Talk:SlutWalk/Archives/2014/April

Neutrality
The sentence in the lede mentioning women speaking about "their rapes" implies through the use of the words "their rapes" that all these women are speaking about an actual event that is theirs. In fact, we cannot know if all of these stories describe actual events or not. All we know for certain is these are their stories of rape; insinuations that these stories are all true should be left out, not only because we can't verify the veracity of each and every one of them, it's also not neutral.

So far, no clear argument has been presented as to why allege--by definition, "to state without definite proof that someone has done something wrong or illegal"--is unacceptable for use in remedying the above issue. All that's been asserted in edit summaries is either untenable or simply a red herring, skipping completely over the whole point of avoiding false claims and maintaining neutrality.

(It is very poor form to remove maintenance tags notifying others that a part of an article is disputed and under discussion. Those who do so shouldn't throw out accusations of ownership, lest they appear hypocritical.) -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies on that one, I thought I was reverting vandalism due to your previous 3RR WP:EW Also please keep the conversation non-personal.
 * The reason for the phrasing is that the event is set up in order for women to speak out about rapes they have been through for the first time. Many of these women would not have previously had an opportunity to do so. Many of them could have definite proof that they have been through the rape, whereas allege, based on the definition you offered, suggests that many of them would not. This isn't a court case and the purpose isn't to falsely accuse men or other women of rape, whatever your opinion is on this. We are listing them as their stories, and challenging women who have possibly kept their history of previous sexual abuse is not the point of this article. Wikipedia doesn't exist to make independent research, and almost every reliable source discusses these incidents by taking the survivors word. I'm going to open this up for further debate, so please let this run its course before making further definitive edits as part of WP:CYCLE --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As we are not talking about specific individuals, I don't see a pressing need to verify that crimes occurred in terms of WP:BLP and WP:CRIME. We can verify, however, that they say they are rape survivors. They are not exceptional claims.  You seemed to be mostly concerned with "the truth" (my words/interpretation), but we are not seeking the truth, only reporting what others have said.  A secondary sources says they are rape survivors, then that's verified.  Added "alleged" or other qualifiers is akin to scare quotes.


 * Anticipating a rebuttal, a quote from WP:ALLEGED: "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure the source of the accusation is clear."
 * The issue here is that (1) there's no individual(s) being accused and (2) the source specifically says most crimes were not reported to the police. The source of the accusation is clear, but there is no target and thus no one to protect per WP:BLP.  As such, we're back to WP:TRUTH and we must go with what the source says.  EvergreenFir (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For comparison, see Southern Poverty Law Center. We do not use "alleged" or "so-called" when referring to the groups they identify as hate groups because we are reporting on what they say, not the truth. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This isn't about accusations being leveled or court cases. This is about information being presented by an encyclopaedia. Information is currently being presented in an unverifiable and non-neutral way. Saying these are stories of "their rapes" communicates that the rapes must all have happened, since the rapes are "possessed" by each of the story tellers. In fact, all we can say with certainty is the stories are possessed by the story tellers.
 * Perhaps using "allege" in the way I did wasn't the right approach, since it may assume the opposite: that all the stories are unproven. But, the sentence as it is is certainly presumptuous. It alleges that the referenced women have all described rapes that actually took place. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * While I'm assuming your good faith and don't think you ill intentions, I have general concerns when we try to put "alleged" or other qualifiers in front of statements of sexual assault victimhood. This rarely seems to be an issue with other crimes; we seem to usually take people's word for it.  Given what we know about sexual assault, rape culture, rates of false accusations, stigma, etc., I personally am of the "believe them" camp (doing my best not to get on a soapbox here).  Just acknowledging my position on the issue.
 * I do see your general point though and assume others share it and am willing to compromise. Perhaps phrasing it something like "In many of the rallies and online, women speak publicly for the first time about their identity as rape survivors"?  That would shift the meaning of the sentence to personal identity (which "survivor" is in many ways), includes the fact that they talk about life after their rapes and how its affected their lives, as well as move away from concerns about allegations and "truth" (again, my words; avoiding strawman as best I can).  This wording would also jive with the sources.  What do others think?  Too vague or unclear?  EvergreenFir (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I don't believe it should be changed, I think that's a good compromise. It moves the focus away from the crime itself, which I believe is what is advocating, whilst also expressing why the survivors speaking out is noteworthy --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I think I made it pretty clear that this is an npov issue, i.e. avoiding presenting an assumption as fact or letting personal beliefs skew article content. That this focuses on stories of rape shouldn't impede the requirement of neutrality. If this involved some other crime, the same principles would apply.
 * Regardless, the proposal is an improvement. I think, though, it could be condensed somewhat (by all of three words) to: In many of the rallies and online, women identify publicly for the first time as rape survivors. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow, what is the assumption that is being presented as fact? I think following the sources is probably the best way to achieve neutrality, rather than editing against them. I think the original phrasing by EvergreenFir is probably closer to what the sources suggest, as many identified as rape survivors previously to the event, but possibly didn't have the support in which to discuss their experiences. There is no assumption being made fact in that --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought I was pretty clear already on what assumption was and is still being presented in the article as fact.
 * I don't see any difference between EvergreenFir's proposal and my own except mine is three words shorter. But, if you prefer the former, then, by all means, use it. I was merely trying to keep the lede compact. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I kinda prefer my wording just a tad as it mentions the speeches. I'm going to add that into the lede since it seems we all agree the wording is good enough.  EvergreenFir (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about RfC header

 * Comment. So, exactly what is the question being asked here?  If there is no question, then perhaps the RfC header should be removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Mistake on my part, sorry I'm a relatively new editor. I thought the tag meant a request for comments rather than answers to a question. I will remove it now --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but an RfC is traditionally written in the form of a yes-or-no proposition, such as or   From there, outside views are brought in by volunteers invited by a bot.  If you'd like to have more input, that's perfectly legitimate, but it would help to give a brief, neutral statement that describes the nature of the dispute, followed by a yes-or-no proposition.  That would give volunteers an idea of what they're supposed to be discussing.  Diffs help.  Remember, they're unfamiliar with the situation and may have a short attention span.  Nobody likes to see a page-long debate with an ambiguous section header; it means that you're going to have to spend an hour reading talk pages to understand what the issue is about.  Instead, I suggest you start a new RfC, make the header a lot more descriptive and in the form of a yes-or-no question, and stick to 50 words or less to describe the situation neutrally and without accusations or advocacy.  Then set aside a section for debate, where it won't form a wall of text.  See WP:RFC for the suggested layout. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll keep all of that in mind for the next time I use this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)