Jump to content

Talk:Campus sexual assault: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 177: Line 177:
::::::Those links don't support your assertion that it's prominent, no. They ''mention'' it as one of the many things in the study, but nothing there supports the way you're pulling it out and drawing attention to it as particularly significant, and certainly not sufficient to put it in the lead itself. What I'm looking for is not offhand mentions; what I'm looking for is multiple reliable, mainstream articles (preferably not opinion pieces) about ''that aspect specifically''. The rough estimations of the frequency of sexual assault clearly belong in the lead (if you feel those studies are being given too much weight, we could consider others and weigh them against each other, but I think it's unequivocal that we need to include some sort of general summary of what the reliable sources say about how common it is, since that's central to the topic), but I don't think you've shown that this part is something that many people consider important enough to put it in the lead. Most of the sources you cited put the frequency figure in the ''headline''; the mention of the data-point you're talking about is always much further down amid a list of numerous other assorted factoids from the study. I stand by what I said above; Stuart S. Taylor Jr seems to be the only source you've cited that thinks that it's ''particularly'' telling or important (relative to anything else in the study). Looking at how they weighted relative aspects, the links you've provide only seem to reinforce my position that this is not a significant part of the study and not worth putting in the lead. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 08:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::Those links don't support your assertion that it's prominent, no. They ''mention'' it as one of the many things in the study, but nothing there supports the way you're pulling it out and drawing attention to it as particularly significant, and certainly not sufficient to put it in the lead itself. What I'm looking for is not offhand mentions; what I'm looking for is multiple reliable, mainstream articles (preferably not opinion pieces) about ''that aspect specifically''. The rough estimations of the frequency of sexual assault clearly belong in the lead (if you feel those studies are being given too much weight, we could consider others and weigh them against each other, but I think it's unequivocal that we need to include some sort of general summary of what the reliable sources say about how common it is, since that's central to the topic), but I don't think you've shown that this part is something that many people consider important enough to put it in the lead. Most of the sources you cited put the frequency figure in the ''headline''; the mention of the data-point you're talking about is always much further down amid a list of numerous other assorted factoids from the study. I stand by what I said above; Stuart S. Taylor Jr seems to be the only source you've cited that thinks that it's ''particularly'' telling or important (relative to anything else in the study). Looking at how they weighted relative aspects, the links you've provide only seem to reinforce my position that this is not a significant part of the study and not worth putting in the lead. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 08:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Are you OK with it as part of the AAU study section? My plain reading of the many sources do not support your interpretation. Which other sources are you referring to? As for the authors of the AAU study, of course they would downplay anything that diminishes their headline. But it's not an either or situation. We have their headline stat, and several reliable sources also provide a detail on the non-reporting rate. [[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 08:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Are you OK with it as part of the AAU study section? My plain reading of the many sources do not support your interpretation. Which other sources are you referring to? As for the authors of the AAU study, of course they would downplay anything that diminishes their headline. But it's not an either or situation. We have their headline stat, and several reliable sources also provide a detail on the non-reporting rate. [[User:Mattnad|Mattnad]] ([[User talk:Mattnad|talk]]) 08:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
::::::::It's in the body of the page, but it doesn't belong in the AAU section because it's not unique to the AAU study. Most victims gave this same response on the CSA ([https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf exhibit 5-8, page 87]), the National College Women Sexual Violence Study ([https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf exhibit 12. page 26]), and Kilpatrick et. al's 2007 study [https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/219181.pdf exhibit 42, page 48]. There is nothing unique about this finding,
and it seems misleading to insist that it should be included in one particular section. [[User:Nblund|Nblund]] ([[User talk:Nblund|talk]]) 14:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:35, 19 December 2015

RfC on recent AAU campus climate survey

There is a debate on how we should include a widely reported statistic relating to the percentage of victims, who when asked why they didn't report the incident, answered they didn't think it was "serious enough" per the study and news reports.

