Talk:US government expands definition of rape to include men

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Review of revision 1361445 [Not ready][edit]

Er, clarification: Yes, the article says there's no changes to State or Federal law. It's relatively late in the article (hence, in inverted pyramid style, peripheral information), and may only serve to heighten the reader's puzzlement as to what has changed. --Pi zero (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you are saying. I think it's ready for rereview. Cocoaguytalkcontribs 22:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I hit an edit conflict on this; here's what I was going to add:

--

Okay, I read the fail reason first; then, read the article. Here's how I see your critique, in relation to what's new:
  • The FBI has updated the definition of rape, that new definition includes men.
  • What, to me (note, I've avoided the sources so-far) seems key is that the expanded definition will be reflected in crime statistics. That's the "rather dry" detail.
I'm going to refactor this to try and reflect these points and, as it's implicit in the article that the rape statistics from this point on will be higher, see if I can fire off a couple emails and get any organisations that might have data to "guesstimate" how many more rapes will appear in official US Gov figures.

--

If we know who might have data on rapes of men, and the other types added to the definition, I'm happy to pursue this as OR. In a lot of cases, I prefer where Wikinews is not the first to publish, but the more comprehensive.
I'm going to ask Cary if he knows who'd have data on male rape for a start. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good here. I think it would really spruce up the article if it included a graph or two, but its not completely necessary. I actually have to step out for the night. I hope to see how the article turns out. Cocoaguytalkcontribs 22:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
No responses as-yet. If still none by the time I'm up, I'll pull some extra stats out the below, see if anything additional in more recent sources, and sub. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Research[edit]

DOJ - Last set of data that includes rape.

This is the one they'll compare collected data on self-reported sexual assault with. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Has several possible contact organisations. Will fire off some emails... --Brian McNeil / talk 22:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Three orgs contacted from the above cite asking for comment, plus asked the AFA their opinion (linking to http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/06/change-in-fbi-rape-definition-bolsters-bidens-controversial-rape-claims/ as the first article on the topic I found). Will look again later, am absolutely starvin'. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No responses[edit]

As it stands, no responses on this. Here's my 'plan of action':

  1. Copyedit current content.
  2. As-if reviewing current content, check against sources and use html comments to flag confirmation thereof.
  3. Cite (here) version which I have effectively fact-checked. - [1]
  4. Add additional information from the above-noted possible sources (also html-commented).
  5. Hope that by then, some of the people I've emailed have responded.

I've my fingers crossed that results in a more in-depth article. I also noted when searching a lot of remarks/references/articles about male rape in prison — oft the butt (pun, unfortunately intentional) of USian toilet humour. That's perhaps another angle to explore. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That version I'd happily publish is here: https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=US_government_expands_definition_of_rape_to_include_men&oldid=1362220
Now, careful with the 1927/1929 thing; I believe it's that the definition was set in 1927, but stats using it were not available until 1929 (much like this definition set in 2012, stats with it won't show until 2014.
Next to find some more to add to this. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
No luck getting anything other than a graph likely to put even the most excitable of statisticians into a coma, so wasted 1½hrs there. Cuppa, and late lunch in order. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1362605 [Passed][edit]