote twice. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:20, 6 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 ^{let's rap} 05:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, it's a controversial statement no matter how you look at it. There are no fool-proof studies of this but just vague questionnaires and we all know how easily those are wrong and manipulated.--BurtReynoldsy (talk) 09:41, 9 February 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 ^{let's rap} 06:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, it's a controversial statement no matter how you look at it. There are no fool-proof studies of this but just vague questionnaires and we all know how easily those are wrong and manipulated.--BurtReynoldsy (talk) 09:42, 9 February 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^(talk) 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^(talk) 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 Wikipedia 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%.[11] Other research estimates anywhere from 10%[1] to as many as 29%[12] 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 [add more examples if needed]". 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)

Call it what you like so long as we can call it. Assuming we can agree on a resolution, we can certainly agree to close the RfC in proper time. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Any objection to closing this RfC at this time? Scoundr3l (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It's currently listed at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 12 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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.[1][2][3][4][5] 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. Wikipedia 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.[6] Even in most regular studies, a single fact can be supported by multiple surveys. This one covers a single national sample [7] 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, [8], 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's voice or the voice of the data source. Scoundr3l (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Wikipedia. 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)

BoboMeowCat - These bullets are just presenting the recent trend in criticisms and failures, that in 2014-15 lawsuits and reports on college incompetence or motivation for PR and money swing to 'witch hunt' or 'abusing rights of the accused' after they lost some cases in 2013-14 for 'negligence'. I think that one of the UConn women who won their 2014 settlement even spoke up the following year about the University mishandling an accused man. For example see NPR or Google further like at insidehighered.com. The amount of criticism may actually be a bit low for WP:Weight, since weight is to represent all viewpoints in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published reliable sources, and this seems where the criticism du jour is. (Again, weight is by the prominence, so compare it to how Rolling Stone rape hoax and the Duke lacrosse case gave a lot of prominence to False accusation of rape for example. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Nblund, they are not all opinion sources, but you say that frequently when you disagree with the content (but raise no similar objections to content you like). As for Gillibrand, of course we should include her views and we do already in the article. We should also include similar views from Dem. congressman Jared Polis' who sated "If I was running a (private college) I might say, well, even if there is only a 20 or 30 percent chance that it happened, I would want to remove this individual....If there are 10 people who have been accused, and under a reasonable likelihood standard maybe one or two did it, it seems better to get rid of all 10 people." Gilibrand and Polis represent one side of the debate and should be part of the article. We already have much of this anyway now.Mattnad (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Mattnad are you arguing that the view that "colleges have gone too far" is not an opinion? Also: are Markbassett and Mattnad arguing that we should make no changes at all to the list here? Are there any changes you would support? Nblund (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Mattnad and Markbassett: it seems like this might be something that needs to go to an RfC or maybe the NPOV noticeboard since multiple editors have mentioned it now, but I want to be sure I understand your positions first. Could I get a clarification on the questions above? Nblund (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Nblund - this thread is a question of due weight, and I provided Bobo with the nudge that due weight means prominence in publications. The section of focus seems the recent coverage in the same ongoing view for prevention subsection criticisms of 'colleges do lousy at handling these'. It wasn't a NPOV question, it's just conveying that the coverage for 'campus sexual assault' are just factually often about hearings being 'unfair' or 'improper' to men as well about the 'treatment' or 'abandonment' towards women. IIRC there are reflections in some of the writings about how the lawsuits are now all the other way and even a remark from one UConn woman of the 2013 lawsuit saying it was the same basic issue. Markbassett (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but I'm still unclear: are you saying that you don't support any changes? Due weight usually is an NPOV issue.

I think we agree that most of the coverage suggests "colleges do a lousy job", but the examples given in the subsection appear to only mention cases where accused men filed lawsuits alleging unfair treatment. The entry doesn't really offer any specific examples of cases where accusers filed suits against their schools, even though that's a fairly common phenomenon. Do you think that is a problem?

