Talk:Rape culture/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Stop With The Systemic Bias!

I have been highlighting the issue of Systemic Bias since January. Evidently the concept needs clarifying with some explicit examples?

I still keep wondering about

WP:ORIGINAL
?

That shifting of the Dickwolves controversy and Farcebook<sic> controversy is troublesome as are the claims made.

I'm DEEPLY troubled by the statement that "Facebook groups controversy included only the US and the UK"

Do I need to explain why it is so wrong and so troubling, or can the systemic bias just be thrown under the bus once and for all?

List of countries by English-speaking population - I hope that this source is not too original!

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed the countries from the bit about Facebook, per your comment. Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
You're beating a dead horse. Articles do not change immediately because you will them to. They change when an editor has the time and the will to. I can't speak for Kaldari, MMyers1976, or others that have made major edits recently, but I haven't had a hell of a lot of time since January, nor have I often been in a headspace where I can talk about rape even in a detached academic manner. It's rude and alienating to accuse systemic bias when it's not the only reason for the article not being to your personal satisfaction. Blanket-naming everything as systemic bias dilutes its meaning past any usefulness.
I warn about original research because
WP:V
is one of the pillars of this project. Unless there is a verifiable source calling something rape culture, then we cannot call it rape culture.
The news article about the Facebook controversy states and I quote "Women's rights activists in Britain and the US have accused Facebook of promoting rape and 'rape culture' after the social networking site refused to take down pages on which users made jokes and apparent confessions about sexual assault." and later "...have been signed by more than 3,600 people in the UK and 175,000 people on the US website Change.org." Nowhere in that article - or others - does it mention any other countries. If it did, they would have been added to the article.
I moved the dickwolves and Facebook controversies to the lead of that section because they were extranational examples that generated controversy specifically involving claims of "rape culture". Hence, I felt they made a decent lede to that section. If you want to put them in a section titled "Extranational" or something similar, be my guest. All examples in that section are now alphabetized by country and sorted by date. What about that is so troubling? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry. Have new policy. Ask short questions. Respond to on point answers -issues! Ref to
WP:V very odd - keeps changing! Or do it? Use Ctrl+"S" "Advocacy Editing". Sleep now = me + dead horse. Cozy? TTFN. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk
) 22:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Extranational, transnational, international - whichever is correct. I'm precise with language but my knowledge of Greek and Latin roots is sadly lacking. Sleep well. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
ZZZZZZZ ........ ZZZZZZZZ........ZZZZZZZ .... Move over dobin! Nightmares - editing in sleep!
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

References to "War Culture" and South Africa

The references added to The South Africa entry - Vogelman, L.. "Sexual Face of Violence: Rapists on Rape (abstract)" - is used to introduce the term "War Culture" which is not defined within Wikipedia.

The introduction of the term "War Culture" seems to imply that a culture/country can be labelled as such and yet not be at war with another culture/country. It is a social state that is internal and not made externally manifest.

The reference cited states "This war culture involves a set of meanings and practices that accept violence as a legitimate solution to conflict.".

If that is to be taken as valid and linked to Rape Culture, then there will need to be a full revision that also addresses multiple sources ( already provided under "1. Neutrality(2)" and "8. Concept Vs Term - Essentially contested concept.") which also make multiple cultures/countries "Rape Cultures" by default.

They will all need to be cited under "Prominent incidents and allegations of rape culture", else a specific category introduced that cites nations separately from incidents.

I do fear that the failure to address the need for Disambiguation and Systemic Bias is simply allowing fundamental issues to be ignored. Media-hound- thethird (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ref "rape culture" Vs "culture of sexual violence" - Guardian Newspaper Wednesday 17 June 2009 - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/17/south-africa-rape-survey

It is interesting that citations concerning South Africa require the term "Rape Culture" to be used, and yet at the same time other Journalists/Reputable Publications will not use the term and use synonym and related language to communicate the same issues and concept. Will there be any attempt to address the issues of Synonym and Culturally Appropriate language so that the Concept is Addressed Equally with the use of the Term "Rape Culture"?

For ref - report "Struggling to Survive: -Sexual Exploitation of Displaced Women and Girls in Port au Prince, Haiti", www.chrgj.org/projects/docs/StrugglingtoSurvive.pdf - a most reputable report supported by most reputable sources - and which addresses the "Culture Of Sexual Violence" reported. There is also the related issue of how social changes such as natural disaster & warfare and known and recognised as allowing a growth of sexual violence and so turning a culture or social group into a "Rape Culture".Media-hound- thethird (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Media-hound, I'm unsure what you're trying to do here. Lately, you've been posting a lot of links (along with your personal commentary) about different events and articles and what you believe rape culture to be. If you want to improve the article, then you are welcome to write and cite encyclopediac content about rape culture into the article. But the article has to be academic in nature, which means neutral language and a semiformal to formal style. If you want to write about your ideas and your interpretation of rape culture, then there are places to do so that offer a wider audience than here, and will get you a better response. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear
Systemic Bias that is inherent, and made manifest so readily, need to be addressed, so that the concept is clear - and the linguistically biased term also given equality - and even it's own wiki page?Media-hound- thethird (talk
) 18:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Improved sources for South Africa - it was being called Rape Culture 16 years ago.

