Talk:Rape culture/Archive 3

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 the repeated warnings that I have to be ever so careful of WP:ORIGINAL?

That shifting of the Dickwolves controversy and Farcebook 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 Princess Bride embedded in summary = TL-DR=Wall Of Text - new Wiki page to write = when have time! No ref to rape culture. Ctrl+"S" = negative! Refs Princess Bride = rape culture clarify! Me UTC = GMT = late = Sleep+dead horse! Sleeping in same bed since January. Not Cosy (UK-Eng idiom)! Stinks. What difference "Transnational"(1921) Vs "Extranational"(no lexicographic date-not in dictionary)? Which come first (UTC) in dictionary? Why you keep changing language/meaning? WP:COI ?... 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)

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  23:25, 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!

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 Pi.1415926535 - Not sure what your comment is supposed to be about, or supposed to achieve - I'm just highlighting the levels of inconsistency and Systemic Bias that have still to be addressed!

Please note - the sections above - 1 "Neutrality" and 8 "Concept Vs Term - Essentially contested concept".

Maybe if they were addressed and even discussed rather than ignored, you may find the whole issues easier?

I have raised the issue of Language Bias, Cultural Bias and even Religious Bias and their effects upon language and even sources that can be cited - and I have even illustrated matters with relevant sources - I do make sure that people can find the sources.

I also remain highly bemused that some Highly Significant and Readily Verified Sources that explicitly use the term "Rape Culture" have been missed, especially when they address the diversity of the Concept in modern American Culture - especially with reference to racial bias and historical narratives - and a Prof', no less, doing the work.

I have said I would like to hear from other editors (mainly those who have a NPO and no history in this wiki entry) so that the Systemic Bias can be addressed.

I would edit away, but when I have edited I have been abused - and even stated as not being able to use the "English" Language. As some have a bias against any editing, It would be an idea for some independent oversight - and even input!

I have not as you indicate been writing about my ideas and my interpretation of rape culture. If I was, I wouldn't bother providing cites and references to illuminate the issue of "Systemic Bias" - I would just Propagate it and demand that readers accept it. Given that there has been a history of edit wars - I have sought to address matters before warfare commences!

As I have asked "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"?"

What is your view on the translations of "Rape Culture" into languages other than English - and into other Cultural and Social Groups that are not US/European centric or even "First World"?

Do we need to have multiple wiki entries that deal with "Culture Of Rape", "Culture Of Shame", "Culture of Violation" etc, etc, etc.... or does the Linguistic and 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 appointed 30 Nov 2011) was researching the post Apartheid change. 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 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.'"

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?

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 " - 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)

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
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 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)


 * 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?
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.

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


 * 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
 * ✅ 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 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, 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)
 * 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.


 * 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"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
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.

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.

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. 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 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
 * Opinion as to origins, Producer Margaret Lazarus
 * Blackwell's Encyclopedia Of Sociology ).

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. &mdash; Hex    (❝ ?!  ❞)   17:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Hex  - I was not aware of your views or that the RFC had been closed. Love the use of the conditional "may" - so white knight! I have enjoyed learning so much from the lecturing and even hectoring tones of the few in Sysop class! Put it down to experience is what I say. I have learned the convoluted and Lilliputian politics of Wikiland and also observed carefully how systems are used, abused and policies manipulated and misused by some to push agendas and to maintain WP:OWN - I won't be posting any walls of text, unless it's in article space - do see some examples " One or Two and Three and Four ... and many many more to come. As one rather ancient and creaky wikipedian advised "Don't assume they are rational or even reasonable if you need to explain the basics to them."

I'll leave others to play their games and politics with their Woozles and issues with their backfire effect .... myself and many others will just get on with filling Wikipedia with Quality Content, Researched - Referenced - Neutral POV -  that is 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)

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!
 * 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?
 * — 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 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 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)

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?
 * 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


 * Why do you defend the unsupported - unreferenced and synthesised views being expressed in Article Space?
 * Why are you supporting views and ideas by certain editors that anything but this referenced expert and academic claim claim should be used?
 * 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 issues! But as you have asked for wording you shall have it - It's in the article space, referencing Blackwell and Joyce E Williams (Professor Joyce E Williams - AREAS OF EXPERTISE: 	Race and Ethnic Relations; History of American Sociology; rape/sexual assault - Texas Women's University - Author of "The second assault: rape and public attitudes" ISBN 978-0-313-22542-0 )

Should you again object to referenced and correctly cited content do provide your full reasons here.... so many would love to know exactly why you and others have the defensive and defended 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 CHALLENGE 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 Blackwell Encyclopaedia Of Sociology, so one has to wonder why you object to their usage?

