Talk:Rape on college campuses

College Men in the USA

This section seems a bit problematic it seems to be making some fairly incredible claims mostly on the basis of a source that doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere. --CVaneg 09:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see this remain as a separate page. Someday I will complete the polishing, which I've begun. Finding credible numbers remains the possible cumbersome task. Lotsofissues

Copy edit

I've done a copy edit, but this is a problematic article. The citations were not written properly so it wasn't clear what was being referred to (e.g. "Samson" in brackets, but no indication as to who that is). Also the figures don't sound right: 1.7 per cent of women claim to have been raped at college (I'd have thought it was considerably higher than that); half of those aren't considered rape by the victim; and between 35 and 75 per cent of all rapes take place on campus — even though only 1.7 per cent of women are raped there, with only half of them calling it a rape?

Agreed. It also presents a misleading image of men, because it's likely that it is not one out of four men comitting these crimes. The congressional caucus for women's issues estimates it something closer to 1 in 12, so it's 8% or so of men giving the rest of us a bad name. Bastards - same thing goes for women who falesly report rape 130.71.96.23 01:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That the article looks exclusively at the U.S. is also a problem. The section on men was POV so I've made it invisible. The references section needs to be written properly, making clear which entries are books and which papers, and giving names of authors. It might be an idea to ask the original editor TK-P to chip in, as she presumably knows what the citations refer to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Merge

The original author of this hasn't returned to clean it up, and it seems no one else wants to, so I'm thinking it should be merged with Rape. Does anyone have objections? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One questions must be asked concerning the merge: is there little enough information in the article to warrant a merge with the parent? I'm fairly sure, especially since the intro and the section concerning the Sex Offenders Registry are mentioned in other places. --61.88.171.38 07:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the above comment was made by User:Jb-adder, who inadvertently forgot to log in before submitting the comment. Confirmation of such can be made on his talk page. --61.88.171.38 07:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, way I see it... maybe, but more likely not. Obviously, a particular aspect of something can go in the general article. However, rape needs forking, as it's currently 51 kilobytes long and giving editors the notice to check wikipedia:article size. Since there has been a lot of scholarly analysis of rape on college campuses (either that in particular, or psychology studies on rape in general but using college students as the sole or predominant data source) and books about it (Peggy Reeves Sanday's Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus, ISBN 0814779611 is the first that comes to mind), this may well be a sustainable fork. I'll give it a more thorough look soon. The Literate Engineer 19:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge Rape on college campuses is a large enough topic to warrant it's own article. --Kerowyn 23:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly needs a Wikipedia:Summary style section in the rape article then. But if its really worth an independent article as well, and there is more to say than rightly would fit the rape article in the view of those who're editing it, I won't argue that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update - had a go at fixing the intro. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jfdwjghnjkwdnhjfkwbneqfnbvlb swkjb dsclnhwyjbc sbwrefdkdn