I haven't found indication that many of the lawsuits filed by men are successful, if you can provide a source that would be helpful and might be something we could use to improve the article. Most sources I have seen say that these lawsuits have usually been unsuccessful in the past, but might be more successful in the future. For example, this column from Inside Higher Education quotes Barry Sokolow saying that: “These Title IX suits are not faring well so far, but all it takes is one good win with the right set of facts and the right attorney, and a whole new venue of litigation will open up,”. Nblund (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You haven't looked carefully. Here's a recent article [9]. Also, I've already proposed that we include lawsuits from advocates and victims, but Bobo insisted we should not, arguing this is a "review article". That's a an arbitrary pronouncement. It would also disqualify the many details that are also presenting the victim's arguments, but she has not only left those intact, but also fought to keep them in there in previous discussions. To me, the various arguments against this content are less to do with weight, and more to do with skewing the article towards a more uniform position that there's nothing wrong with how the colleges are handling these cases when it comes to getting tough on the accused. What I find ironic is that some editors champion opinion that rape is more rampant than what is determined in courts, but then use the argument that student complaints about bias are not relevant because they haven't won enough cases in court.Mattnad (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So, it sounds like we generally agree that we should include more information on specific suits filed by accusers, but that you are opposed to making any changes to the bulleted list or discussing these cases or discussing them using a summary style. So, you might support something like adding a roughly equal number of details from suits like the one recently filed against the University of Tennessee? Is that a fair characterization or no? Nblund (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

These cases provide a lot of nuance that's missing from the the rest of the article, so summary style loses that. The article is already biased towards a POV. The lede for instance has been restricted to present only summaries how how bad it is, with emphasis on the larger side of the prevalence ranges. We have a massive section on rape prevalence including studies that are decades old. Those are not at all summary style, and yet they remain unchallenged by you or Bobo. I've proposed a rewrite that captures the current debate and issue, rather than the talking points. So unless you're willing to balance this article better, this section is a) accurate, b) supported by reliable sources, c) far from overweight given the current discussion on and around campuses and in the article. But as I mentioned several times, I do think we should include notable cases where men and women who were victims, and ignored by colleges.Mattnad (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so you are opposed to presenting these cases in a summary style, but you would support adding a similar level of detail from cases where accusers have brought lawsuits? Nblund (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Victims advocates have good reason for raising concerns and illustrations here are helpful.Mattnad (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I don't think it's really a matter of whether or not they have "good reasons" but I think we have common ground there. Nblund (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The important thing, I think, is to focus on reliable secondary sources (ideally academic papers and the like that provide a survey of the situation). Stringing together a bunch of examples is original research; we could maybe cover a few editorials, but that risks giving them WP:UNDUE weight. We need higher-quality secondary sources on the subject (ideally, academic ones or books by established, credible, mainstream historians and sociologists, not just opinion pieces) to evaluate the relative weight this has in regard to the topic as a whole. I would definitely support removing the entire list following "other examples include"; as it stands, it's clearly synthesis, which means it's representing the criticisms put together by a Wikipedia editor rather than the criticisms leveled by reliable sources. It doesn't add anything legitimate to the article; it's just an editor saying "I'm criticizing this, and here are some points I feel that support my criticism." It has to go. --Aquillion (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

So now the objection is original research? So first it was "This is a review article", then it was "Undue Weight" and now it's "original research" because and editor brought up examples as covered in secondary sources. But other point examples brought up in secondary sources about activism which are just fine even though they are not sourced to academic papers (and I wrote most of the activism section, by the way). I think this objections is to the content, not any wikipedia guidelines. However, I you think it's original research, take it to the OR noticeboard.Mattnad (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

OR/Synth and NPOV issues are closely related, and it's possible for there's more than one good-faith objection to an edit. The bullet-point style lends itself to lots of different objections (BLP, neutrality, recentism, etc.) as well as posing some more basic stylistic problems. That wouldn't be an issue if we just made some summary statements. e.g. We could mention a growing number of lawsuits have been filed by accused students against schools. We could note that a handful of cases filed by accused students have recently been successful, and that many more are currently working their way through the courts and may pose a major challenge to colleges. It seems like an RfC would be warranted here, given that multiple editors have objected on multiple grounds to this section. Nblund (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not buying it. The argument shifts constantly here. Here's what I thinkL There are some editors who do not want this at all, want to minimize it for POV reasons and will say and invent anything to make it so. So, if you think there's OR here, take it to the OR noticeboard for neutral opinion on the matter. I expect won't because the material is fully supported by reliable sources, and relevant. But go ahead, please, to prove you're not making it up.Mattnad (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the original assessment of undue weight. The criticism section is the largest section in the entire article, and consists largely of a list of specific incidents which have been criticized. The criticism section should discuss criticism of campus rape prevent programs broadly, and perhaps include a few examples, but it shouldn't discuss individual incidents in detail, as that gives them undue weight within the context of this article. Imagine, for example, that the "Prevention efforts" section described the prevention programs of every college. Surely, you would agree that that was undue. Listing every example of a program that has been criticized is also undue. Kaldari (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this has probably reached a point where an RfC is warranted, so I went ahead and posted one. If needed, we can post additional notices on the OR and NPOV noticeboards asking for feedback from editors on those issues. Nblund (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Criticism subsection