In 1996 Taboho Meitse (Presently a commissioner of the South African Commission for gender Equality[1] appointed 30 Nov 2011[2]) was researching the post Apartheid change.[1] Women identified how under Apartheid they had no protection from male violence, white or coloured. Apartheid suppressed the none white majority, and oppressed women the most. Meitse concluded that there was a confusion of how the roles of women had changed under the new constitution. Meiste observed the ongoing clashes of traditional culture with the new constitutional order. Both men and women wished to preserve traditional cultural and tribal identity but this also promoted gender conflict. The new South African Constitution fundamentally changed the rights of women, but they lacked knowledge and support in exercising those rights. Lobolo - a traditional dowry system both emphasised women as possessions and also made them unable to speak out about treatment. Meitse found that Apartheid, nationalism and the liberation struggle had played a clear part in how women were perceived and also perceived themselves. In 1998[2] Meitse concluded:

"In answer to the question why men are violent toward women in South Africa, two primary inter-connected theories emerge. The first is that of sexist ideology and the male preoccupation with all the qualities assigned to the male sex role. The second draws a shocking picture of South African society as a “rape culture”, in which violence against women is tacitly accepted."[3][4]



She also provides sources and links back to Steve Biko - 1970's. The issue of rape culture goes back that far - and was a known issue in the 1970's but not under the banner of rape culture. Steve Biko was writing in parallel on the issues before 74/5. I'm preparing a wider entry covering significant time points from the 1970's. Will South Africa need a separate page along with India?

  1. ^ Campbell, Catherine (1992), "Learning to kill? Masculinity, the family and violence in Natal", Journal of Southern African Studies, 18 (3), retrieved 2012-05-25
  2. ISSN 1355-2074
    .
  3. ISBN 978-0-85598-401-4
    . Retrieved 25 May 2012.
  4. ISBN 978-0-7969-2053-9
    . Retrieved 25 May 2012.

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

South Africa Updated

I have expanded the entry for South Africa with the Meitse references 1996/8 which conclude South Africa has a rape culture . Relevant historical, social and referenced sources included.

As the ref to rape culture = war culture is no longer relevant or needed - it's gone.

I still believe that the heading "Prominent incidents and allegations of rape culture" is invalid and does not correctly address the subject or issues.

I remain of the opinion that the whole page needs a detailed rewriting to address all aspects of the subject on a global basis.

Copy edit at will. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Archiving With Mizbot - issues still not addressed

I see that an archiving system has been set up with Mizbot. and that it is set to archive discussion which are 180 days old.

Could it be clarified - is that 180 days from today - 03 June 2012 - or from the date the discussion started or was last added to?

Given that discussion started 6 months ago has not been answered fully - addressed - or resolved it is of concern that an archiving regime has been set up which could well mislead editors as to the long standing concerns as to Bias, Anglophone/US/UK bias, lack of global perspective and ongoing systemic bias.

The Neutrality Issues under "Neutrality 2" have not been resolved.

I do remain of the clear opinion that the page requires a full rewrite to address the subject in a Full NPOV manner - and it is of concern that since that was raised on 08 January 2012 so little action and discussion to address the concerns has taken place.

I wonder what has been the point of providing so many sources to illuminate the points?

I have continued to research sources and make minor and corrective edits until in a position to add substantially to the subject and correct the areas of concern. Then, a bot is set up to archive the points and concerns raised.

It is of concern that in tracing the orogin of Rape Culture, it has been traced to the 1975 film - and yet "No" earlier valid source has been located.

It is noted that the source cited as "[1] - Google Books link - may have the two words "Rape" and "Culture" side by side on page 105, but the document does not address rape culture anywhere else. It does not even provide perspective as to why the modified noun is used. The use if the definite article "The" also indiactes limited and specific usage relevant to the text.

This point has been raised and not answered. It is not clear if the reference has

WP:UNDUE
- and it is noted that even when raised and questioned it has not been addressed.

It seems that either there still needs to be relevant and fully independent oversight of the page and issues raised. I do fear, as I have said that some have been "Advocacy Editing" and the page has been used to push agendas rather than knowledge.

Given that I have been asking for so long as to how the concept should be used to judge content - been told that content should use the term "rape culture" - sources on a global scale have been located to meet those criteria, and still discussion as to how they should be best integrated is lacking - it would appear that such Global Perspective is unwelcome on the page. The relevant source material is relatively easy to locate, so I do have most serious concerns that it has been lacking for so long. When highlighted it is ignored. a few examples:

It has even been intimated that none Anglophone/US/Eurocentric matters should be addressed on their own pages.

It does appear that there has been an ongoing issue of "Ownership" and "Agenda".

One wonders when some will focus upon the subject and consider how best to address it's place within Wikipedia as a global resource?

What is a reasonable time period for raising the same issue of Systemic Bias before it gets addressed?

Hmmmmmm - Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"Could it be clarified - is that 180 days from today - 03 June 2012 - or from the date the discussion started or was last added to?"
The last — the bot archives sections with no comments more recent than the specified age. It seems to me that a section with no discussion in the last six months — resolved or not — is very dead, and should be archived; it's still available for reference if the topic comes up again.
—WWoods (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


References

  1. ISBN 9780452250864
    . Retrieved 14 May 2012.

Simple Question?

"...and is often used by feminists to describe contemporary American culture as a whole."[12]"

Does that claim apply to feminists in say the UK, Ireland, France, Iraq, India, Russia.... in fact most countries that are not the USA?

It may be true of "some" American feminists ... but does it even apply to American Feminists as a Mass Noun Phrase? - It smacks of the Monolithic!

It's a tricky one?

Wikipedia:Avoid blanket statements
.

See what I mean about Systemic Bias?

blanket statement + blanket statements - another pair of delicious red links that I have to add to the WIP
. P^)

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference to Brownmiller and "rape supportive culture" is a Non sequitur

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

1) Given that The Film "Rape Culture" was being written about in January 1975 - Ref Norsigian, Judy (20 January 1975). "Women, Health, and Films". Women & Health 1 (1): 29–30. DOI:10.1300/J013v01n01_07. That Hyperlink is to the Actual Text Written by Norsigian (Page 30) about the film and not just the citation page - Citation page (Page 29) minus section on film Rape Culture is on this link here ... thereby allowing full article to be read and verified.

2) ...and with the Film having been filmed in 1974 - or at least between 01 Jan 75 and 20 Jan 75 (Unless Lazarus is a Time Lord plus Tardis, in which case it will be filmed next week with a suitable retro style...sort of Starsky and Hutch. ) .... and the Norsigian source dated 20 Jan 75 discussing people having viewed the film and their reactions to it, indicating public viewing and writing prior to 20 Jan 1975,

3) the fact that a 1992 paper refers ***speculatively*** to a 1975 book, and the book being ***speculated*** about does not use the "Term" rape culture makes it's inclusion irrelevant to the page and subject under Origins!