The section leads with a high level statistic for the rates of all types of sexual assault and misconduct, "The 2015 Association of American Universities (AAU) Campus Survey on Sexual Assault, one of the largest studies ever of college sexual violence, drew responses from 150,000 students at 27 schools, including most of the Ivy League. It found that more than 20 percent of female and 5 percent of male undergraduates said that they were victims of sexual assault and misconduct".

The AAU study, Table 6-1, page 110 contains the following:

Percentage reporting or not, with reason Penetration by Force Penetration by Incapacitation Sexual Touching by Force Sexual Touching by Incapacitation
Contacted at least one program in university list 25.5% 13.3% 7.0% 5.0%
Did not contact any programs reason: "I did not think it was serious enough to report" 58.6% 62.1% 74.1% 75.6%

Several news reports that covered the high level findings in AAU survey also included the following details from page 110. I have provided a few samples (with direct quotes provided):

Looking for input on two approaches discussed in this talk page to handle this:

  1. In the 2015 Campus Climate Survey section, add language with some of the multiple cites including the AAU study along the lines of, "The survey also reported that the majority of students whose responses were classified as sexual assault did not think their experience was "serious enough to report"."
  2. Only include this finding in the 2015 Campus Climate Survey if it includes criticisms/counterpoints to these kinds of finding about surveys in general, making points like, "First, a salient research issue is what students mean when they define incidents as not serious enough to report. For conservatives, the phrase "not serious" is taken in a strictly literal sense as meaning that the incidents were unimportant. For feminists, however, such a response may merely indicate a false consciousness expressed by women acculturated to see their victimization as somehow acceptable." (a partial quote from an academic source provided by Nblund).Mattnad (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentMattnad, this seems to mis-characterize my perspective. I did not say we should leave this statistic out. What I said was that we should mention it alongside the previous research on this topic. Importantly, we should explain how social scientists generally interpret that result, and explain that researchers doubt that this finding indicates that these are not serious sexual attacks. I would appreciate it if you would edit this down for brevity (maybe put the citations and other commentary in the section below) and clarify the wording of option #2 to more accurately reflect what I proposed. Nblund (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think editors can sort it out with the citations since you several times argued that it was WP:Undue because there was only one source and you insisted that the Survey authors didn't highlight this, so it was not relevant to use it either. I think it's important to demonstrate how common this detail is given your past statements so other editors can see what's been going on here. I don't think option 2 misrepresent your position at all.Mattnad (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but yes, it does misrepresent my position. I don't think we need to exclude this detail. I do think we need to contextualize the detail along with past research. I think it would waste people's time to request an RfC in which an option is offered that neither one of us supports. Change it please. Nblund (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change has been been made.Mattnad (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC comments

  • Approach #1 is neutral, reflects both the study and multiple reliable sources that covered this particular survey. Approach #2 comes from academic sources that do not specifically discuss this survey, and are grounded in POV that's WP:Fringe. Not a single news source I could find on the AAU survey addressed this counterpoint and to create a separate discussion would be WP:Undue. I will add that Nblund's reasons for objecting to this detail as part of the AAU study is that "I'm concerned that it makes the findings appear less impactful by misleading people". This concern was not considered material by professional news services covering the survey, or a plain reading of the survey itself. My take is Nblund would like to avoid reducing the perceived impact of the numbers by discounting or eliminating what survey respondents themselves stated.Mattnad (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approach #1 I agree with Mattnad in his thorough analysis of the different approaches. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 21:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: For context, its important to note that this particular finding is not unique to this survey. This exact question has been asked on previous studies of sexual assaults, and the result is consistent with previous findings. Researchers generally attribute the response to minimization on the part of victims, and note that victims of even very serious attacks sometimes decide it isn't worthwhile to report the attack to the police. (see: Fisher, Daigle, Cullen & Turner 2003) Some critics of these studies (such as Christina Hoff Sommers) have suggested that the "not serious enough to report" response indicates that the concerns about sexual assault on college campuses is overblown, but that view is not supported by the empirical evidence, and experts like Bonnie Fisher are generally skeptical of this interpretation (see the quote below)