There is an ongoing dispute regarding the criticisms subsection. Specifically, editors have objected to the bulleted list section that details several lawsuits filed by men who were expelled from universities after being accused of sexual assault. The most recent discussion is here. Generally, the suggested changes are to either:

• 1. Leave the bulleted list unchanged, and add a roughly equal amount of detail on cases filed against universities by accusers.

or

• 2. Offer a couple of short summary statements that address the recent increase in lawsuits filed by students accused of sexual assault without focusing on specific cases.

Please place comments or preferences below, and feel free to suggest alternate wordings of these options or add more as needed. Nblund (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments

Option 2 The selection raises neutrality, OR, and, potential BLP issues. The cases presented don't appear to be representative of the typical outcomes in these kinds of suits: all five cases are instances where plaintiffs either received settlements or where colleges were overturned, but accused students have generally struggled to win these suits, and most are dismissed in lower courts. Adding a roughly equal amount of detail from suits filed by accusers might lessen some of the neutrality issues, but it poses many of the same issues related to OR, NPOV, and BLP, and it's probably more encyclopedic to summarize the issue rather than focusing on an arbitrarily selected group of cases. At most, it makes sense to highlight maybe one high profile case, and then add some more general statements about the frequency, success rates, and primarily focus on the legal issues covered in these cases rather than delving in to the minute details of specific sexual assault cases. Nblund (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nblund: It sounds like you are actually endorsing option 2, unless I'm very confused. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

...whoops. Fixed it. Nblund (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I think summarizing the issue rather than listing specific suits is more encyclopedic, and less likely to run afoul of OR or BLP. If we start listing suits on both sides of the issue, it's just going to become a game of who can list more suits to support their POV. So I think option 2 is the better solution. Kaldari (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion Is an RfC really necessary, in this case? With all respect, they are slow, historically ineffective, and can invite community bias from both sides rather than meaningful discussion. If this is a policy matter, it seems the suggested noticeboard would be a quicker and more resounding alternative for dispute resolution. Anything short of a clear consensus here will likely lead to status quo in a months time, when this is finally closed. Just a thought to break the cycle. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to taking the issue to a noticeboard, but, like I said above: editors have cited multiple policy issues here, and noticeboards are usually for straightforward simple policy questions that need a quick answer. This doesn't seem to fit that description. Nblund (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the main accusation is of OR and/or synth. NPOV is cited, but only as a result of the previous. BLP really only comes into play with unsourced or poorly sourced material about living figures; or content focused on un-notable living persons rather than notable events. Neither of which seem to be the case with this material. At the very least, it's reliably sourced and impersonal. The question, however, is whether the information is collected or presented in such a way as to promote a viewpoint not represented by the mainstream. It should have a fairly straightforward answer. The NOR noticeboard seems appropriate for this one, as I believe was suggested previously. If there is a larger concern for the neutrality of the article as a whole, I would suggest the NPOV board, but I don't see that this is the case with only this section. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's the main issue, actually: the conversation that initiated the RfC is headed "undue weight", and multiple editors have cited neutrality concerns with the section. I think there is also a synth issue, but I don't think it's the issue most editors have cited. I think the point might be moot, given that the RfC is already open.

The BLP issues stem from the extraneous details about specific sexual assault cases. Take this statement, for instance: "In June 2015 an Amherst College student who was expelled for forcing a woman to complete an oral sex act sued the college for failing to discover text messages from the accuser that suggested consent and undermined her credibility". The claim that text messages "undermined her credibility" is something that the accused student's attorneys say in the article, but it's clearly not a fact. It's a fairly contentious claim about a living person, it's stated using Wikipedia's voice, and it's completely tangential to the supposed point of the section. I think that's fairly straightforward BLP. Nblund (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The claim is not that contentious and not a BLP violation. 1) it make no mention of the accuser and 2) The source of the claim is not the lawsuit, but what reliable sources say about the text evidence that Amherst refused to consider. Per a source in the article that you don't mention in your comments above, "But text messages sent between the alleged victim and other Amherst students point toward the opposite conclusion: that Doe did nothing wrong."

