User talk:Pi.1415926535/Archive 2

'''This is an archive of past discussion threads on User talk:Pi.1415926535, from September 2011 (the end of Archive 1) to October 2012. Please don't modify it. If you wish to revive a discussion, please start a new section on my main talk page and link to the discussion here.'''

one more tweak please
Please switch B and C molecules around.

TCO (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

P.s. Sorry, I should have noticed this. My fault. After this, we will be in article order. Will help me as we prep for Featured Article.

✅: Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Is already working in article!TCO (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

nother strip request
have a request in at the graphics lab for another strip (this time with biologically related F molecules). Appreciate if you can work more strip magic! TCO ( talk ) 02:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Done; see WP:GL/I (permalink). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How can I make the MBTA thing better?
Could you please tell me how I can add Amtrak station status info to the I-box without introducing that CRA you know what? Thank you! BTW, I just began to make heavy editing. (RESPOND HERE AND ADD TO MY TALK PAGE)Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 00:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Trains
I see that you have just done one of the images on the WP:8R page and that your user page indicates that you are interested in trains. I thought that you might be interested in visiting my family's 10,000+ page railroad history website. I have also had four books published on railroad history. Centpacrr (talk) 07:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Porter station photo description
I was hoping we had a simple misunderstanding regarding the "looking up" photo description on Wikimedia, but I despair of that when I find you saying "I took this picture from the fare mezzanine. It looks up the entire thing, not just the middle span." It obviously was taken from the inbound platform level, not the fare mezzanine, and there is no way to see or photograph the entire series of escalators or stairs (from the tunnel on up to the street) from any single vantage point.

Alongside the lowest escalators (between upper and lower Red Line platforms) there are 22 steps. Alongside the uppermost escalators (between mezzanine and street) are 60. The other 117 are alongside the middle and longest span in the series—shown in your "looking up" photograph. The 199 figure is the grand total, from tunnel to street. These figures were in the article long term, and have been well verified.

Less than four days ago you accepted my count of 117 steps alongside the 143-foot escalators. You are also welcome to count them for yourself.

[Excessive comments removed by author] I am hopeful that after re-examining the figures you will reinstate my edit of the description, so that we can get on with more constructive pursuits. Hertz1888 (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep, totally my fault. I got confused multiple times - both between groups of stairs and groups of elevators, and when I typed "fare mezzanine" when I meant "inbound platform level". It didn't help that I've never entered the Red Line from street level at Porter - I've been from the platforms to the fare mezzanine, and from the surface to the CR platform, but never the whole 199 steps. I can't even blame this one on lack of sleep like my rudeness usually is - this was just a total cock-up on my part, and I'm really sorry.


 * I changed the description back to yours, and edited the talk page. Is there anything more that should be changed? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm also going to visit the State Transportation Library downtown and see if I can get my hands on plans for the station so I can make a clearer description of the whole thing. Ideally, maybe make a 3D model in Solidworks. Picture is worth a thousand words, y'know? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Case closed, and still cheerful collaborators as far as I am concerned. Maybe it's a confusing situation.  You have an admirably high success rate in "my book".  There's nothing else that should be changed that I am aware of; if I see any problems, you can count on me to fix or note them.


 * It would benefit the article greatly to have official, definitive figures for the relative or absolute elevations (or depths) of the various levels and features, whether referenced to MBTA datum, ground level, mean sea level, or some other standard. If you find plans with such information I should be able to help interpret it. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll do my best. Ever since Sanborn retired a few years ago (and recently passed away), the Library is slowly becoming disorganized. I'm also a Dewey Decimal raised kid, and it is LC numbering....


 * Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

A well-deserved Barnstar
After a year of Wikipedia editing, I finally feel confident enough to award my first Barnstar to another editor. I think this is a good place to start. Thank you also for your meticulous route map work, your occasional kind advice to fellow editors, and generally cheerful and helpful attitude! --Reify-tech (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Wickford Junction
This made me laugh this morning. Cheers, Mackensen (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks. I get funny with edit summaries on occasion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

University City (SEPTA station) on the Northeast Corridor
I reverted your removal of University City (SEPTA station) from the Northeast Corridor article, for two reasons; 1)One of the lines along the NEC does stop at that station, the Wilmington/Newark Line to be exact. 2)I mistook it for the Pennsylvania Railroad Main Line, which only contains the Paoli/Thorndale Line and some Amtrak trains. Upon futher examination of the SEPTA Main Line, article, I found that while I was wrong about the PRR Main Line and SEPTA Main Line being one in the same, the NEC does use part of the SEPTA Main Line. -DanTD (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, "Main Line" was the wrong term in my edit summary. I still don't think University City is technically on the NEC, though, any more than the MNRR stops between New Rochelle and GCT are. There's no UC platforms on the NEC tracks, only on the SEPTA-only tracks which are on a different ROW at UC and run to the upper level of 30th Street. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, so they are separate ROWs? I think I see that on Google Maps. SEPTA Main Line is to the left on Penn Park, while the NEC appears to be on the right. Be that as it may, you really should've readjusted all other parameters when you removed it, and the line template on the SEPTA Main Line article shows NEC joining the SEPTA Main Line, and not leaving it. DanTD (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was an idiot and forgot to adjust parameters. I'm not sure what University City is technically on - might be the SEPTA Main Line, might be something else - but it's definitely off the NEC. OK to remove it? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. Just don't forget the rest of the PA parameters, Also, noting the junction of the SEPTA Main Line would be nice. DanTD (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I just thought of something; The list already has ZOO Interlocking as the point where the Keystone Corridor splits off. Why not just keep the parameters, remove University City station, adjust the mileage slightly to the south, and add a note that it's where the SEPTA Main Line splits off? DanTD (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Rape culture - how best to progress and resolve the ongoing WP:NPOV Dispute?
Well it's coming up to 6 months (8 Jan 2012) since I first raised the issues with the rape culture entries and the WP:NPOV - Systemic Bias issues that have still not been resolved.

