DGAgainstDV, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
Removal of Content from DV Page
Sorry about that. I accidentally posted my comments on the wrong article talk page! I also originally misinterpreted the section you wrote as being contradictory since the sentence about the statistics is rather complicated and confusing. I suggested some ways to improve it on the talk page. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rape in the United States. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BMK (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|Your detailed contributions on Campus_rape, with an encyclopedic tone, NPOV, and reliable sources was seen by me and I appreciate you making heavy and bold edits like it. Keep at it. Tutelary (talk) 11:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)|
Hi DGAgainstDV - thanks for your valuable work. I too thought the FBI UCR definition excluded male MTP victims, due to the somewhat ambiguous wording - but we thankfully have confirmation from the FBI that this is correct - see the citation. Cheers, Psdie (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for making us aware of this source. However, as Flyer22 has pointed out, an uncited quote on a private individual's Wordpress blog is not considered to be a reputable source, so we'll need to verify this claim from another source. I would also like to see this interpretation made publicly by the FBI before it is stated on Wikipedia. Assuming that the emails depicted from the FBI are in fact authentic, they were sent to the owner of an MRA blog. The FBI has an incentive to provide this interpretation in this context in order to avoid what would likely be very strong criticism from the MRM for discriminating against male victims if they said otherwise. To the best of my knowledge, they have not made any statement on how it should be interpreted in any other context (including in the FAQ for local law enforcement reporting under UCR). Therefore, there is reason to believe that at least some of the agencies reporting to the FBI are not interpreting the definition that way. Even if the FBI intended for the definition to include "made to penetrate," the way that it is applied in practice may not. If there is no public statement from the FBI on how this should be interpreted, then I would argue that Wikipedia should avoid stating a position either way or at the very least make clear that the source of the interpretation is a private email that has not been providing to law enforcement. DGAgainstDV (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi GDADV - thanks for reply. I've agreed that a blog is not reliable enough a source, so not disputed removal of its citation - I will instead request verification and a citable source direct from the author of the e-mails Mary P Reese (the official contact for the FBI UCR program). However the author is a well-known blogger that is highly unlikely to have simply fabricated the screenshotted e-mail thread. I'd actually argue MRAs would *prefer* if UCR is biased, as gives them something to complain about! Cheers Psdie (talk) 03:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I wasn't trying to imply that the email thread was fabricated--I strongly believe that it's not, but we should still have a valid source to cite. I've temporarily removed the gender neutrality claim, and we can add it back once such a source is available. Regarding your claim that the MRM wants bias against male victims, I couldn't disagree more, but it really bears no relevance on the validity of the sources in question here and is not worth arguing about. DGAgainstDV (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)