Nblund, you cite OR where none exists, cite NPOV while ignoring the mass of the article which paints a very POV picture absent of these documented process problems, and you cite BLP where none exists. It's obvious you refuse to take this to neutral board because you know that there's nothing there to your claims.Mattnad (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't the phrase "failing to discover text messages from the accuser that suggested consent and undermined her credibility" refer to the accuser? Who does it reference?

The intent of posting an RfC is to bring in outside voices, you know how they work, right? I also think it makes sense to post notices on those boards that invite outsiders to participate in the discussion. Nblund (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but generally I believe the underlying intent of an RfC is to resolve the dispute. If bringing in more voices doesn't resolve the dispute, the RfC isn't really working. In this case, userMattnad specifically suggested an alternative form of resolution before this was opened and I'm inclined to believe that a noticeboard would be faster and more effective, but that's just my opinion. As the requestor, only you can decide if you want to end this early by withdrawing the question to seek an alternative. You have valid BLP concerns regarding some of the content, but I believe if we correct only the contentious phrasing, the issue would still not be resolved. Additionally, there's nothing inherent in your alternatives that would have prevented the contentious phrasing. As such, I'm inclined to believe that BLP is a secondary issue. In regards to this specific phrasing, I wonder if Mattnad would object to a third opinion that we strike "and undermined her credibility" from the statement for now as it is not supported by the source and contentious. I understand that the RfC is still open, but in the interest of BLP, I see no reason we can't fast track that change if we can all agree.

In regards to undue weight, unless there is a specific fringe theory being promoted, I see no reason this can't also be addressed in the NOR board. Any undue emphasis on criticism seems, again, to be the result of a possible synth. But again, just a suggestion to try to keep things moving. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not just post a notice at those multiple applicable noticeboards to ask for outside input?

Undue weight is usually an NPOV issue, not necessarily OR. The fact that we're having this disagreement is kind of a demonstration of why a noticeboard doesn't make sense. Nblund (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the argument of BLP concerns about "and undermined her credibility", I had originally referred to the text messages as "exculpatory" but Nblund didn't want that. [10]. All exculpatory means is "evidence favorable to the defendant." No BLP issue there, but he didn't want it. I felt it was important to explain in some form the nature of the text message, which goes to root of the lawsuit. Please note that nowhere during the period that Nblund edited this section back then did he even mention BLP. Scoundr3l I agree that BLP is secondary to Nblund's core motivation which I see is to minimize mention of problems with how colleges handle these cases, particularly when it's problematic for the accused (see his proposed statement which emphases failures of these lawsuits and ignores/leaves out some important decisions).Mattnad (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to change your mind, so consider it dropped, but the reason I suggested the alternative rather than an RfC is the reasons listed above: RfCs are slow, often lead to no consensus (at least in regards to this article) and may not always be motivated by improving content. Certainly we may not agree on the nature of the problem, but as their is no general "undue weight" noticeboard and the neutrality noticeboard is generally for article-wide issues, I didn't really feel there was a controversy over which board to use or think any facet of this problem couldn't be handled in a single board. The resolution would likely have been faster, more binding, and both parties could likely have agreed to it, so it seemed the better alternative. RfCs seem to be a go-to resolution measure in this discussion area and thus-far appear to be draining more time and energy than they are saving. Something to consider for future, at least. I hope we find a middle ground here. 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoundr3l (talk • contribs)

• Option 1 - material is well sourced, neutral and topical.Mattnad (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Option 2 I agree with Mattnad that the material is well sourced. It's also neutral as to each individual case discussed, and it is topical. However, I don't think the list of examples is either particularly necessary or particularly helpful to the section. It also detracts from the encyclopedic feel of the page, IMO. I think a summary statement is a better approach, particularly if all or most of the supporting references from the individual bullet points are incorporated into the statement. MikeDunford (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Option 1" - maybe not bulleted. Just saying there are court cases is not enough. Looking at the alternative sample below, you get no sense at all to what the issues are about. Also, that proposed text leaves out some important court findings (Tennessee) or cases (like Oxy).. It could be shortened from where it is now, but there is no OR or weight issues here. Even the BLP argument is weak. Just an idea, but this is not really part of criticism, but part of due process wrangling. There's a whole lot under "criticisms" that could be better organized and directly connected to other article bits. 12.176.89.10 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

IPuser and Mattnad: I'm totally open to negotiations or suggestions regarding the alternative I proposed below. What specific cases do you think are the most important? What points are missing?

