Talk:Rape culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A member of the Guild of Copy Editors, geraldshields11, reviewed a version of this article for copy editing. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!
 


Sexuality section[edit]

Hi Jytdog, I tried doing some cleanup on the sexuality section. Can you take a look and see if this helps assuage the concerns about it being an essay? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

You dealt with some of the essay stuff but it is still all primary sources and even goes into great deal describing one of them. That is not how we generate WP articles, especially not with this kind of psych/sociology stuff where the replication crisis is especially intense. Our mission is to provide articles that summarize accepted knowledge; we find "accepted knowledge" in places like review articles and textbooks, not primary sources. This is something that students have a hard time grasping for some reason. Please don't perpetuate this. Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Jytdog - I'll leave it off. I was hoping that my changes would have solved the issue, but no dice. Thank you for taking another look! I'll see if I can get the student to do a re-write based on my edits. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) they need to start over with appropriate sources. Everything begins with sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog and User:Shalor (Wiki Ed). I've been following this discussion because Oaktree813 is a student in a course I'm leading. We seem to have reached am impasse. In order to further progress Jytdog, could you please offer up an example of a non-primary source on the subject of Rape culture and/or the replication crisis that you reference in your comments? Perhaps, by way of example, we can come to an understanding. Thank you. Jagrif02 (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no impasse, you just don't fully understand WP sourcing yet. Ideal sources are what we call "secondary". That means something like a literature review or a book chapter or book where someone in the field surveys the field and gives the "state of research". A "primary" source here in Wikipedia is (for example) a research paper, in which someone publishes the research that they did. Wikipedia articles are built by summarizing secondary sources.
The source summarized here - "In 2016 a study was conducted by researchers at the University of Michigan and Western Washington University, which evaluated male and female self perceptions with the intent to determine the influence of sexualization. Participants in the study, 1,107 U.S. undergraduate college students, were shown a romantic movie, sexualized music video, and reality television program and then surveyed to evaluate their sexual responses..." (doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0548) is primary - that is a paper where that survey was published and discussed. We get Christians coming here and citing the Bible the same way. (!) The mistake is the same one, and this is not what we do.
As an example of a review, see for example PMID 23856303.
Is that more clear? Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Jytdog! I’ve spent some time editing my contribution and have homed in on my use of secondary sources. The Wikipedia rules state that primary sources can be defended by secondary sources when necessary, so the few primary sources I left in I made sure to resound with the information from the secondary sources. Otherwise I referred to books or meta-analyses for the information I put into the section on Sexualization. Thank you so much for helping me in this process of editing and posting; I hope this draft is in much better shape to help contribute to this Wikipedia page. Please let me know if there are anymore concerns. Oaktree813 (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── the extensive content based on primary sources is not OK. There are many reasons why we don't do that. See WP:Why MEDRS for some of them. Jytdog (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Rape culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

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


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rape culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

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


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent bizarre additions[edit]

Replying to this edit summary... What does our text say? Consumption of pornography has shown to possibly encourage aggressive action as well. What does the cited source say? Whether pornography consumption is a reliable correlate of sexually aggressive behavior continues to be debated. - hum... And this was published in which medical journal? None, but on a communications one... Like the other sources, it would seem. There are other problematic sentences which would probably not be so if only they were properly attributed and contextualized, such as Hyper-sexualized or pornographic media is often attributed with perpetuating aggressive behaviors - what does the source say? In contrast to the earlier meta‐analysis, the current results showed an overall significant positive association - so it's not all studies that have said so in the past? Ok, moving on: Media depictions of violent sexual activity are also noted to increase behavioral aggression. and the source? The summary demonstrates a homogeneous set of results showing that pictorial nudity reduces subsequent aggressive behavior. humm, ok? that media depictions of violent sexual activity generates more aggression than those of nonviolent sexual activity. The implications of the results for theoretical approaches to understanding the impact of pornography receives discussion, as do the limitations of such findings. hum, doesn't seem to be what our text says, at least not exactly. Who published this anyway? Seems to be a master thesis. And none of the authors seem important, unlike those of the first article (which, by the way, is more than 10 years apart from the second one). Let's move on on our text, shall we? Sexualizing imagery surfaces and reinforces misogynistic beliefs in some instances. This is attributed to the same source which seems to say the exact opposite regarding images, though we do say "some instances" on our text, but ofc don't mention which instances. You see the point I'm making? The way it was written this paragraph seems like a fruit salad of unrelated sources from which only some contextual information was extracted as to make a point, though they discuss other aspects in ways that are even contradictory to what our text indicates, and there is not enough information as to the relevance and contemporaneity of each source (the oldest one claims to revamp previous analysis, while the new ones say nothing about it - do they agree, or is the 20 year old so outdated it's not even mentioned anymore?) And so on and so forth. Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Tying India's rape crimes to hinduism is unjust.[edit]

Hinduism or hindu culture doesn't support any form of rape culture. Please quote instances of rape from verses of Hindu texts such as vedas, upanishads itihasas like mahabharata, ramayana, etc directly to support the claim. Otherwise this article is simple spreading misinformation.

The way Wikipedia works is that we find high quality, independent, secondary sources, and we summarize what they say. What you write above has nothing to do with how Wikipedia works. Jytdog (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
None of the three reference mentioned has 'hindu culture' or 'british colonialism' anywhere in them. Whoever wrote this is pushing his/her own propaganda. -Rohitkiran99

religion/clothing[edit]

I'd like to see something about chastity belts, "hobbling"-type clothing for women as related to rape (edit to add as related to rape culture/rape culture sourcesTeeVeeed (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)), religious garb intended to cover women so that "lusty rapey men" are not "incited to rape" by seeing an ankle or some flesh. I'm specifically thinking about certain "cover-up" religions like Mormons maybe? And burka-type things? Maybe with some rape culture statements about how "what were they wearing?" is not ever an invitation to rape although it has been a factor? And maybe even make-up a la "painted women"TeeVeeed (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)