4)It would be relevant if it stated Brownmiller used the term in the published 1975 book - but it appears she does not - she does use the term "rape-supportive culture". She does apparently use rape culture it in 2005 in a book titled "Transforming a Rape Culture" - but that's just about 30 years too late to count under Origins!

The reference has no place. P^OOOOOOO

Hence Non sequitur. It smacks of Conflation and even Reification.

I do realise that there is a great resistance to the very idea that the first verified use of "rape culture" and defining the concept articulated is a Film, filmed in 1974 and released January 1975, featuring men talking about rape .... but if them is the facts, and even reality - well it may just have to be dealt with under

WP:V and WO:NO and even Reality
. P^)

....I would just edit it out, but it does need to be made clear and even discussed - just to make sure I have not gotten the wrong end of the Wiki Stick.

The Brownmiller reference may have relevance under Feminist Theory - but not the speculation that "rape-supportive culture" came before "rape culture" and is where it originated from - when the film pre-dates the book.

Brownmiller may, by her own admission, have started writing the book in 1971, but it's hard to see how it could have influenced Lazarus etal coming up with rape culture by reading the book and being influenced by it if the book postdates the film! ... unless Lazarus or even Brownmiller =

Tardis
. P^)

If I can trace

WP:V
sources that either Lazarus or Brownmiller have been caught travelling in time and messing up reality, I will cite them with no hesitation!

I will also alert the [[Shadow Proclamation]] and request that both be detained indefinitely in Area 51 Or Area 52 so that Wiki Land is protected from their Japes and High-Jinks! P^)


Oh - and this counts as

WP:V
and so has not place.

The concept originated in the mid 1970s. Several different theories exist as to its origin, and it is possible that it emerged separately but simultaneously. The exact date and context of the first use of the term 'rape culture' are uncertain.

Who's theories?

It links to Multiple discovery as justification.

If there is a

WP:V source saying Multiple discovery
it may be valid - else it's just [WP:OR]] and has not place.

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That's kind of a rambling word-salad, with a lot of unrelated pop-culture references. It's very difficult to determine what you're trying to say and even harder to take you seriously when you write like that.
You don't have to write with colorful, exaggerated prose. You're not in a chat room. If there's a problem with the article, why not simply say so clearly?
In any case, I've removed your inclusion of a screenshot from an unrelated television program, as there is clearly no fair-use justification for this talk page. APL (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
WP:V.

It would seem that when I do as advised and ignore silence on matters and edit under the Wiki Policies - Guidance I get told I'm pushing a "pet theory"! Any advice on the issues rather than ongoing critiques of writing style?
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk
) 02:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no agenda on this issue, and I have only little knowledge on the topic. I've simply had this article on my watchlist since the RFC. Since then, most of the "action" here has been you posting long, rambling screeds that I have trouble even understanding.
I probably wouldn't have said anything, except that since I was going to edit to remove the copyrighted image you added, I figured I might as well say something. If English isn't your native language, then I apologize, but you really do need to work on your coherency. APL (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
{{Citation needed}} applied to offending claims. I aint interested in an edit war - just making sure that what is presented in accurate - valid and
WP:CHALLENGED.

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source.


This use of silence has been ongoing for 6 months - so it's either dialogue and consensus or what? Over to you - I'm just wanting to find a way out of the Twilight Zone! Again - it would appear that the whole page needs rewriting to address Systemic Bias and so many other issues. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk
) 01:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Calims of Multiple Theories without citation,
WP:V
?

RfC closed. See below. —
(❝?!❞)
17:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The statement under "
WP:V
.
  • Is it acceptable for an editor to surmise or infer multiple theories exist, or do such claims require
    WP:V
    ?
  • Should this be treated as
    WP:OR
    ?

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Working on fixing this; I can rewrite the thing so that every claim is cited. Gimme a few hours. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

1975

 Done Everything should be cited now. I added material to the sections on 1974 and 1975 books, and did some copyedits on your section about the 1975 film. The one thing I'm not happy with is the incomplete citation on the "Until the 1970s..." quote. I don't have access to the full version of the article it's quoted in - just the abstract - so I don't have a full citation for it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


You are clearly unwilling to listen to anything I say. I am listing this dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where it will get proper attention from otherwise uninvolved editors. I will also notify you with a talk page notice per policy. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Media-hound,

  • Your continual accusations that Pi has an ulterior motive and is pushing a POV are uncivil.
  • It is appropriate to cite sources like the 1992 Donat and D'Emilio paper. Sources like this tell us what experts think of the origins of the term. To not cite this paper, because you, personally, have determined that the paper's conclusion is wrong is WP:OR. That's pretty much the definition of WP:OR. If you think this paper's conclusion is a "Non sequitur" then you should find a WP:RS that says so.
  • It satisfies WP:V to describe the contents of the 1992 Donat and D'Emilio paper. If you were to "Do the homework" and research the term's history yourself, you would be engaging in, of course, original research. Wikipedia editors must not do that kind of "homework".
  • The discussion about academic opinions on the origins of the term is valuable to the article, even if you disagree with those academic opinions. To call this "padding" is unhelpful, and not neutral.
  • I don't see any evidence of WP:OWN problems. Pi is simply trying to defend the article against an editor (you) who is trying to remove relevant, sourced information. That is the correct and proper thing for Pi to do.
  • WP:SILENCE doesn't really apply if we cannot understand what you're trying to say, or if you post so much material that we can't easily read it all.

I think that covers it. (This worked out well. I watch-listed this page last time it was RFCed, and now I finally understand what's going on here well enough to comment.) APL (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

APL - Your comments do not address the concerns that there seems to be some Artful dodging of editing around issues.