Now I see that someone has set up Mizbot to archive entries and concerns raised on the talk page. I do hope it's not a deliberate act to try and just make the issues vanish. They won't. P^)

You did make clear that you welcomed expansion of the page and even globalisation as far back as January, and I have sought so many sources that meet the views laid down - sources must use the term "rape culture" - there must be no WP:OR - and still no matter how far I go in meeting other's demands in the spirit of consensus, there is just no progress. What is the point of supplying so many sources that meet other's demands if they just get left on the talk page and the actual issues just don't get addressed?

I remain concerned that sources identifying whole countries, and providing a global perspective, on the subject of rape culture have simply been missed - Meitse 1996 -1998 (South Africa) - Baxi 2002 (India) - Michael Parenti - The Global Rape Culture (2005) - and there has been WP:UNDUE on references only to the USA. The global sources are of course sourced via Goggle.

It was almost comical when the section on South Africa was added, once I raised the issue of bias - and I have recently expanded that to place the subject in both an historical and culturally sensitive framework. You should also be aware that I am doing the same Ref India - Sandbox. - It was even stated In January that sources relating to other countries would be integrated once they were made known - and that simply has not happened.

I have sourced material on a global basis - even down to Pitcairne Island - met all demands put forward by other editors - and no matter what the page just does not progress.

I have even had to cite sources that give an Historical perspective to rape culture, such as the history of slavery and Droit du seigneur which does have quite a significance in the US. It would seem that racial bias applies even when a US centric focus is maintained. That has been a concern from the start with the discovery of the film "Rape Culture", and the involvement of the men of Lorton Prison (Prisoners Against Rape Inc) who were all African Americans had simply been brushed under the carpet - and It was most interesting to read the views and experiences of Loretta Ross who was instrumental in working with these men.

But through out - it all has to be about Recent Events - Slutwalk - Dickwolves Controversy - Facebook pages - and the actual subject and global perspective of rape culture just gets minimised. I have even had to point out that claims that face book was only about the USA and UK were - well ..... Systemic Bias.

It's even been argued that as the USA is supposedly the primary source of Entertainment material on the planet the bias is unavoidable.

I have even had to ask how far people in certain parts of the world would need to go "Hold a Slut walk in a mine-filed and notify CNN/Fox news in advance"? (15 January 2012) & (2 May 2012).

I have recently made clear that I believe that the whole page needs a complete redraft - even the heading "Prominent incidents and allegations of rape culture" is nonsensical and creates a false hierarchy around the subject - and I still wonder how one alleges a rape culture. Alleged is of course a word that should be avoided WP:ALLEGED.

So unless there is constructive motion forward to produce quality content by consensus, I will have to start concluding that some editors are deliberately not engaging so as to not reach any form of consensus  - and by not engaging also acting to prevent access to dispute resolution and even a Third Opinion. I have made it clear for some time that I would welcome external and independent oversight of matters.

I have been stating that for many months. (15 January 2012 Onwards).

I have also made it clear that I am concerned about "Advocacy Editing" due to the apparent determination to make the page only about the USA and ignore the Global perspective and billions of other people. That is of course against WP:NPOV and even promotes Systemic Bias.

What do you suggest as a way forward on how to improve the page - remove systemic bias and meet WP:NPOV?

It does seem that it's overdue.

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  19:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To preface my answer here: realize that the page is continually a work in progress. It takes a while, especially when you've only got a few active editors. I've got time constraints much of the time; when I don't, I'm not often in a mental state where I can work with triggering things like rape. (You may note that 95% of my contributions are to pages about the Boston rail system, and that's no coincidence. For me, it's therapeutic as much as it is academic.) I try to do what I can, but I can't guarantee on a day-to-day basis what I can produce. I can't even guarantee that I'll be able to even read the talk page. I think you're fantastic and all, but I have to prioritize not feeling physically sick over being able to reply.


 * I'm also not an expert here. When I am able to stomach discussion of rape, I read a lot. (Just picked up a copy of "Transforming a Rape Culture" that's on my dining room table as we type.) But I have no formal training on the subject, and I know next to nothing of it outside what I've picked up from reading blogs and a few papers. So the reason why the list was (until you entered the scene) US-based examples? They were what I dragged up with a preliminary Google search and a real quick troll through a few academic databases. I started that section as "here's some examples of what prominent people have been calling rape culture", not "here's a comprehensive list of what's been called rape culture in a whole slew of countries" - but I like where you're taking it. I apologize if you feel I've been restricting you; I don't mean to, but you may note I'm not exactly the most eloquent person out there.