Again, I'm not saying we should exclude this finding, I'm saying we should cite it alongside the previous findings and alongside previous research on the topic. If this particular detail is important enough to mention, why isn't it important enough to mention the views of experts on the topic? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, or a random collection of events. The goal here is to inform people, and the notion that we should suppress obviously relevant, reliably sourced, information strikes me as fundamentally anathema to that project. Nblund (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While critics may point to this, Approach 1 makes no statement about the whether or not the survey was overblown. And CNN, NJ.com, Campus Safety that include it do not either. It's a neutral presentation ideally using the survey itself as the source. I think your concerns are political rather than encyclopedic.Mattnad (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What a shame this study's question was worded so poorly. "Not serious" could have been taken by respondents as meaning "not something that bothers me" or as "not something anyone else would take seriously if I reported it" (or more narrowly as "not something authorities would take seriously if I reported it") or any number of other interpretations. And it's impossible for anyone to know what the women who took part in the study thought that vague phrase meant. If previous studies used the same poor wording, that wasn't sufficient reason to repeat their mistakes... but that's outside our purview here. Coverage of the study in reliable sources should of course be included, but effort should perhaps be taken to find an examination of the study's methodology in a reliable source or sources so that this issue can be included in the text of the article as well. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 18:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to the world of these kinds of studies. This isn't the only example of ambiguous questions. In regard to this particular study, there are direct criticisms of the questions used to capture sexual assault as well. In the interest of parsimony, we haven't included those either.Mattnad (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1. The long list of news articles demonstrates the notability of the study, but Wikipedia shouldn't be summarizing the news article, but the published researchers' published findings. ("For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." WP:NEWSORG) The researchers' summary is on page iv:
A relatively small percentage (e.g., 28% or less) of even the most serious incidents are reported to an organization or agency (e.g., Title IX office; law enforcement); More than 50 percent of the victims of even the most serious incidents (e.g., forced penetration) say they do not report the event because they do not consider it “serious enough.”
2. As a side point, the percentages reported here are fractions of those who "Did not contact any programs." They do not represent fractions of the number reporting assaults. (see p. 112)
3. The researchers publishing this report observe, "When asked why the student did not report an incident, the dominant reason was it was not considered serious enough. This is also consistent with prior research (e.g., Fisher et al., 2003)." (p. 36) So I think that Fisher 2003's explanation for this reporting (as quoted above) should be summarized and cited first. It can probably stand on its own, but following up with point-counterpoint a la version 2 isn't unreasonable either.
4. In my opinion, provinding greater detail about the other survey findings (as highlighted on page iv) is more encyclopedic, and a higher priority than a deep dive on this unclear "not serious enough" qualifier.--Carwil (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I re-posted the RfC tag for this discussion, since there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus still. Carwil correctly notes that the AAU authors note that these findings are consistent with Fisher et. al 2003 -- which is the source of the quote mentioned in the original RfC post above. I think this should resolve Mattnad's stated concern that adding this material would constitute original research. Given that the authors directly contextualize their findings in light of previous work, it seems fairly clear-cut that the additional context and critique from Fisher ought to be included. Nblund (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fisher (1999) is not the same as Fisher (2003), p. 36. So whatever they are referring to in the study (Fisher 2003), it's not the quote provided by NBlund (Fisher 2009). Perhaps there's a linkage, but two different books are not the same book.Mattnad (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited two different Fisher quotes. The quote you paraphrase at the top of this RfC is from Fisher et. al 2003. That 2003 paper is the same one cited by the authors of the AAU study. The other quote comes from Fisher's 2009 book, Unsafe in the Ivory Tower. That book is not cited in this paper, but it's a discussion of the same topic by the same (highly respected) author cited in the AAU report. It's really tough for me to see how it would be undue to cite the research that the authors themselves discuss. Nblund (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel a little silly for not noticing this earlier, but I just saw this: Bonnie Fisher is actually on of the lead authors of the AAU report (left column, second row). So it really seems like her views are pretty clearly relevant here. Nblund (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that on its own justifies bringing in her other, and very separate, opinions on the topic.Mattnad (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky finding