What's next? An Rfc on
WP:NOTE and where necessary agreed upon through dialogue and consensus.

It's so hard to progress when the issues are just not addressed and danced about with editing that does not address them - and keeps punctuating in such interesting ways with Syntactical-deductive that has to be addressed.

Again It must be by Newbieish head not getting to understand what Wiki Land is all about and I still have it all Front To Back - or is that Down Side Up?

I have to go referencing! And later I'm going out dancing for real : !

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk
) 19:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC - Multiple Factors

RfC closed. See below. —
(❝?!❞)
17:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This Rfc has four issues which are set out under individual headings below to allow response.

  • 1 - Synonymic usage - rape culture - culture of rape, equal or not?
  • 2 - Quotes and usage - quote about American Culture - global perspective?
  • 3 - Reference containing the phrase "rape culture"
  • 4 - Reference to origins that post dates verified sources.

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Point 1 - Synonymic usage - "rape culture" - "culture of rape", equal or not?

There has been ongoing focus using the term "rape culture" to verify sources. This appears to have been at the expense of the concept and it's global application.

For example "culture of rape" is the diplomatic form used when referring to cultures and nations. There are also cultural issues and religious issues where the concept is related to terms "culture of (dis)honour", "culture of shame" etc.. Example - NY Times - July 10, 2005[3].

Direct translation from many languages renders "culture of rape" - French has two translations "culture du viol" -"culture of rape" and "la banalisation du viol" - "trivialisation of rape". This is of note, as French is lingua franca for The United Nations, NGOs etc..

French even has a third slang form (culturally specific) which is rendered as "rape in the suburbs".

Translation from oriental languages often renders "culture of chastity".

Should this article address such synonymic usage - should evaluation of content/source be by the use of the phrase "rape culture", or judged against the concept where synonyms appear?

It is recognised that this may lead to dispute over sources, but it should also promote a global perspective with sources assessed with care and candour to avoid concerns as to

WP:IAR
may apply.

Comments:

WEIGHT and TOPIC should follow the contents of field reviews and survey articles published by scholars. Where there is scholarly debate, they should follow the preponderance of scholarly opinions, with links to articles discussing minority scholarly views. FRINGE views should not be discussed. I am not seeing any discussion of a sourcing basis originating in field reviews and survey articles by scholars in the above. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Point 2 - Quotes and usage - quote about American Culture - global perspective?

The quotation ""The term 'rape culture' originated in the 1970s during the 2nd wave feminist movement and is often used by feminists to describe contemporary American culture as a whole." - It is valid, correctly sourced and cited. It comes from the "Encyclopedia of Rape" (2004) page 174 [4].[1]

However, it is believed to be misleading for the following reasons. First it places emphasis upon American Culture which is not the only venue for rape culture to be manifest on a global basis. Second, it implies that all feminist agree, but 1) not all American Feminists agree, 2) not all feminists are American, 3) not all feminists in the world are aware of contemporary American culture.

Multiple sources exist that state that either a country is a rape culture or has a highly manifested rape culture - India - South Africa are examples cited in the lead.

This point does have relevance under the Global View and also in addressing Systemic Bias.

Should the quote be used as is, or would it be better for it to be paraphrased and national connections or implications to be avoided?

  1. ISBN 0-313-32687-8
    .

Comments:

If the term originated in the 1970s during second wave feminism, as attested to by scholarly sources, then stating that this is the origin of the term is not UNDUE. If scholarly or (in this case) professional / NGO debate exists, then report the debate from reliable sources. If a term is used by feminists to describe American culture as a whole, this doesn't preclude feminists from using the term to describe Indian culture as a whole. Your suggestion regarding systemic bias here indicates you haven't assimilated wikipedia's relevant policy. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Point 3 - Reference containing the phrase "rape culture"

The reference to "Rape - The First Sourcebook for Women", edited by Noreen Connell and Cassandra Wilson.[1]

There is no doubt that the phrase rape culture is in the book and this can be verified at google books. [5] Snippet view.

Its usage occurs only once in the book, and this can be checked by using the search facility on the google books page. However, this lone occurrence of the phrase appears to not be significant or

WP:NOTE
.

It has been ascertained that the phrase relates to analysis of the book Payton Place and the character Nellie Cross. It does not appear to address the subject of rape culture or it's origins. Contemporary book reviews [6] [2]do not mention rape culture as a subject within the book.

It is believed that there is simply a confluence of the two words modified by the definite article "the", and it does not address origins of the actual subject. It has not been possible to gain full access to an original copy of this book to study content and usage in detail.

Comments on this matter are invited as to

WP:WEIGHT
and it's presence under Origins and usage.

  1. ISBN 9780452250864
    . Retrieved 14 May 2012.
  2. ^ Klein, Freada (1974). "Book Review: Rape: The First Sourcebook for Women (New York Radical Feminists)". Feminist Alliance Against Rape Newsletter. Retrieved 2012-06-19. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Comments:

If you haven't read the work in full (or in a multiple chapter monograph, the scholarly introduction and the relevant chapter) do not cite the work. Inferences cannot be drawn from Google books "snippet" searches, as google books searches do not return the full text. Only reading the full text can allow editors to draw reasonable encyclopaedic inferences. Attempts to establish "first useage" by deep text searching amount to original research. In this, as in every other thing, follow the contents of scholarly works that outline when the term emerged, do not conduct your own research but follow the results of scholar's research. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your considered response. I hold exactly the same view. I have asked the editor who insists on this content if it has been read and consulted. They have not answered the question. When I have edited they then return it. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Point 4 - Reference to origins that post dates verified sources.

There is referencing upon a 1992 paper[1] which is used to "suggest" that rape culture arose from the term "Rape supportive culture" used in Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book "Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape." The book does not contain the phrase "rape culture".

This is highly problematic.

