Talk:Mary P. Koss

"lightning rod for controversy and have been challenged, criticized, and scrutinized."

I removed the "lightning rod for controversy and have been challenged, criticized, and scrutinized" sentence from the lead. Given that it's a BLP for an academic, we need really high quality sources attacking her work and I see nothing at all about it. It's actually alleging that the single paper is the thing being attacked which doesn't really have any discussion here. "Lightning rod" is extremely strong in my view and I don't see any indication at all that the paper has been challenged, criticized or scrutinized. If there's evidence of that, perhaps we can spin-off an article about the paper itself rather than just an attack on her academic work here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Criticism section

I've been asked to explain this revert - please actually look at what the Jody Raphael source actually says] - it is in reality a spirited defense of Koss against criticisms which it makes clear were unjustified, and based on a misreading or misrepresentation of Koss' work. It is also about attacks on Koss' data, and makes no use/mention of the second quote in the criticism section.

Basically, the material I removed is not actually supported by the citations given. You can't just reinsert the same text from an earlier, BLP-violating edit, but replace all of the MRA blog sources with a book that you googled (and either didn't read or ignored what it actually said). If you want the section to read as written, find an actual reliable source that actually supports it. I'm skeptical that that such a source exists, however. As written the section is pretty obvious POV pushing and WP:UNDUE. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with a policy like reliable source is that if reliable sources have bias that prevents them from addressing an issue, there won't be 'reliable sources' for things that are true, but fall outside of the Overton window. By now there is plenty of proof that Koss is a male rape denier. She wrote in a paywalled paper that "It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman," stated that men are traumatized less so it doesn't count as rape if they are raped and in another interview refused to even classify the rape of a drugged man as sexual assault, but rather as 'unwanted contact.' It's all very consistent across the board and thus good evidence of what her beliefs are, but frustratingly, it's not documented in a way that works very well within Wikipedia policies. BTW, it's also rather sad/interesting that Koss features prominently in Rape Culture as an expert, even though she is a prime example of rape culture in action. Aapjes (talk) 13:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I have found a reliable source, as I found (and added) a pdf of the article in question. By definition, a direct quote from Koss herself (page 206-207) is a reliable source to describe her methodology. Fyddlestix, you removed my earlier edit, which was fair as I accidentally referred to the wrong article in my reference. But I put it back as it is now correct. Aapjes (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why isn't there a criticism section on this article, mentioning her extremely controversial views on male rape? I have listened to her, with her very own voice, claim that if a woman drugs a man and penetrates herself with his penis against his will, then this should be classified merely as "unwanted contact" and not rape, because men supposedly aren't traumatized by such an action. These are her words. Bearing in mind her profession and position, it's relevant information that should be included in the article. 2.86.27.147 (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It was removed by a fan of hers. Frankly, we have audio of her saying men can't be raped. We shouldn't really need anything else. HadashiBlacksky (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

What Koss has said or written on matters not directly concerning her own life cannot be used as a reference here by Wikipedia's rules on biographies of living people. See WP:BLPSELFPUB. We need published third-party sources for this material. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

David please explain yourself about the above reference, that article does not seem to support you at all. It is not self-serving, it does not involve claims about 3rd parties (because in the context of the rules 3rd party is meaning specific people, not a generic group of the population which all male victims would be), it does not make reference to events outside her PROFESSIONAL interest which voids the third point, there is zero doubt about the validity of what she has said since there are countless audio, video and written references backing up her statements, and the last point is irrelevant. Gloern (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Men and unwanted vaginal intercourse

Re: "She believes that men are not raped when they experience unwanted vaginal intercourse." I removed this due to WP:WEIGHT. The reasons are:

1. its prominent placement in the lead. The lead is for introducing and summarizing the subject. There is no discussion of this aspect in the article.
2. its juxtaposition to other material is awkward and gives the appearance of POV pushing.
3. its lack of citing by other reliable sources that would indicate prevalence of this aspect. Given the source by Koss herself backs up this aspect, it's not the job of us editors to decide its prevalence -- we have to prove this by coverage of this aspect by other reliable sources.

Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the article's references, then they mostly consist of two kinds: her own publications and awards. Both are biased sources. Award articles have an inherent bias as they seek to paint the recipient in the most positively light, as the goal of the article is to explain why giving a reward is warranted, resulting in excluding or POV framing of criticisms. As most of the article is based on an award article, the article is not NPOV as it is. The 1st reference (by Raphael) is really the only reference that is somewhat impartial and it is actually misrepresented in this article. Assuming that this review is correct, the book actually criticizes the "1 in 4" statistic: "In particular, Mary Koss’ work, in which 20 to 25% of women respondents said that they had experienced behaviors that met the definition of rape, has been misreported by some advocates to mean that 1 in 4 women will be raped while in college." The statistic has also been criticized simply by pointing out that Koss used a deeply controversial definition of rape, where the result was that 73% of the women that Koss considered to be raped didn't believe they were raped themselves and a high percentage of those women had intercourse with the (alleged by Koss) 'rapist' again. When Koss presents a statistic that 73% of the women she actually researched already disagree with, that is pretty much the definition of POV pushing on her part.

Historically, the "1 in 4" statistic has been used as a advocacy talking point by the feminist movement, and was never scientific consensus. After the statistic was thoroughly debunked and proven untenable, the talking point then became "1 in 5" based on research not by Koss. However, this statistic has also been criticized, by reliable sources such as TIME and the Washington Post. When WP:RS sources don't even consider the 1 in 5 statistic to be scientifically proven, it's absurd for this article to unquestionably present the "one in four" statistic.

So IMHO: right now the article is extremely POV by crediting Koss for having "included the first presentation of the "one in four" statistic that created awareness of the extent of rape among college students." While technically it is true, this is merely because information is left out: that the statistic was not scientific consensus, but was adopted by the feminist movement who stripped the statistic of all nuance and presented it as scientific fact, while it was no such thing. IMO, the current sentence is Dissimulation.

So I have to agree with you when you say that "its juxtaposition to other material is awkward and gives the appearance of POV pushing." After all, if someone doesn't realize that the article is biased, then trying to create more balance will "give[s] the appearance of POV pushing." However, this is because your frame of reference is wrong, shift it by adopting a more critical outlook of the article itself and you will see that I am trying to move it away from POV to be more NPOV.

That said, perhaps it is hopeless, because most material in this article comes from biased sources. So perhaps the article should just be cut down and just turned into a rather factual statement that she is a prominent rape researcher, without crediting her for things in a biased and agenda-pushing way.

PS. Your last point about the lack of reliable sources that indicate prevalence applies equally to this part of the article: "Koss defined the unacknowledged rape victims as women who have experienced the behaviors that define rape (oral, anal, or vaginal penetration against consent through force, bodily harm, or when incapacitated and unable to consent) but do not realize that their experience constitutes rape or chose not to view it that way.[4] This is now a well-accepted finding reaffirmed by other investigators in national surveys repeated in the early 2000s and most recently reported in 2012. Koss has served as an invited speaker and guest lecturer around the world. In 1991, she testified as an expert witness at the U.S. Senate hearings that led to the first passage of Violence Against Women Act.[citation needed]"

Reference 4 is Koss' own writing, which is exactly the same type of reference that I used, yet that sentence gets to stay and my contribution doesn't. Why? Aapjes (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the rest of the article. It's about what was added. I removed it for the reasons I gave which are based on guidelines. If there are problems with the rest of the article, feel free to make improvements in good faith. I'm not the keeper of this article and I don't have the time right now to address all the article's issues. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Koss defined the unacknowledged rape victims & This is now a well-accepted finding reaffirmed

This part of the article makes no sense to me:

Koss defined the unacknowledged rape victims as women who have experienced the behaviors that define rape (oral, anal, or vaginal penetration against consent through force, bodily harm, or when incapacitated and unable to consent) but do not realize that their experience constitutes rape or chose not to view it that way.[4] This is now a well-accepted finding reaffirmed by other investigators in national surveys repeated in the early 2000s and most recently reported in 2012.

The first sentence claims that Koss defined a term ('unacknowledged rape victims'), but the second sentence calls this a "finding." However, a definition is not a finding. A statistic coming from research that uses a definition is a finding, but that is not part of the first sentence. So as it is, this section doesn't make much sense and should be fixed. Either by changing the first sentence to actually have a finding or by removing something.