It is comical that you imply a consensus when in fact Wiki's No Consensus was the outcome. Why would you misrepresent reality that way? I will quote one editorial opinion which is most revealing:"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)"I find it interesting that you have the ability to link to an edit - yet lack the capacity to link to evidence that supports your inferences and Intimations that there has been discussion - that a consensus has been reached. The implication that your views carry wide levels of support and that Prof Joyce E Williams and Blackwell Encyclopaedia Of Sociology are bad sources DO require a high level of proof from you. Kindly provide that proof in your response.

You may also wish to take this opportunity to explain why you have ignored the opinion of other editors concerning the misuse of Original Research?

Do be careful to not fall into the trap of The 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:RS and WP:DUE). To ask a "how to" question, see WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * For the technical end, just use the  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:   


 * 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 User:Media-hound- thethird, an obvious political activist who has now been indef-banned for POV-pushing and WP:BATTLE. The section focusses exclusively on three countries, India,South Africa and the United States, which, to my reading, seems like WP:UNDUE, as well as a WP:SYN implication that rape is exclusive to these countries. Furthermore, the sections are essentially a POV fork of three other wikipedia articles, Rape in India, Sexual violence in South Africa, and Rape in the United States, violating 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)
 * Without knowing anything about the user's other edits, I don't see the additions as implying that these three countries have worse rape cultures than other places. However, I also don't think most of them were productive; the user seems to have trouble distinguishing the subject of the article, rape culture, from rape as a topic. I also don't think "geographical" and "list of incidents" are useful ways of structuring an article - we should organize by theme, with specific examples used to illustrate particular points where necessary. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It should not have been removed, I very must doubt that rape culture is only a concept used by feminists. And the content was reliably sourced. In fact your one edit to this article was to remove this content, one has to wonder why you would follow an editors contributions as you obviously did here just to remove content? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:08, 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 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)