First the use of "suggests" is an expression of doubt. Second the book was published after a known source which uses "Rape Culture" as it's title - Rape Culture (film) 1975. The film addresses the subject in detail. There are verified sources:

  • Contemporary report 20 January 1975[2] of screening and content[7]
  • Opinion as to origins,[3][4] Producer Margaret Lazarus[8]
  • Blackwell's Encyclopedia Of Sociology[5][9]).

No earlier

WP:V
source that place, in time, the use of the term rape culture, addressing the concept, have been located.

It appears questionable to use claims about this book as linking to origin when:

  • the book does not use the term rape culture,
  • the book was published after the film
  • the 1992 paper only "suggests" Brownmiller's book as an orogin
  • the paper uses the term "Rape Supporting Culture" as it's premise.

The referencing upon the 1992 paper appears to confuse the issue of orogin and make a non sequitur.

Does including this correctly referenced and cited source make sense under the heading of Origin and Usage?

  1. ISBN 978-0-8153-2519-2
    .
  2. doi:10.1300/J013v01n01_07
    . Retrieved 11 May 2012.
  3. ^ Lazarus, Margaret. "Rape Culture". Women's Studies Online Resources. Retrieved 7 May 2012.
  4. ^ "Rape Culture". Cambridge Documentary Films. Retrieved 7 May 2012.
  5. ISSN 9781405124331. {{cite journal}}: Check |issn= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )


Comments:

Overall comments on this RFC

This RFC seems to be based on

WP:SYNTH. Media-Hound you need to take a step back, become more familiar with all Wikipedia policies, not just the parts of them that appeal to you and please stop the wall of words. You will make more impact if you keep your talk page posts clear and concise. - Nick Thorne talk
23:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Reply below copied from my talk page (Nick Thorne talk 07:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)):
Thanks for your feedback on the Rfc. Sorry if I am confused still - could you give an example of where
WP:V which make explicit claims or make specific points. I have been over the policies repeatedly. Guidance may be of use. If you have time to provide and example of how to rewrite one section of the Rfc in an acceptable format It may be of help. I am presently working on content which addresses Rape Culture in India Sandbox oversight and advice would be appreciated. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk
) 00:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Please read Johnuniq's post below, it contains some excellent advice. If you find it impossible to work in such a manner then you might be well advised to just
drop the stick, otherwise you risk the ire of some passing admin who may well block you for disruption. - Nick Thorne talk
22:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Closure of RfCs

I am making an administrative decision to close the two RfCs, above, started by Media-hound- thethird. The vast walls of text make it extremely hard for other editors to participate. If there are issues with this article, they should be raised here in discrete and succinct sections. I have likewise closed and collapsed the section immediately above the two RfCs.

Media-hound -thethird, if you post further walls of text I will consider it to be deliberate disruption and editing sanctions may result. —

(❝?!❞)
17:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry
Five Pillar Compliant. Thank you for your feed back and the learning experience that it has been part of -- TTFN -- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk
) 18:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Media-hound- thethird has been blocked from editing for three months. —
(❝?!❞)
09:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have been wondering about the validity of "Within feminism"? It raises the very large issue of the concept of "rape culture" without or outwith feminism, which either requires detailed explanation or even full disambiguation. There are issues of basic logic which arise form the language used, but why would that matter?
The claim "within feminism" had been noted as requiring citation to justify it - and it's usage - but it seems someone has removed it. I'll return it and wait for response. But then again - rather on point questions as to content and focus asked over a year ago still await response! P^) Archiving may hide them from immediate view but it does not make them vanish!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-hound- thethird (talk • contribs) 18:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it's been amply proven that attempting to communicate with you is a waste of time. But for what it's worth, I don't understand your objection. Feminism is a field of thought and study, and this is article is about an academic term used in that context to describe society.
If this article were Multiplication would you put [citation needed] tags on the phrase "Within mathematics"?
I suppose you will now reply accusing me of being part of some conspiracy to intentionally introduce bias into the project, so let me skip a step, and say that rather than tagging as [citation needed] and challenging people to remove it, could you just tell us an alternative way you want that line phrased? APL (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear APL, You are so predictable. For the record - why are you yet again making comment about me and not addressing the question posed "Has there ever been a survey to determine what percentage of individuals excuse, tolerate or condone rape?" - your avoidant behaviour and tactics are showing yet again!What does this communicate?

Rape Culture : Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology
Rape culture is a concept of unknown origin and of uncertain definition; yet it has made its way into everyday vocabulary and is assumed to be commonly understood. The award-winning documentary film Rape Culture made by Margaret Lazarus in 1975 takes credit for first defining the concept." - DOI: 10.1111/b.9781405124331.2007.x

Now exactly what can be proved - your views as to other people's supposed inability to communicate - or that some are so heavily defended and so disinterested in Wiki Land Five pillars that they hate references that don't agree with personal dogma?
  1. Why do you defend the unsupported - unreferenced and synthesised views being expressed in Article Space?
  2. Why are you supporting views and ideas by certain editors that anything but this referenced expert and academic claim claim should be used?
  3. Why do you keep defending irrational language and content by attacking other editors and portraying them in a negative light? (.. and just how does that agree with the issue of assuming good faith and even civility? -- That's for Bonus Points P^))))
Keeping it brief - I Know just how much you like to call questions and points made "WALL OF TEXT" so you can dismiss everything and carry on with the
WP:OWN views that you keep manifesting so publicly! Now I'm, Busy and have to go referencing ... and I've even been given a new Barn Star ... 387 References down and estimated 1200 to go! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk
) 13:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok then.
I won't answer your nonsensical accusations. If you insist that I have acted improperly, feel free to seek help from an administrator's noticeboard or something similar.
But I'll explain why I reverted that edit : It seemed like an innocuous, inoffensive phrase that helpfully indicated the field of study where the phrase is used. It gave context to the lede. Maybe "in sociology" would also be acceptable, but I'm uncertain. So I put it back the way it was.
No big deal. APL (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear APL - Evidently you wish to yet again shift focus - so please do return to the issues and answer direct questions - It is known that you have a well developed habit of avoiding answering direct questions and replacing them with even Ad Hminum attacks upon those who ask the Direct Questions - so some Direct Questions for "You" to Answer yet again :

  1. Has there ever been a survey to determine what percentage of individuals excuse, tolerate or condone rape?
  2. Why do you keep contesting the request by other editors for Citation to a claim?
  3. Why do you keep ignoring
    Wikipedia:CHALLENGE#Burden_of_evidence
    and attempting to avoid explaining your edits by shifting the burden to those who question your activity and conduct?

