User talk:Mgcavanaugh25

Welcome!
Hello, Mgcavanaugh25, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Rape culture
Hi, I saw that you were re-adding content to the article after it was removed. If content is challenged and removed it's best to discuss the edits on the talk page rather than re-add the material, as simply re-adding the content will not resolve the issue and can actually be seen as disruptive. Keep in mind that you won't be graded on what "sticks" in an article - you would only be graded on your effort. Here are some of the concerns I have with the content that would need to be addressed before anything is re-added and may have other notes.


 * All content must be backed up with a reliable source that explicitly states the claims. Unsourced content can be challenged and removed at any time.


 * Keep in mind that we can only summarize what has been explicitly stated - we cannot draw conclusions between two sources, as this would be seen as original research and should not be in the article at all.


 * Be very cautious about claims and also keep in mind that the rape culture article is meant to address the topic on a global scale. With any topic there will be aspects that will be very different depending on the country and culture, but this is extremely applicable with the topic of rape culture. For example, Donald Trump will be less applicable to non-US countries, nor would US specific hotlines.
 * Make sure that you're not relying on sourcing that is specifically discussing the US or one given country, as the experiences there will be unlikely to be truly standard for the whole world. Believe me when I say that the US is most assuredly not the norm for what is happening all over the world, whether it be positive or negative, as programs, celebrities, and issues are going to be unique to this country. There may be things that are similar to what other countries experience or celebrities that can be widely recognized, but these will be generally be outweighed by the experiences and celebrities that are not universal.


 * Don't list the numbers for specific hotlines. This isn't really the purpose of Wikipedia. At most the numbers would be in the given article for the hotline if they're notable, but even then the expectation is that if someone wanted to call the number, they would look it up off Wikipedia. Essentially, Wikipedia is not meant to be a place to raise awareness. This really comes off as being a bit of a soapbox to raise awareness at times. While I would wager that many would disagree with your sentiments, it's not what Wikipedia is meant for.


 * Avoid casual tones when writing. For example, avoid phrases like "etc" and "and many more" since these are not only imprecise but they're fairly casual in tone. It's better to have a set ending, like "such as cats, dogs, and birds" rather than "cats, dogs, birds, etc", for example. You also want to avoid phrases like "countless" for the same reasons, as it's casual and imprecise.


 * Be careful of sourcing as not everything will be usable as a reliable source. It's best to generally avoid awareness sites, as these aren't typically going to be seen as reliable sources because their main focus is eliciting both response and action from the reader. As such, their material may not be as accurate as an academic or scholarly source. This doesn't mean that an awareness site would outright lie per se, just that they will be less focused on accuracy and more intent on impact - especially as they will be coming into this with a very specific viewpoint. It may be a viewpoint that we easily share, but that still doesn't make them the best or strongest source. I would typically only use awareness sites for claims relating to themselves, to be honest.
 * With topics like this one, it's direly important that we use the most accurate and neutral sourcing.


 * Keep in mind that some things aren't really relevant to the topic. For example, we could mention that there are campaigns out there and that they're backed by celebrities, but there's no need to go into detail about who is supporting the campaign. I honestly wouldn't list names unless there is a lot of coverage to justify mentioning them - coverage that goes beyond routine passing mentions, primary sources, or press release type materials. Even then, it should be minimized because it would be easy for this to come across as name dropping.


 * You have at least one study listed as a source in the article. Studies should generally be avoided unless they're accompanied with a secondary source that reviews the study or comments upon the specific claim that is being stated. The reason for this is that studies are primary sources for any of the claims and research conducted by their authors. The publishers don't provide any commentary or in-depth verification, as they only check to ensure that the study doesn't have any glaring errors that would invalidate it immediately. Study findings also tend to be only true for the specific people or subjects that were studied. For example, a person in one area may respond differently than one in an area located on the other side of the country. Socioeconomic factors (be they for the person or a family member) also play a large role, among other things that can impact a response. As such, it's definitely important to find a secondary source, as they can provide this context, verification, and commentary. Aside from that, there's also the issue of why a specific study should be highlighted over another. For example, someone could ask why one study was chosen as opposed to something that studied a similar topic or had different results.


 * Finally, this is a lot of very general information and it doesn't really seem to go into a lot of information about rape culture and the LGBT community. A lot of it seems to be general about rape in the United States and while rape as an action is part of rape culture, it's not the sole aspect of it. For example, some members of the LGBT community may be expected to tolerate actions that effectively constitute sexual assault because of hypersexualized stereotypes or just plain entitlement on the other person's part. A more specific example could be the idea of a gay man going to a bathhouse known for hookups and getting fondled - the fondler would be acting on a sense of entitlement, that the recipient should expect to be fondled if they are in this location. It doesn't matter if they stop once they're told no, the fact is that the fondler automatically assumed that the other person would welcome this physical touch.
 * While there are obvious similarities to some of the experiences straight women have received, this is a situation that is unique to the LGBT world and while it includes physical assault, this wouldn't fall within how rape is traditionally defined.

I am going to stop my notes here since this will be a lot to focus on, but Flyer22 may have more input for you. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)