 * This article appears to be a coatrack of the most disturbing kind. Wikipedia's policy on tertiary sources recommends that we use tertiary sources in evaluating due weight. A cursory glance at tertiary sources with dedicated articles/sections to rape culture reveals:
 * Rape culture in does not mention rape incident in any country at all.
 * Understanding rape culture in again doesn't mention any country.
 * Cultural Factors in Rape in devotes two paragraphs in two and a half pages to comparison of rape incidents in US with other modern societies.
 * Rape–Prone and Rape–Free Cultures in does mention statistics unrelated to countries.
 * 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 main article. Rape statistics already has separate sections on countries with greater rape statistics and such sections are justified there. However, such sections here would only make the article lose focus of its topic. If editors still feel the need to include incidents from other countries, they should be summarized neutrally within other sections. This book is probably a good example of how rape incidents from all over the world are reported within its analysis of a global rape culture. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  19:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - [from uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot] The naming of three specific countries does not violate SYNTH or OR policies:  it may simply be that editors have not yet gotten around to finding material on other countries; or it may mean that sources are not readily available for other countries.   WP does not insist that an article be 100% complete.   Also, I don't believe that including material in this article that is replicated in other articles such as Rape in the United States is a prohibited POV fork.  WP permits material to be duplicated in several articles, provided it is relevant to each of the articles.   About the only significant issue I can see with this article (discussed below) is that some sources, apparently, are not discussing "rape culture" per se.  If they are not, then grabbing material from those sources may be a violation of OR or SYNTH.   Sources used for this article must be discussing "rape culture" in some fashion ... although it is not required that they use that exact phrase .. other wordings may also be satisfactory, such as "climate that encourages rape" or "rape-encouraging society" etc. --Noleander (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - (I don't know if I am commenting in the appropriate section, if you want it moved, let me know) I couldn't agree more with the statement that it seems that the article has become a list of specific countries and instances cherry-picked to advance a POV. Rape culture and rape incidents are not exactly the same thing. I also concur with CorrectKnowledge. And as Handyunits rightly pointed out, there are far too many sources that don't even mention "rape culture". Frequent occurrences of rape doesn't mean that in that whole culture is a rape culture where people and media tend to normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape. I see in India section they mention dowry death but how is it relevant here? There are many unsourced and impertinent assertions. These also need to be gotten rid of. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Currently the article delves redundantly in Indian caste system. "The Dalit or untouchable caste have been identified as particularly vulnerable. Bias by police, medical professionals and the Judiciary concerning caste is identified as a factor. Police have been willing to accept bribes from defendants in rape cases, thwarting the legal process" but the source that supports it,  makes not one mention of "rape culture", like I said earlier recurrence of rape doesn't make the entirety of the culture "rape culture".  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:28, 9 February 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 Blood libel by Teesta Setalvad. Can we 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 colonial racism, specifically involving British propaganda about Indian "rapists" during the 1857 rebellion. This is duscussed in numerous academic references ignored by the editors, such as Karen Beckman's "Vanishing Women: Magic, Film, and Feminism" (2003) p31-33, John Keay's famous 'India Discovered', Kent, Eliza Kent's "Converting Women" (2004), and other articles such as this one. The section, as it stands, seems to ignore this point in order to advance a conventional stereotype of black and brown-skinned people popular in the circles of racist and 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 neologism coined by neocon feminists to demonize non-white societies as inherently rape-friendly and (implicitly) worthy only of colonization and subalternification, either by economic means (neoliberalism, Foreign direct investment) or (to more militant fascist feminists) direct military invasion and subjugation (Iraq, Afghanistan, potentially Iran and Syria in the future) in order to 'liberate the women'. This term is essentially a rehash of the 19th century racism indicated in the references cited above. Furthermore, the claims made by Paul Brass in the cited references were recycled from claims made by Islamist sympathizer and anti-Indian lobbyist Teesta Setalvad and her financier, illegal Pakistani lobbyist Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai (who is currently in jail). Forensic evidence has established (per my cited sources) that these claims are essentially lies told by the Islamists, similar to Blood libels against Jews made in Christian and Islamic societies during the middle ages and even today.I fail to see why outright lies should be included in an article to WP:SYN-support a racist position. Is that encyclopedic? It seems to violate WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE,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 Original Research, 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', . 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" &mdash; 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 flog a dead horse, but that is not how I'm reading the consensus in that discussion. The consensus seems to be that the accusation of "accusation of racism" is essentially a red herring meant to deflect attention away from tendentious editing with the result (whether inadvertent or heedful) of advancing a non-neutral orientalist POV. In any case, as far as I am concerned, the matter is closed. If certain persons choose to vandalize edits of other participants on this talk page, I will defer to consensus on whether it should stay or not. I will certainly not 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)
 * For Indian Rape Laws, Change Is Slow to Come
 * Social policy and administration in India
 * The Agitation against Rape
 * Threatened existence yada yada yada
 * South Africa: Violence against Women and ICT
 * South Africa's position in Africa's crime rankings
 * Lawsuit Says Military Is Rife With Sexual Abuse (This talks about a culture of silence around rapes in the US military, which is a 'culture of silence', not a 'culture of rape').
 * The New York Times’ sloppy, slanted child rape story.

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. Thanks for the suggestion.Handyunits (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Manifestations of rape culture
Moved to Talk:Rape_culture/Manifestions.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 Feminist theory section in the article. If we can't really separate manifestations of rape from feminist theory we might as well merge them into one large section. Correct Knowledge  «৳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)


 * Your comment is funny. Did I suggest that there should be no section "manifestations of rape" or that we should create a section on "manifestations of rape from feminist theory"? The content in the proposal which overlaps with feminist theory and should logically go into that section. If that is hard to understand you should reconsider who is "entirely stupid" here. Correct Knowledge  «৳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. Correct Knowledge  «৳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. 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 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 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 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.
 * 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)


 * Support - I agree. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 07:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree.Handyunits (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Correct Knowledge  «৳alk»  22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)