Regarding this series of edits:

This presentation is highly misleading -- it gives the impression that Kentucky found a lower level of sexual assault than the AAU survey. As we discussed previously, the Kentucky Survey asked about oral, anal, or vaginal sex that occurred as a result of force, coercion or incapacitation (bottom of page 5). They found a low rate because they simply didn't ask about far more frequent forms of sexual assault (such as groping). If we make an apples to apples comparison, the 5% finding is higher than the comparable finding on the AAU survey (page 82).

Regarding the claim that it is OR to call this "rape": forced/incapacitated penetration is essentially synonymous with rape. The AAU authors note this in the study (page V). Further, paraphrasing or contextualizing sources by using commonly accepted terminology is not original research. I changed the wording to be slightly more specific, and I'm open to a discussion about the precise wording of that section, but, claiming that Kentucky measured "all forms of sexual assault" is flatly dishonest. The goal of Wikipedia is to inform people, and this seems inconsistent with that goal. Nblund (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Commonly known as rape" was not in any of the sources. You seem to want it both ways in this article. You've argued at times in favor of presenting sexual assault more broadly but now insist on a narrow term it when it wasn't described that way by the source. This is classic WP:SYN to pick one source, and apply it another. Source A describes "rape" as X, source B describes "sexual assault" as Y, ergo X=Y. These studies often purposefully stay away from the term, and use "sexual assault" broadly. Either we rely on the sources, or we don't. Wikipedia favors the latter. I'll add that the deliberate sloppiness of these kinds of studies leads to this challenge. Mattnad (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again: the study authors make this connection on page V of the study. "One type focused on nonconsensual sexual contact involving two behaviors: sexual penetration and sexual touching. Respondents were asked whether one or more of these contacts occurred as a result of four tactics: ... The first two tactics generally meet legal definitions of rape (penetration) and sexual battery (sexual touching)."
I'm not quite sure I see the connection: I think I've repeatedly said that we should be clear in our use of terminology, and that we shouldn't conflate rape and sexual assault. I think you have shared that view in the past as well. Nblund (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of advocacy orgs as sources

Per WP:RS, biased sources are not to be used except when attributed by name. Recent large scale additions have been presented without such attribution, and there's an undue weight issue. I've opened up a discussion on WP:RSN here.Mattnad (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policy doesn't quite say that. To quote:

However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective... Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...".

So editors should consider whether to use in-text attribution, but it is not a necessary a hard requirement. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No attribution, AND overweight in the article. But really, it's an option on the definitions which differs from the studies that are cited in the article, criminal definitions etc. Anyway, let's see how RSN rules on this.Mattnad (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the RSN "rules" on anything, ever, then you misunderstand the purpose of the noticeboard. As I implied above and as I noted at the RSN, this is an editorial decision not a WP:RS issue. VQuakr (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms in the lead section

I'm open to a brief, neutral mention of the controversy over the measurement of sexual assault being included in the lead paragraph -- something modeled on the stuff presented at the start of the Prevalence and Incidence discussion. That said, I don't think this edit really works for several reasons.