Mattnad: Even if you disagree with the specific complaints, surely you don't think the section -- as currently written -- is perfect. Do you really believe it's impossible to adequately discuss these cases without discussing the specific evidence in multiple sexual assault suits? You say the statement "emphasizes the failure" of these suits. That's not my goal. What both sources note, however, is that these recent suits are notable because they have been somewhat more successful recently than they were in the past. In the source below, Samantha Harris at FIRE, who supports these lawsuits, makes exactly that point. I'm open to rewording it, but it seems like useful context that helps establish why these suits are notable. Nblund (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, of course anything can be improved. But the way this started was a litany of complaints that called for mostly eliminating the content rather than improving it. Even the best you can come up with as BLP violation comes from your own efforts to suppress content in the first place. So to make it better I think we do need to step back and reorganize this article with more focus on the colleges and the debates around what they are doing or should be doing. Mattnad (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't support eliminating the content entirely. I (and multiple other editors) have made good faith objections to this content. Since this is the third time someone has brought up this section, I think it makes sense to consider changes even if you believe that everyone who has suggested a problem is motivated entirely by bias. What I'm suggesting seems pretty mild: we summarize the issue, remove some excessive detail about specific cases, and use in-text attribution when repeating claims made by plaintiffs in lawsuits. Can you really not work with that?

I changed "exculpatory text messages" to "messages he alleged would have indicated consent", I'm still not sure why this didn't work for you. It seems silly to say that that constitutes "suppression". The accuser sees these text messages as exculpatory, while Amherst, in it's response to the complaint, sort of denied that the text messages were evidence of anything. This is a contested legal claim, we should avoid stating it in Wikipedia's voice. Alas: this is exactly the sort of debate that we could avoid altogether by just leaving out extraneous information. Nblund (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

While his lawsuit make that allegation, two secondary sources in the article that also draw that conclusion. Your approach doesn't accurately reflect the sources. But in the end, Wikipedia should reflect what's in reliable sources. You cite Amherst's legal filings, but per wikipedia policy, legal filings are not reliable sources. Your position is basically, "I don't like this" and you're raising issues that are not supportable. I again challenge you to test this in OR/NPOV/BLP noticeboards. Let's see whether they agree with your position.Mattnad (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm a little puzzled: the main difference is that I attributed this view in-text to the plaintiff rather than treat it as a fact. I could see a case for changing "he alleged" to "he said", and I don't really have strong preferences against "exculpatory" as long as it isn't stated as a fact. But it sounds like you are arguing that in text attribution is somehow inappropriate and unneeded when discussing a claim made in a lawsuit. Is that your view? This seems a little tangential to the point of the RfC, but if you want to simply ask a question on the BLP or NPOV board regarding whether or not in-text attribution is appropriate in a case like this, I think we could get a quick clarification and move on.

In the mean time: this is a little tangential to the larger point. What would you add to the statement below? You said there was room for improvement, could you suggest something concrete? Nblund (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment I think I most agree with the IP above. I am in favor of removing the bullets and integrating the content into the body text, but I believe most of these sources and cases provide valuable information for the criticism section. I think the article should focus a little less on the specific details of the cases and only on how they represent the controversy, which each source seems to have something to provide. I will contribute below to the proposed wording as soon as I have time, but agree that this does not appear to be an issue of undue weight, just poor and pedantic listing Scoundr3l (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1 - The bullets are representative of that part of the article, Criticisms of Prevention Efforts today has moved into being about Colleges overcorrection and lawsuits are now going the other way, and due WP:WEIGHT of coverage has headline cases like Rolling Stone or Mattress Girl criticising prevention efforts. This RFC is a bit malforming options here, as the article currently has both bullets and a narrative summary on top of them. In any case since the obvious process is KEEP the bullets and edit summary, then I'll say Option 1. The RFC should have at least proposed specific language so folks could actually see if it would suit to replace bullets. Proposing deletion for a someday-promise of pig-in-a-poke is unacceptable as an alternative in principle, so definately loses out. Markbassett (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

