Talk:Rape culture

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

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 " - 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:

• Meitse 1996 -1998 (South Africa)
• Baxi 2002 (India)
• Michael Parenti - The Global Rape Culture (2005)

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)

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) 21:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

References

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 = Time lord+Tardis. P^) If I can trace WP:NPOV + 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:OR as it's not supported by valid WP:NPOV or 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) APL again you make comment about writing style and the person and don't address the issues. You have had this pointed out before Ref the Rfc which you kept being directed to. I do find it odd that each time I have raided this issue of Calims being made to orogin you turn up and make comments about me, writing style and when directed even at your request to such matters as an Rfc ... you don't address the issues. It is really quite simple - as stated under Orogins: In a 1992 paper in the Journal of Social Issues entitled "A Feminist Redefinition of Rape and Sexual Assault: Historical Foundations and Change," Patricia Donat and John D'Emilio suggested that the term originated as "rape-supportive culture"[14] in Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape. It would appear that as the 1992 paper refers to a 1975 book - and the book fails to use the term "rape culture" - the inclusion is simply there to bolster the unfounded claim "Several different theories[citation needed] exist..." and that claim is in fact WP:OR. It's weasel words - anonymous authority - it does not agree with WP:NPOV and 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:NPOV + WP:V As for the edit comment "(→‎Origins and usage: Don't be ridiculous. You can't remove entire cited sections because they contradict your pet theory.)" that is not an accurate claim - but then again why would that matter. It also shows WP:BADFAITH. I have explained that the Brownmiller claim is specious given that the source does not address the issue. The references to feminists and America are misleading as it does not apply to all feminists and is a misleading blanket statement - even if quoted and referenced. So over to you Pi.1415926535 - it's up to you to WP:V - 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:OR, WP:V?

RfC closed. See below.