  • The critique that the 20% finding comes from a study of two colleges is misleading. The results of the CSA come from two colleges, but those results have been supported by multiple subsequent (and previous) studies. It seems like an oversight that these other studies weren't incorporated in the the lead paragraph already. I can't see an argument for mentioning only the CSA in that section.
  • The response rate critique is something that seems like it warrants mention in the body of the entry, but survey methodology is a science and Christina Hoff Sommers has no background in any relevant field. I certainly see a case for including a discussion of prominent controversies in the lead section, but it gives undue weight to present the critiques of a columnist as a counter-point to scientific research. The questions about response rates are valid, but whether or not they cause a sampling bias is an empirical question that ought to be addressed by experts.
  • Last: As we've discussed many times in the past, there are ample criticism of the BJS findings, and BJS itself has acknowledged deep problems with the methodology they use for measuring rape and sexual assault on the National Crime Victimization Surveys. Presenting only criticisms of the surveys with higher prevalence findings paints a misleading picture. Nblund (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Koss, whose study is prominently presented in this article, is quoted by Politifact regarding the CSA as follows, "Mary Koss, a professor of public health at the University of Arizona, agreed that the Campus Sexual Assault Study 'is not the soundest data (the White House) could use'" when citing prevalence rates. Nblund, stop pushing this. You are going so far off what even noted experts in the field say about the CSA.Mattnad (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the BJS, the only people complaining about come from a specific POV. Whereas Mary Koss, someone who agrees that sexual assault is a problem on campus, disagrees with your position.Mattnad (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mattnad, I understand that you disagree with me, but it seems like you're not really reading me: I didn't say that criticism of the CSA was invalid, I just pointed out that other studies have found the same result using different methods. I cited those studies in the lead paragraph. The Politifact article you link to also notes this:

Other surveys asked the question in different ways, and some focused on different definitions of sexual assault. Overall, though, the general trends were relatively consistent with the Campus Sexual Assault Study.

I'm not sure what you're referencing in terms of POV critiques of the BJS. The criticisms that I cite in the body of this entry come from an extensive report published commissioned by the BJS itself and conducted by the National Research Council. Are you really suggesting that it isn't a reliable source?
I'm curious about the wording of this edit: it seems like you want to imply that the BJS stat is a superior measure. You changed "multiple" to "some" and described the studies as "smaller". I'm curious as to why you think these changes are necessary. They seem to imply that these measures are inferior to the BJS stat. Nblund (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to surveys sample size and period matter. Smaller, non-random short-term surveys are not considered as reliable as random, larger, long-term studies as a matter of statistical science. As for the critiques of the BJS that you refer to the presentation is making a mountain out of molehill. But I come back to Mary Koss - she doesn't thing the CSA is representative, and even its author doesn't think it should be used for a national sample. Those are pretty valid reasons to provide that context. "General trends" by the way, does not mean the numbers are correct. It's that there are other studies that generally trend that way. Mattnad (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mattnad, “Smaller, non-random short-term surveys are not considered as reliable as random, larger, long-term studies as a matter of statistical science” sounds like you’re admitting to pushing your own POV rather than citing what the surveys say and leaving it at that. Those who disagree with the study should be placed into the criticism section, especially if their criticism hasn't been enough to invalidate the research they criticize. All studies and surveys have their critics, but putting undue weight on those criticisms seems agenda-pushing. Especially when quoting biased opinions from non-experts like CHS and Emily Yoffe. These women are not experts, they’re giving their opinions and nothing else. I’m surprised to see their names added to this article, as if their opinions are considered as important as the studies they're critiquing. Saying some surveys are not as reliable because of their scope or methodology is a POV statement which should be backed up by solid non-editorial sources if it's to influence this article. Your edits and their focus on doubting the information given by multiple reliable sources are coming extremely close to making this article non-neutral, if it can be considered neutral at this point.Ongepotchket (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't really seem like you're reading me: I'm not discussing whether or not the CSA is nationally representative. I'm pointing out that criticisms of the CSA don't apply to all surveys of sexual assault, and so it doesn't make sense to cite a specific criticism
Okay, so it sounds like you want to imply that the BJS study is more reliable than other surveys. I don't think you don't have reliable sources for that. In fact, smaller surveys can be more reliable than large ones, and non-random designs are sometimes more accurate than random designs. The BJS survey, for what its worth, also suffers from fairly well-documented issues with response biases. These are discussed at length in the NRC report I referenced earlier. Here it is again. This is, again, just sort of your view that you're inserting. Nblund (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced content that adds dimension.