For clarity: "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." which also links to "Once sources that an editor believes in good faith to be sufficient have been provided, any editor who then removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia. All editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any potential problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back." (

Source
)

Can you explain why when editors in Good Faith request citations to support unverified and unsupported claism, You object to these requests and remove them?

Why do you persist in

WP:OWN
and fail to follow basic Wiki etiquette and requirments.. always attempting to shift the burden of proof onto others?

Why do you persist in your attempts and most unwiki behaviour of attempting to shift all focus away from where it should be - that is Article Content that meets Wiki Standards? --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing against RFC Consensus?

Isn't this edit, about the exact same issue that the RFC was about?

If so, this edit should be reverted. (Unless a new consensus is formed on the talk page, of course.) APL (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear APL - Again you are so predictable. It is of interest that you have not reverted the actual edit in Article space, but sought to use different means to yet again insist that Expert Opinion has not place in this article. It is clear that you do not doubt the validity of the opinions of Prof Joyce E Williams and the content of
Woozle Effect, where personal psychology and confirmation bias lead individuals to assume they know reality simply because repeated factoids are preferred over actual reality and verified sources. Can you show us all the Wiki Position on Consensus around factoids over Verified Expert Opinion? "Reaching consensus in a group often is confused with finding the right answer." —Maier, Norman R. F. (1967). doi:10.1037/h0024737. Again for clarity, and to keep all relevant content under one heading:

Rape Culture : Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (2007)

Rape culture is a concept of unknown origin and of uncertain definition; yet it has made its way into everyday vocabulary and is assumed to be commonly understood. The award-winning documentary film Rape Culture made by Margaret Lazarus in 1975 takes credit for first defining the concept." - doi: 10.1111/b.9781405124331.2007.x

Can you show me and any other editors where there has been any actual discussion of the Expert Opinions of Prof Joyce E Williams (Texas Woman's University) as published in the standard expert reference "Blackwell Encyclopaedia Of Sociology 2007? Again that is a direct question requiring a direct answer and for you to provide the evidence of actual discussion. Please do show the Diffs so that everyone has a clear view of reality and not just the Snippet Views you have such a long term history of misrepresenting.

To assist you and any others, here is a full View of Prof Joyce E Williams publishing, cited works and even academic standing as revealed by Google Scholar] - are you of the view that Prof Joyce E Williams' expert opinion is not Notable and that it has no significance? Can you show editors where other academics or persons of note have shown or expressed the view that Prof Joyce E Williams' views or expertise are in doubt, false, misrepresent academic and expert consensus?

I have had to make the point previously that it is up to an editor to prove their position within Wikipedia, not abuse the operation of Wikipedia by shifting that responsibility or obligation onto other editors. Why do you persist in such unwiki ways? It really is time for you to stop such conduct. - Cheers --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk
) 13:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I hope someone intervenes here because you are being tediously hostile, not assuming good faith (accusing APL of
WP:OWN), and there is now another wall of text to plod though because you need to prove an irrelevant point to absolutely nobody of importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.95.193 (talk
) 16:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Dear Anonymous Editor at 98.232.95.193 Do you have any on point comment about the works of Prof Joyce E Williams (Texas Woman's University) as published in the standard expert reference "Blackwell Encyclopaedia Of Sociology 2007? Maybe if you and fellow editors actually addressed the issues in Article Space there may be progress? I also note that you have not reverted the inclusion of the source, so I wonder at the recurrent level of comment about me and not about the actual Article Space Content? Many will no doubt find it profitable if you focus upon the actual core of Wikipedia and not other none wiki issues .... even people you describe as "absolutely nobody of importance" - I do hope that you are not extending such disparagement to the millions of Wiki using Public who rely upon quality editing, not other activities. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about how to best add with a cite.

I'm sorry if this is not the correct place to ask this question. I would like to add a bit to the Feminist Theory section, adding Schlafly's observation that a married woman cannot be raped by her husband (http://www.sunjournal.com/node/682725), but I am not sure how. Can someone please assist me?108.15.50.162 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A simple and quite adequate procedure is to add the information and put details of the reference in brackets. Someone will notice and format the reference correctly (if the material seems helpful and complies with
WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk
) 22:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
For the technical end, just use the {{cite news}} template. (Similar templates are available for books, journals, and general web articles.) For this specifca article, you can just copy-paste the following code at the end of the sentence/paragraph you add: {{cite news |url=http://www.sunjournal.com/node/682725 |title=Schlafly cranks up agitation at Bates |author=Leonard, J.T. |newspaper=Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal |date=29 March 2007 |accessdate=10 November 2012}}
As for the writing end: marital rape already has a well-written article, so you'll need to show why this is specifically rape culture. Per past controversy on this page, I recommend being able to cite someone with reasonable authority (i.e, an academic, a well-known feminist, etc) who has liked marital rape to rape culture. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone for their assistance. I thought it would be relevant to "For instance, sexist jokes may be told to foster disrespect for women and an accompanying disregard for their well-being. An example would be a female rape victim being blamed for her being raped because of how she dressed or acted. In rape culture, sexualized violence towards women is regarded as a continuum in a society that regards women's bodies as sexually available by default" Especially the last bit about being available by default. No? Making allowances for wives to be raped not part of rape culture?108.15.50.162 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Has there ever been a survey to determine what percentage of individuals excuse, tolerate or condone rape?

Quoting; Within feminism, rape culture is a concept used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape.