The statement under "Origins and usage" - "The concept originated in the mid 1970s. Several different theories[citation needed] 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." This appears to be WP:OR - the references listed do not claim to be theories, and sources to claims of multiple theories existing have not been located, therefore no 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) Repeated avoidance of issues by re-editing and not through dialogue does smack of POV Pushing rather than consensus. Does every point raised over WP:NPOV and even WP:V need to be subjected to Rfc with yet more editing to make the request for external input moot? It does waste, time, energy and effort of fellow editors. If the source has not been consulted and read, it should not be misrepresented as WP:V. It is unacceptable to require one standard from fellow editors that is not applied to the self. More Goal Post Shifting - No dialogue or pretension of consensus? Again it is necessary to point out that the reference to Brownmiller's book dated 1975 is a "Non sequitur", and remains so - It makes no sense to claim that her book from 1975 is linked to the orogin of the term Rape Culture when the book does not use the term - and the 1975 film has Rape Culture as its title. and addresses the subject. Is there an ongoing issue with the fact that the film exists? It makes no sense to be referencing upon a poorly constructed theory that is wrong, ""Patricia Donat and John D'Emilio suggested..."", because some did not do their homework. It makes no sense - defies WP:V and indicates an imbalance of WP:NPOV. It seems to be more about pushing Donat and D'Emilio than reality. This basic error has been pointed out and removal of the erroneous content has been objected to. The basic logical inconsistency has not been addressed. It seems that for some reason it is being pushed as relevant when it is not under the heading concerned "Origins and usage" - it addresses neither origins nor usage. I would request an explanation as to why it is being insisted it be retained, and removal objected to. Any explanation as to the reasoning would be welomed It is of some value that the uncited and unverified claims of multiple theories have been removed, but it does not address the underlying issues and it has not resolved them. The constant padding of content is an issue. Why is this padding ongoing? Again it is noted that the suitability of the 1974 reference which uses the term only incidentally and only once on page 105 without context to this subject has still to be addressed and resolved. This has been questioned before and the subject avoided - when WP:SILENCE has resulted and after a most reasonable time the material removed this has also been objected to. The ongoing issue of WP:OWNERSHIP also needs to be addressed and resolved. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:47, 16 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 Colon usage, or a request for Copy editor input? You state I have an Ulterior motive - and yet you do not explain why you believe that is. That is Uncivil. You keep making comment about me and not about page content - I have even had to provide you links to Rfcs when you kept seeming to get lost on this page. You never did find the place for comment to be made on the actual subject and about page content. If you believe that I have some form of Ulterior Motive kindly have it addressed in the correct manner, don't make loaded comment as a hit and run. Maybe the term Ad hominem should be used? Once is an accident - twice a coincidence - three times....? If you have substantive concerns as to WP:COI do please act upon them in the correct manner. If you believe me to be gaming the system - please act immediately and have the matter correctly addressed. I will welcome it, rather than being repeatedly made comment about rather than clear concerns as to page content addressed - and then maybe page content can be improved and less time and effort wasted. I would hope this time, when subjected to Dispute Resolution instigated by another, I would even know about it before it was Opened and closed and before I have even had opportunity to make comment, or response to what has been written. I do believe in a Fair Trial. It's quite odd how time-zones play out. I have been pointing to the ongoing issue of Systemic Bias since January - it's in the archives ... and I have been questioning the repeated USA centric bias as well. I have highlighted inconsistent content which keeps being defended - not through Dialogue or Consensus - just procrastination, reverted edits, re-editing to dance round issues and now ........ a "Colon" - has it really come to this? Will you address the Colon or just my questioning of it and it's usage to imply matters that are not supported by references sources after it? ? I'm not interested in edit wars - just quality content. Maybe it would be of some value if some other editors with the same view were brought in? Do you have any views on content that does remain highly questionable? It must just be my Newbieish sense of perspective that makes me look at matters all the wrong way round? You point to WP:RS which says; "Context makes a difference "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." That is the standard I have been working to. It does seem odd that a source being cited repeatedly under "Origins" only "suggests" the origins are one thing, and yet reality shows otherwise from WP:V sources. Patricia Donat and John D'Emilio suggested that the term originated as "rape-supportive culture"[17] in Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book... It would appear that WP:UNDUE is being given to a view that is .... well ... wrong and only a "suggestion" countered by other sources that are fully WP:V. Film called "Rape Culture" released January 1975 - WP:V - 1992 source suggests term comes from "Rape Supportive Culture" from book published after film. Does not compute! It's called logic and nothing to do with WP:OR. That also needs to be balanced with the content of Para 1 which ends "The concept appeared in multiple forms of media during the mid 1970s:" - and that then leads onto three paragraphs - two which actually deal with explicit WP:V references to the term Rape Culture - and the Thirds does not. It's again rather misleading, indicating and inferring a connection that simply does not exist. That does still smack of WP:OR - and then there is the Colon! P^o Some may miss that usage of the Colon to imply Syntactical-deductive - "The colon introduces the logical consequence, or effect, of a fact stated before", meaning that all points and content bellow follows that coloned phrase. It is just the questionable claim of Multiple Theories played with through some misleading punctuation. It is not a true edit - just dancing round the subject without addressing it. It could just be bad editing and a lack of understanding of how punctuation works - but given history and the contentious editing involved it does look rather suspect. It looks a lot like POV Pushing and the ongoing WP:OWN. I would edit the fallacy out, but each time I do edit there are responses such as "Don't be ridiculous. You can't remove entire cited sections because they contradict your pet theory."(@) I hate to think waht the reaction would be If I removed the colon - and then in it's absence had to deal with content that had no validity due to a lack of Syntactical-deductive punctuation. I have no pet theory - I just keep pointing to WP:V and content that is inconsistent and being repeatedly defended and not addressed. It's odd, but no matter how it's raised It just keeps being ignored - danced around - edited around - and now Coloned. I note that only one person keeps objecting to actual edits - and only to specific content and they are the one who keeps editing to shift goal posts and not address the actual issues and now Coloning . Will it really need and Rfc - maybe a copy-editor - possibly a Third opinion? Other edits I have made, including adding substantively to content have received no such objections - in fact they have received no comment. It seems that only my comments - provision of sources - and queries as to content are worthy of comment on This talk page. It does get wearying when rather than looking to resolve the issues some just edit and dance about to perpetuate them - whilst others keep making comment about the person and not the subject. I'm patient, and used to watching dancing and staying on point. I'm used to diversionary tactics and and game playing - even politics - and not being bothered by them. All they do is waste time and opportunity to progress. Being able to cite a source does not mean it fits in context or have validity. I have been carefully assessing matters - as I do with all issues. The use of the word "suggested" is an expression of doubt. The implied link through ""The concept appeared in multiple forms of media during the mid 1970s:"" is also misleading and poor quality content. That use of the Colon! It is quite simple - how can the term Rape Culture in use from January 1975 be suggested to have come from the phrase "Rape Supportive Culture" from a 1975 book that was published after the film? It's a bit of an issue placing the cart before the horse - even if a 1992 reference has an issue with carts and horses ! The reference seems to be used to allow and even enforce the following: Brownmiller, a member of the New York Radical Feminists, showed how both academia and the general public ignored the existence of rape.