So the alternative wording is what is below. I think there was some general agreement (maybe I'm wrong) that the discussion of these cases should be balanced by roughly equal coverage of lawsuits or criticisms by victims. Are you saying that we should leave the bullets and also leave out coverage of cases by accusers? I haven't really found indication that most of the suits and criticisms are coming from people who believe that these adjudication processes are unfair to accused students, is that what you're arguing? Because it doesn't seem like a conclusion that we can reasonably draw from the sourcing currently provided. Nblund (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggested alternate wordings

beginning right after the statement about the Harvard faculty letter)

Recently, a number of students have sued Universities alleging that they were unfairly expelled after being accused of sexual assault. In November of last year, Inside Higher Education reported that 50 lawsuits had been filed by men who expelled following a sexual assault accusation, many alleging that the college hearing process amounted to gender discrimination against men, or that their due process rights were violated. While these suits have usually been unsuccessful in the past, a handful of students have recently won cases or received settlements from schools. Most recently, a student at the University of Montana received a $245,000 dollar settlement from the University after he was expelled following a sexual assault accusation by another student.

Nblund (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Nblund - Comments: thank you for proposing specific redo to the RFC and I did like the specific 'more than 50'. However, Option 1 is better overall as this provides different and lesser message. In particular note what's there is working the message and news that now the trend shifted to large increase in men suing and sometimes winning, which is better conveyed by the existing header and bullets.

(a) now it is shown as part of the sequence of events by the "Since the issuance of";

(b) now it covers lawsuits over rights, which is broader than only expulsion, particularly note Columbia lawsuit re 'cleared' men or handling re 'suspended' men

(c) now four bulleted examples and one inline vs one different example inline, a change and lessening

(d) now is more concise and clear

I think it better to make minor tweak of "Since the issuance of the "Dear Colleague" letter, a number of lawsuits have been filed" to "Since the issuance of the "Dear Colleague" letter, more than 50' of lawsuits have been filed" Markbassett (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that 50 have been filed since the Dear Colleague letter. The first letter was in 2011, most of the sources just say 50 are "in the pipeline" or "50 in the last year". Is there any way to convey the additional information you want to see while providing fewer than four six cases and without using bullet points? Nblund (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think existing topics and sequence in events is already there, this would be a reduction in the article. Option 1 - keep the five bullets - still looks like the better way. Markbassett (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I realize that that is the sequence implied in the entry, my point is that I'm not actually sure it's accurate. Do you have a source for that? Because I haven't been able to find much information on how many have been filed since 2011. Nblund (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of this article

Sexual assault that takes happens to take place on a campus is not fundamentally different from sexual assault that does not take place on a campus. Much of the information in the article is not about campus sexual assault; it is about sexual assault in general, and would be better located in the general sexual assault article.

For other types of offenses, major or minor, there is no "campus" counterpart to the main article:

• Murder exists, Campus murder does not
• Theft exists, Campus theft does not
• Assault exists, Campus assault does not
• Menacing exists, Campus menacing does not
• Jaywalking exists, Campus jaywalking does not

Why should sexual assault differ from the above pattern?

Furthermore, here are three Justice Department studies consistently showing that women students experience a lower rate of sexual assault than their non-student peers:

• from 1995 to 2000, the rape and sexual assault rate among female college students was 6.2 per 1,000 women. The rape and sexual assault rate among female non-students was 7.9 per 1,000.
• from 1995 to 2002, the rate of rape and sexual assault was 6.0 per 1,000 women students compared to 7.9 per 1,000 for female non-students.
• from 1995 to 2013, the rate of rape and sexual assault for students was 6.1 per 1,000 compared to 7.6 per 1,000 for non-students.

So it would make more sense to create an article named "Off-campus sexual assault," than to retain this article, because off-campus is where the larger problem is found.

Wikipedia is not a place to indulge those who have an interest in pretending that there is something special about "campus sexual assault" that cannot be covered by the more general sexual assault article. The only notable thing about campus sexual assault is that it happens at a lower rate than off-campus sexual assault. Delete this article. 50.198.139.201 (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)