Nblund, your recent revert seems excessive (and the RFC is inconclusive, dormant, and months old). However the whole section seems balanced, and captures reasons you've supported for non-reporting as follows, with the new, well supported material in italics.

Many victims completely or partially blame themselves for the assault, are embarrassed by the shame, or fear not being believed which may lead to underreporting. As remarked in one study, "Women generally do not report their victimization, in part because of self-blame or embarrassment,"[3] but another also found that many "didn't think is was serious enough" to report.[4][5]

It's well balanced with reasons for not reporting that you've long supported, plus what the AAU study has published, and was picked up by many reliable sources.Mattnad (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the RFC is inconclusive. Edits are made by consensus -- not by fiat. I have a hard time believing that you could possibly think that it was consistent with collaborative editing to simply re-insert the material in the lead paragraph.
To clarify: I argued in favor of a detailed discussion of that finding which offered context for why researchers believe that women offer that response. Introducing it in the lead paragraph doesn't quite meet that criteria. The word "but", by the way, is a coordinating conjunction that usually indicates negation or contradiction of the previous statement. E.g.: I thought x, but y turned out to be the case.Nblund (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll edit it to show separation. We had a detailed discussion already (very detailed). But in the end, even you can agree that some men and women can decide for themselves whether or not something like unwanted touching is serious enough to call the police or report it to a college authority. Some do not, and not all of those are brainwashed into denial. They may very well understand what happened, and didn't care to report it.Mattnad (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We did have a detailed discussion, which you appear to be ignoring in favor of just putting the content that you wanted in to the article. There are a variety of methods for resolving disputes if an RfC fails to end it, this isn't one of them. We can take it to mediation or dispute resolution, or to a noticeboard, or attempt to hammer out a compromise here. Regardless: if you insist on sticking stuff in the article that clearly violates consensus, I think this probably needs to be taken to a incident noticeboard. Nblund (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mattnad, I made an attempt at compromise and moved the discussion in to the body section of the entry where it could be treated with adequate depth and context. Please: either remove it from the lead paragraph, or try to find a method other than edit warring to get what you want. Nblund (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you might want to then remove your preferred content from the lede as well? It seems you want to highlight that which you agree with there, and suppress that which you do not, despite it being well documented. I could have added 10 more sources that restate that finding, except that the don't say "many" but indicate "most" didn't think it was serious enough. I understated the finding as an effort at compromise.Mattnad (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a clear lack on consensus for including this material in the first place, its not a compromise at all, its just edit-warring. I don't know what content you're referring to, and it seems beside the point. If you have issues with other content, you should start a discussion about that content, not engage in hostage-taking. The problem isn't the number of sources, its the adequacy of the coverage -- we discussed this at length in the RfC which you posted. If you're unsatisfied with the progress on that end, then we can take it to another venue or we can discuss an actual compromise here, but what you're doing right now isn't going to fly. Nblund (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only editor who seems to be really against including this information despite it being widely reported and present in a study you have copiously quoted from. Here's the content you are OK with in the Lede "Many victims completely or partially blame themselves for the assault, are embarrassed by the shame, or fear not being believed which may lead to underreporting. As remarked in one study, "Women generally do not report their victimization, in part because of self-blame or embarrassment,".[3] According to other research, "myths, stereotypes, and unfounded beliefs about male sexuality, in particular male homosexuality" contribute to underreporting among males. In addition, "male sexual assault victims have fewer resources and greater stigma than do female sexual assault victims."