Does the framing of "'Within feminism'" excuse the lack of evidence presented that the prevalent attitudes concerning rape are "normalize[d], excuse[d], tolerate[d], or condone[d]"?

What is the purpose of "Within feminism"?

'Prevalent' is easily supported by anonymous surveys yet there are none linked. Shouldn't this be noted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapidave (talk • contribs) 08:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment: Rape culture and incidents by nation

I would like to file an official Request for comment on this section. There is a great deal of material that has primarily been edited by

WP:POVSPLIT. It seems to me that an article on rape culture should focus on general discussions on the subject, rather than become a list of specific countries and instances cherry-picked to advance a POV. Handyunits (talk
) 06:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who originally started the country sections; when I was first expanding the article in March 2011, I added a section titled "Prominent Incidents" for lack of a better description. Most if not all of the US/UK stuff is mine (as is a bit of South Africa); the country-stratifying and the India sections were by Media-hound. If it belongs better as part of Rape in the United States etc then so be it; I originally chose to include the incidents here because they'd been specifically labeled as rape culture, quote unquote, by others. The blocked user brought up examples of what may have been labeled as rape culture in a number of countries which may yet be useful; one possibility for the article would be to have blurbs about each relevant country then {{main article}} links to Rape in $COUNTRY. That would keep the relevant material in its proper place (a neutral context), while providing reasonable connections from this article for specific declarations of rape culture.
As for the intro: the cited source was brought in by the user specifically for POV pushing, and I'm fairly certain it's being used out of context. Definitely deserves a second look before keeping it in the article. I'm particularly very wary of their contributions to the introduction and feminist theory sections as they showed a definite POV-pushing tendency that in some cases went against non-negotiable evidence like publication dates. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems like a small number of examples makes sense, but a country-by-country list would be tedious and never complete anyway. The country doesn't matter, so long as sources clearly identify it as an example of the phenomena of rape culture.
Simply describing the situation in India, without bringing it back to academic descriptions of "Rape Culture" is just soapboxing OR.
Perhaps that's unfair. Perhaps there are no such sources, and perhaps more should be written about India's rape-culture, but it's not WP's duty to lead that charge, or to right the world's wrongs. APL (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
"It seems like a small number of examples makes sense, but a country-by-country list would be tedious and never complete anyway. The country doesn't matter, so long as sources clearly identify it as an example of the phenomena of rape culture." - I strongly concur. I also wonder why this reiteration of the caste related and tribal rape cases??? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The idea of rape culture is a claim, a hotly contested one, that certain cultures are particularly conducive to sexual violence. The article should focus on the claim and the way in which it has been theoretically supported and criticized. It should not end up being a "list of cultures that have been described as rape cultures", because that would be ascribing the theory a validity that as far as can tell there is no agreement that it has.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
In light of these sources, it is surprising that the article not only devotes largest amount of space to rape incidents in three countries, the section on India is actually larger than the
«৳alk»
19:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The article should scholastically/academically treat the hotly contested theory of Rape Culture, its origin and criticisms of the term rather than listing scattered incidents of rapes in specific countries and passing mention of the phrase based on unreliable personal preconceptions. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of content

Note : User Darkness Shines has reinstated all of the blocked user's material in this edit. This strikes me as very improper since it was clear that there was not a consensus for this material, and there was an ongoing RFC debating its inclusion! APL (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, among the claims being reverted by Darkness Shines is one made by Brass that women were forcibly aborted in India, a claim proven in court by forensic experts to be a false
WP:AGF with this guy anymore?Handyunits (talk
) 05:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Other interesting sources of material involve allegations that this "Rape culture" in India business is nothing more than a rehash of 19th century
fascist feminism within the broader feminist movement.Handyunits (talk
) 05:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Re APL, the content was removed without consensus. Re HU, your first source does not mention rape culture and nor does your second. Karen Beckman's book has no mention of rape culture in it, nor John Keay's India Discovered nor does Eliza F. Kent's Converting Women: Gender and Protestant Christianity in Colonial South India Would you be so kind as to explain how these sources back your position. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Well "rape culture" is essentially a
WP:SYN and numerous other policies.Handyunits (talk
) 10:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
What a pile of bollocks. And your sources, s I believe I have already pointed out have no mention of rape culture. You may want to remove your BLP violations from your statement above before I do BTW. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Without debating the veracity of the facts in the Indian section, can we first establish if it would belong in the article if true? Do the sources describe these events as specifically resulting from a "rape culture"? If not, they are poor examples. Examples need to be sourced as examples. Since we're only looking for examples, and not a comprehensive list, any item that doesn't have a sourced connection to "Rape culture" should be removed, without a side debate about it's veracity. APL (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you. It seems to me that the claims are being added by DS simply because the sources cited mention 'India' (or 'South Africa' and 'United States') and the term 'rape culture' in the same article. To claim that these sources are somehow representative of a widespread 'rape culture' in either of these countries is
synthesized from the opinions of a few. DS is clearly assuming bad faith with his detractors, and bullying edits into the article against a consensus that goes against his agenda. Handyunits (talk
) 05:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
One thing that can be done is to select the sources in the section that do talk about 'rape culture' and interleave them with the sections where the corresponding aspects of this alleged phenomenon are discussed. Am article on alleged 'rape culture' should discuss the allegations and specific aspects thereof, rather than become dominated by a 'list of countries who have been attacked by some dudes for having rape culture'. The article, as it stands, is dominated by the country sections and has very little actual content discussing the term and phenomenon.Handyunits (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
For instance, the India section seems to be focussed primarily on judicial processes involving specific rape cases in India over the course of half a century. Most of the sources cited therein make virtually no mention of 'rape culture', (Personal attack removed). These judicial processes need to be removed completely. Claims of rape culture made by Baxi et al are already sources in the lead, and need not be repeated in the body of the article except in cases when they discuss if the government of alleged 'rape cultures' minimize the importance of rape cases. Similarly, the South Africa section is focussed on apartheid, the lack of legal porn, and racial polarisation rather than 'rape culture'. This can be trimmed down only to sources that specifically discuss links between apartheid, porn and rape. A couple of sentences in a 'causes' section seems to be a proper way to improve the article.Handyunits (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
"used by DS and Mediahound to advance their claim that brown people are intrinsically rapists" — you need to link that to the appropriate diff if it exists; if you cannot provide a diff, you need to strike that part. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
This discussion seems to cover the issue at hand, and has been closed, so let's move on to more important things.14.139.193.45 (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC) (ip address of Handyunits (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)).
Thanks for pulling accusations out of your ass, then. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Remove your accusation or I will. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Er, not to
wheel war in a talk page (or any page for that matter) under any circumstancesHandyunits (talk
) 09:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I have done it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Some sources currently cited in the article that make no mention of 'rape culture'