[18] The book is considered a "landmark" work on feminism and sexual violence and one of the pillars of modern rape studies.[19] I do understand that there has been a long standing misconception linked to the 1975 Susan Brownmiller book, primarily due to her later work which does start to use the term rape culture, years later. Why then is her 1975 work which does not use the term Rape Culture being presented as "Landmark"? What is the "context" for that under Origins and usage? Is it being implied that "Rape Supportive Culture" is to be treated as a Synonym in common usage? If so does that open the door for other synonymic usage, as highlighted six months ago for - "Culture Of Rape" and other synonyms which are culturally based and none anglophone - addressing Systemic Bias? There is no dispute that Brownmiller has been influential in the field - but relying upon a 1992 source that implies/suggests she as it were coined the phase - and that is linked to a 1975 book that does not use the phrase - does not fit well within context of "Origins and usage". My simplistic view is it has no place. It's a Non sequitur - a littery device now linked to a Colon. I do recall the following being said: I don't believe anyone has done a comprehensive history of the term. It is entirely possible that it was a parallel development where both feminist studies and prison rape studies coined the term separately and I've noted that in the article.Talk:Rape_culture/Archive_1#Neutrality_.2 It is most odd that such recognition of issues be made, and yet there has been repeated editing to supposedly present sources as comprehensive - and in so many ways - even when sources don't relate. And then we have the immediate emergence of supposed multiple Theories - and ultimately the Colon. Brownmiller's work, from 1971 to the books publication in 1975, is WP:NOTE - but that does not mean that wrong conclusions published by others 1992 are not out of context. Her work has evident significance in the field and has proved influential - and so may have a place under Feminist theory? Again it does seem to be POV Pushing and not WP:V. As to uncivil - that also needs to be addressed in context. Comment and dialogue to reach consensus has been requested - and avoided. I am patient and have been working on the Systemic Bias issues form now over six months. I still remain of the opinion that a full rewrite is required, but the WP:Silence on that subject is notable. As you know I'm still working on the content for India - User:Media-hound-_thethird/sandbox_india - it's a big subject over a Billion people to be covered, and a complex set of references that do need careful consideration so that there is no WP:OR - It's WP:V - and content is not presented in any way to introduce WP:BIAS. Lots of reading and sifting - and I'm having to create pages and update others so that any new content for here stands both Editorial Scrutiny and hopefully the tests of time. I aim not to be a hasty editor - just a quality one. I still wonder why so many references, explicitly brought to the attention of editors, and which are not to The USA/Europe and which use the term "Rape Culture" explicitly and have no reference to the USA - Europe - Anglophone Bias have been missed for so long? Those references may not now be apparent, due to the archiving so recently set up with first 180 day and the 90 day time settings. The References and WP:V sources may have been relegated to the archives, but they do remain valid - as do the questions as to how they had been missed for so long when so easily located, read and verified. Archiving a section titled Neutrality 2 may make some think the issue has vanished - but alas not as some of us are still working on that issue 6 months on. It's so odd too when editors state "find the references and they will be used" - so you do just that - and WP:SILENCE follows - months of it. I still wonder at the insistence on 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's odd as not all feminists agree with that sentiment - and really it only applies to some American feminists - not Globally. I wonder if Feminists in many parts of Africa, Asia, South America and even Europe consider that contemporary American culture is of interest. Maybe they have different focuses and don't even consider America in their daily lives? Again it is a point that has been made, but ignored. It has been removed and returned - and that does raise concerns as to POV Pushing. Quotations have to address the subject and not introduce bias - they do need careful consideration - and highlighting that issue just gets ignored. It seems that after six months there is still a focus on pushing certain out of context references and not addressing the whole subject form a Global Perspective - . C'est la Vie - Wikipedia Style. Odd - you highlight Systemic bias obliquely and allow time for it to be addressed - You are told find references and they will be included - you do so - It's ignored. You allow months to pass - from experience you are aware that some do need time to reorient perceptions and thinking. You query the matter through Rfc - response is that Yes Systemic Bias needs to be addressed - and you follow the advice given. You also ask does Disambiguation need to be addressed as a route forward - response is no - you accept the advice. You provide sourced references on a country basis to allow rational integration of global aspects - WP:SILENCE You call it Systemic bias and it's supposedly Rude, Uncivil and you are told "Blanket-naming everything as systemic bias dilutes its meaning past any usefulness." Create content that addresses it and It's WP:SILENCE - and no objections, except in sandboxes. Query illogical and out of context references you are called Uncivil - It is stated that you are acting in WP:BADFAITH you invite dispute resolution stating you would welcome it, and also invite dialogue of the page content here - both ignored. .. And when you raise the issue of not citing opinions again Using Rfc for independent oversight - Suddenly editing takes place .... and the Colon manifests . You again point out inconsistencies that remain and which have already been raised. You are informed that Dispute resolution will Now be used! You visit the discussion and discover it has been closed - before you as an interested party have had an opportunity to make comment - or respond to content that is misleading. I do hope that Time Zone Bias hasn't been a factor? P^) I have had to previously point out that the Internet is Global and so spans 24 Time Zones - and bias to just one country is Systemic Bias! I wonder if some realise that? It does seem odd that a Dispute was opened and closed so quickly when at least some consideration should have been given to differing time zones on a global scale and even editor participation which can of course be judged from edit history and the analytic tools that exist there to make judgement calls on editor availability. P^/ I found this most interesting: (As an aside, I have certain personal psychological issues which sometimes prevent me from being able to deal with things involving rape. Media-hound has stated they believe this is an excuse for me not wishing to talk about the article. I'm not comfortable discussing these issues on public pages here; email me if you need more details.) To which I would point to the following: You keep making reference to your personal circumstances, which have been given due consideration. Evidently they are important to you and relevant to your personal life. That is after all correct for any Wikipedian. As such, I will allow reasonable time for further productive dialogue to move matters forward. However, I do have to point out that your personal circumstances are not grounds for WP:OWNERSHIP - and so you are being extended a courtesy that goes beyond WP:GOODFAITH in the hope that the page and its contents can be progressed within reasonable time scales. I believe that the present ongoing time scales of months are unreasonable. User_talk:Pi.1415926535#Reverting_Good_Faith_Edits. I do fear that some are just biased against reading anything written - which is a problem in a medium that does require reading and written response. It's so odd the ways that Wikipedia works. I thought the aim of the project is to spread knowledge by quality content that is Global - WP:V - 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) You have been repeatedly warned about the disruption and incivility attendant upon your posting walls of text. Your failure to listen to clear community consensus regarding your conduct only aggravates the disruptive nature of your conduct. Please stop. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC - Multiple Factors