[4] All I have done is append another reason per the sources. My point is that you have a double standard as it pertains to the lede. And frankly, it's a bit bloated right now anyway. I'm sorry for you the AAU asked the question, and people answered, but "didn't think it was serious enough" is one of the reasons people didn't report. What you seem to want, based on your editing, is to paint the most severe impression of sexual assault on campus. But it's more nuanced than that, and censoring the article is not the way to go.Mattnad (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any attachment one way or another to the other statements you mention, and I agree that the lead is bloated. -- we could remove all of them and include them in a discussion in the body section. Would that work? Nblund (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is clearly WP:UNDUE for the lead. It's taking one figure from a very large paper and highlighting it; unlike the other bits cited, this isn't part of the conclusion or a complete or accurate summary of the paper in question -- it's one figure taken out of context. As far as I can tell from the sources, the only person who thinks it's particularly important or telling is Stuart S. Taylor Jr; and I don't think he's a significant enough figure for us to devote text to a random opinion-piece by him in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Aquillion, I didn't bother putting in all of the sources that cite this, but here are a few below. It's pretty widely reported, and far more prominent that the other items in the lede according to reliable sources:
However, since Nblund is now willing to permit the lede to be trimmed, and even allow this finding in the article, then we can move forward. Mattnad (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattnad: I just reverted this because it didn't appear supported within the article body (which the lede summarizes). I would take no objection to it being in the body somewhere with two or three citations max (see WP:OVERCITE). VQuakr (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This material doesn't belong in the lead; it's one figure within a much larger study that is addressed in detail in the main text.
Frankly, the authors of the AAU study (and other reliable sources) interpret "not serious enough" differently than you do. They seem to see it as consistent with the other concerns raised in lead re: shame, disbelief, self-blame, etc. Conversely, your push to include it in the lead is to argue that the assualts weren't a big deal. It's borderline OR to keep pressing this point as if your interpretation overrides the researchers in question.
Mildly annoyed that the RfC comments don't seem to have informed later edits… --Carwil (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, the overciting seemed necessary because Aquillon stated in the edit summary he or she could not find it anywhere else beside the Washington Post and the study. I'd be happy to have it in the body copy, if permitted, but one editor kept on reverting that. Carwill, several other very mainstream reliable sources found this detail important, as did other RFC commenters. It's hardly OR, and you are free to read the citations above. It's not that sexual assaults are not a big deal, but that some of the assaults were not as serious as the high level statistic alone indicates, which is exactly why news reports and opinion pages called it out. I'll volunteer that some of those in the "not serious enough" answer group may have been in denial, not all of them were.Mattnad (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those links don't support your assertion that it's prominent, no. They mention it as one of the many things in the study, but nothing there supports the way you're pulling it out and drawing attention to it as particularly significant, and certainly not sufficient to put it in the lead itself. What I'm looking for is not offhand mentions; what I'm looking for is multiple reliable, mainstream articles (preferably not opinion pieces) about that aspect specifically. The rough estimations of the frequency of sexual assault clearly belong in the lead (if you feel those studies are being given too much weight, we could consider others and weigh them against each other, but I think it's unequivocal that we need to include some sort of general summary of what the reliable sources say about how common it is, since that's central to the topic), but I don't think you've shown that this part is something that many people consider important enough to put it in the lead. Most of the sources you cited put the frequency figure in the headline; the mention of the data-point you're talking about is always much further down amid a list of numerous other assorted factoids from the study. I stand by what I said above; Stuart S. Taylor Jr seems to be the only source you've cited that thinks that it's particularly telling or important (relative to anything else in the study). Looking at how they weighted relative aspects, the links you've provide only seem to reinforce my position that this is not a significant part of the study and not worth putting in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 08:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you OK with it as part of the AAU study section? My plain reading of the many sources do not support your interpretation. Which other sources are you referring to? As for the authors of the AAU study, of course they would downplay anything that diminishes their headline. But it's not an either or situation. We have their headline stat, and several reliable sources also provide a detail on the non-reporting rate. Mattnad (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the body of the page, but it doesn't belong in the AAU section because it's not unique to the AAU study. Most victims gave this same response on the CSA (exhibit 5-8, page 87), the National College Women Sexual Violence Study (exhibit 12. page 26), and Kilpatrick et. al's 2007 study exhibit 42, page 48. There is nothing unique about this finding,

and it seems misleading to insist that it should be included in one particular section. Nblund (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Campus_sexual_assault&oldid=695903619"