I also want to point out that definitions are essentially just framing and a kind of premise, thus cannot be objectively true or false. When a definition says that 'doing X against a person makes them a victim who were done wrong by,' yet some people claim 'X happened to me and I'm not a victim;' then there is no objective reason to favor that particular definition over people's opinion or vice versa. For example, one could define submissive SM practitioners as 'unacknowledged victims of violence,' yet this would not be NPOV, as it requires one to believe that consensual violence still leads to people being victims, which is hardly accepted by everyone.

To get back to rape: Koss defines rape in a relatively broad way, which is not universally shared. For example, there are a decent number of people who believe that ongoing consent is sufficient within a relationship and that engaging in sexual conduct with a sleeping partner is justified if this has been agreed on previously. Under Koss' definition, this would be called unacknowledged rape, yet there are people don't agree and if you'd ask people to give examples of rape, then I'd doubt that very many people would give an example of 'wake-up sex' in a relationship. Broadening a term in a way that many people object to is IMHO agenda pushing and should not be uncritically presented as a truth on Wikipedia. I think that if someone would add a sentence to the BDSM page claiming that the submissives are 'unacknowledged victims of violence,' it would be removed due to POV. So I would argue that this article should no present a subjective definition as a truth, which it does now. Aapjes (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151126223942/http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/j_white_revising_2007.pdf to http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/j_white_revising_2007.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section removed on faulty grounds

It really is amazing that you would remove the criticism section based on WP:DUE and WP:RS (neutrality and reliability). The sources removed include Time Magazine, Psychology Today, US governmental agencies, papers published by herself, radio recordings of her own voice and statements. Are these not reliable sources that present significant "minority" views? Are her own voice recordings and published papers not neutral enough, or not credible enough for you? It's a disgrace.

In the few cases her name isn't explicitly, it's referenced to by citation, which for all intents and purposes amounts to the same thing, there is no credible criticism to be had on that point. Kudos to whoever managed to have the article pulled from Psychology Today at the same time as the section was rolled back btw, it must have taken some major string-pulling, and interestingly enough the link is blocked on the internet archive.

To the wikipedia-editors I can only ask - have you no shame? This is a monster who has ensured that males are not only not considered rape victims in statistics and in the law, but also proceeds to make public statements that effectively dehumanise males, which the voice recordings from the radio and her own papers show. That her personal opinion about males being inferior should be allowed to be passed into law as well as shape statistics is nothing short of a travesty of justice, but that the moderators here would act on her behalf makes you nothing short of complicit, which can only lead one to wonder whose pockets you are in. You are certainly not neutral by any means.

There is credible, verifiable, neutral and mainstream criticism on several points, and your removal is a political statement, pretend nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:801:291:AF4B:510:8402:F9F3:A7A5 (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Your comments make it clear that you have an axe to grind here, wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. My main concern with the content is the sourcing - Koss is a prominent academic, if there is to be a "criticism" section (those are generally frowned upon btw, see WP:CRITS) it should be based on sources that are reliable and have considerable weight, and should be specific about who criticizes Koss, for what, etc. You're using Koss's own work (she doesn't criticize herself, does she?), a soundcloud link to an interview on a student-run (college) radio station (again, as a source for her own words, which isn't actually "criticism" of her), and an article that cites Koss but does not even mention her by name in the article text. If there's to be a "criticism" section it's going to require much stronger sourcing than this. Who, exactly, criticizes Koss, for what, and what high-quality sources can be used to actually verify that? Fyddlestix (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, per WP:ONUS "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You are not entitled to add material that (even if verifiable) violates other policies such as WP:BALASP. But given the concerns described by Fyddlestix your material is unlikely to merit inclusion in the POV form that you gave it. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Reason for removal of fact that she believes men cant be raped by women?

I recently added that Koss believed in the notion that men cant be raped by women and provided my source. Why was this removed? Disagreeable entity (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Will I also need to add a section about it in the body? I will try it. Disagreeable entity (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If you keep violating WP:BLP you will be blocked. Biographies of living people must be based on reliable published sources about them, not on your own interpretation of cherry-picked quotes from the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

These are her own quotes and its pretty clear what they mean. No misinterpretation here. Disagreeable entity (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm simply stating her views. Disagreeable entity (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Rape apology should not be tolerated.

198.48.143.42 (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. >>BEANS X2t 11:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)