This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Most of the offline sources cited (I don't have acces to all of them) could to be independently fact-checked in this manner. However, I suspect that none of them mention 'rape culture' either, just a 'culture of silence', or a 'culture of victim blaming', or an 'apathetic government that does little to combat rape' etc, none of which point to a 'cultie of rape' as such. Trimming doen the jenkem in these sections and finally eliminating them altogether by interleaving the residual content with the body of the article is the way to go.Handyunits (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Replacement of section in question

As a starting point, I propose replacing the entire 'rape incidents by country' section to a more general (and much shorter) section titled 'manifestations of rape culture' and include the material below. I will be updating it with more as time progresses, and would welcome additions by others involved in the RfC, as well as commentary from others involved in the RfC

I'd recommend you move this to a sandbox page - maybe Talk:Rape culture/Manifestions - which would make it easier to prepare than as a section on a talk page. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. It has now been moved to Talk:Rape_culture/Manifestions#Manifestations_of_rape_culture. Thanks for the suggestion.Handyunits (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Manifestations of rape culture

Moved to Talk:Rape_culture/Manifestions#Manifestations_of_rape_culture.Handyunits (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Commentary

  • Note that there is some material on "rape-free" vs "rape-prone" stuff by a Peggy Sanday that I am unable to get my hands on. Any help?Handyunits (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I am a bit concerned about the overlap between this and the
    «৳alk»
    15:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Correct Knowledge, are you entirely stupid? Do not take this as a Pa. it is a serious question based one what you have just written. You honestly think "feminist theory" which BTW is not just a feminist theory. should be merged into one section, on, let me guess "manifestations of rape from feminist theory" then ███████ off . Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that Correct Knowledge is thoroughly wrong in his suggestion this post seems to signal a significant shift in your interpretation of WP:NPA from earlier this week.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
(
«৳alk»
18:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
For instance, Feminists also link rape culture to the widespread distribution of pornography, which is seen as an expression of a rape culture that objectifies women. The fusion of several pornographic motifs are seen in the accounts of rapists... in the proposal overlaps with Pornography has also been commonly targeted as a contributor to rape culture because it is said to contribute to larger patterns of oppression. One of the ways that it is said to do this is by reducing the female body to a commodity. in the section on feminist theory. Having that in two different sections is pointless.
«৳alk»
18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Maunus, please note what I wrote, for instance I did not call anyone a racist, nor imply it. I asked a straightforward question. Here is a personal attack. (Personal attack removed) Darkness Shines (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Folks, need I remind everyone that the paragraph is only a draft and that there is no need to get quite so heated in discussing it. If some sentences are a repeat of material already present in other sections than those can be adjusted accordingly. Additionally, please feel free to edit the sandbox page to add or remove content as needed.Handyunits (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


As a point of interest, when this RFC started, Most of the material from a perma-blocked problem editor had been removed by a few different editors. Three hours after the RFC started, User:Darkness Shines made an edit[14] to the article which was to restore all the controversial material. We know User:Darkness Shines was aware of the ongoing RFC because two minutes previous he or she had commented[15] on the RFC. I bring this up because now User:Darkness Shines is leaving edit summaries implying that he or she is somehow protecting the pre-rfc version of the article. This is not the case. APL (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The content was added well before the RFC. It was removed and restored by myself before the RFC had begun. The RFC is about this content, and there is no consensus for removal. Kindly get an uninvolved admin to close out the RFC when it has run it's course. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
It was originally added by a now-blocked user. Then the content from that user was removed by a number of users. Then the RFC started. Then you commented on the RFC. Then you re-added the content. It's all there in the article's history, unless you're claiming that Wikipedia's date/time stamps have gone wonky. APL (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
No, RFC started by HU on 06:34, 28 January 2013. My revert of the content in question 18:22, 27 January 2013, which would be the day before the RFC began. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
No, that was an edit about the origins of the term "rape culture".
Your revert about the "Incidents by Nation" section (the topic of this RFC) occurred at 28 January 2013‎. Three hours after the RFC was started, and two minutes after you commented on it. APL (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
No, look again[16] Not all of that revert deals with the origin at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal : Wrap-Up

Nobody has commented here in a week. I think it's safe to say this discussion is winding down.

As far as I can see the strongest consensus is that :

  1. The "Rape culture and incidents by nation" is a coat-rack that can never approach a state of completeness.
  2. Many of the sources used in that section are about rape but not rape culture. Including them as examples is WP:Synth.
  3. The section could be replaced by the more descriptive "Manifestations of rape culture" section currently under construction.

Did I summarize this correctly? APL (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Support - wrapping up this RFC by replacing the list of incidents with the descriptive MoRC section. APL (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The RFC has to run the full length of time and then needs closure by an uninvolved admin. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
That's not true. Please see
WP:RFC#Ending_RfCs
.
If we come to something resembling a consensus here we can either agree to close it ourselves, or request an uninvolved editor to close it for us. There's no reason to wait the full 30 days for the bot to delist it if the discussion has stalled out. APL (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape_culture/Archive_3&oldid=1142554344"