RfC closed. See below.

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[1]. 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:OR. 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 [2]. 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? 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. There is no doubt that the phrase rape culture is in the book and this can be verified at google books. [3] 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 [4] 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. 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 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 of screening and content[5] Opinion as to origins, Producer Margaret Lazarus[6] Blackwell's Encyclopedia Of Sociology[7]). 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? Comments: citations please, full citations please It is impossible to follow "a 1992 paper" as an object of discussion, consider, in Foo Bar (1992) "Origins of Rape Culture" Journal of Rape Studies 3:4 Bar suggests, with subsequent references being Bar (1992). I am not going to discuss an unnamed citation. In addition, please supply full citations above for all the other works you cite. Include the article title, author and page range when citing scholarly encyclopaedia entries. This request for comments is uncommentable as the works in question have not been adequately cited to allow discussion. (Though the tendency in this rfc element is towards original research yet again). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Many thanks for providing citations, it allows us to trace this discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Overall comments on this RFC This RFC seems to be based on WP:OR and 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:OR is occurring - or WP:Synth? I keep locating sources which are explicit, 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) It is almost never helpful to have a generic RFC on four points, and it is even rarer that such an RFC should be conducted so soon after walls-of-text with no discernible content. This RFC should be closed. If there is a concern about the article, please address it one point at a time with specific examples of text in the article that require change (with policy-based reasons), or specific examples of material that should be added (with policy-based reasons). In the latter case, there is no need for any prior discussion—just add the material or post a small proposal to this talk page if unsure. Any future discussion needs to be focused on specific proposals (for example, point 2 above asserts that some text is misleading—but what is actually proposed?). Please comment here and not on my talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 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. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)