 * (An aside: the section on South Africa was not intended to be comical. I wrote it to the best of my ability and knowledge, which was limited. It's quite clear here that you have a holistic understanding of rape culture in South Africa which quite frankly I don't.)


 * So the biggest thing that you can do to make the article better is edit it yourself. If you want to see other countries added to that list, then add them yourself. Don't assume that other editors will always do the writing for you - you're a good writer, and adding sections to the article itself makes much more difference than simply posting to the talk page. I'll do what I can; at the moment I'm about to rewrite some of the South Africa section (looks good; needs some copyediting), and I'll try (on a week to month scale, unfortunately) to go back and add some of the country-specific section that you've suggested. But complaining that I'm not engaging is not a fair assessment to make.


 * At this point, there's basically three ways this can go. My preference is to stay the course. Bounce ideas and edits off each other till the article is some manner of respectable. Yeah, we don't always agree, but it's improving. Should we choose this, I think both of us could stand to communicate better. I'll try to be more helpful (and better at explaining myself). It's very difficult, though, to try to discuss things with you when you label everything I do as systemic bias.


 * The second option is to go to Wikiprojects for help. WP Feminism has some good folks but it's not very active. I have no worked with WP Systemic Bias or WP Women's History. This option is fully compatible with the first.


 * The third option is to seek outside dispute resolution. I don't think this is necessary because it's not getting heated. There's no edit warring going on, and I believe we're looking for the same result - an article that explains the origin, meaning, and (global) incidents of rape culture. (The dispute here is just the exact content which will be added for each country, and who's going to add it. Important, yes, but a long way from a yelling festival. If you do wish to go this route, there's a few options. You made an RFC a month or so ago; that can be reactivated. WP:THIRD is maybe possible, but it's eliminated if any other editors start actively working on this article. Mediation Cabal is another possibility though I'm not sure how active they are.


 * I changed the section title to "Rape culture and incidents by nation" which is horribly awkward but hopefully more agreeable? I also moved the internet-based examples to the bottom of the section.


 * Who exactly are you accusing of advocacy editing? Me? I maintain my anonymity on Wikipedia to the best degree possible; however, I feel it is pertinent to mention that I have no academic, political, or financial connections to anything related to this article. I am a member of a local group that aims to educate fraternities about rape; however, my work with this article predates the existence on that group which is presently on hiatus.


 * I agree that changes are overdue. I regret that I'm not able to implement them as quickly as you'd like.


 * I hope this provides something of the answer you're looking for. Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Reverting Good Faith Edits.
Since you do not discuss matters or contentious edits and content on the rape culture talk page, I have been advised to do so here.

I am also advised that you are responsible for addressing the points set out below. You may find the content informative.

I see that you have reverted good faith edits and commented "(→‎Origins and usage: Don't be ridiculous. You can't remove entire cited sections because they contradict your pet theory.)" - Link to diffs

I understand that where there is concern over such edits the correct place to address them is the Talk Page - and I did do that prior to the edits.

You have not responded there. It is odd that other editors have again started making personal comment - and yet again I have had to point them to the issues and ask that they address them. It seems that even providing links directly to the Rfc is of little assistance to them.

Could you please provide sources for the claim - "Several different theories[citation needed] exist..." under the heading of Origins and usage.

You are aware that I have been highlighting the issues of Systemic Bias, Recentism, US Focus and lack of correct content since January - 6 months.

I have been patient and made my concerns known on the Talk Page - providing so many sources that I have to conclude that they have been ignored deliberately.

I have become obliged to conclude that some are acting to simply deny any form of consensus and also block any form of progress. When concerns are acted upon to remove highly questionable content there is a sudden lack of WP:Silence which is linked to claims of pushing pet theories.

I note that you do not address the concerns raised or discuss them on the Talk Page.

Kindly address the concerns in the right place and not in the Edit Comment. The talk page is the correct place - rude edit comments are of course not a suitable place for constructive dialogue - ref WP:CONSENSUS.

Please also consider WP:OR - WP:NPOV - WP:V - Systemic bias - WP:CHALLENGED - WP:OWNERSHIP - WP:WEASEL

I do fear that it is you who is pushing pet theories with the claims of "Several" different theories existing, when there are no WP:NPOV - WP:V sources to address the claims being made.

I have placed the template in line so that as far as possible readers are not mislead any further.

I am aware that the claims you have been making since January have been propagated across the net. As you are aware I have been researching and locating valid sources for the subject of rape culture on a global basis - and at each point raised their existence on the talk page - along with my concerns of ongoing Systemic Bias.

The lack of response has been noteworthy.

I also remain concerned that you have repeatedly cautioned me to beware WP:OR, and yet you do not show such caution yourself when making claims and edits that really do need WP:V.

The language you keep promoting and even insisting upon fits Weasel Words.

The deliberate use of passive voice to promote a false view or premise is a matter of concern. It is addressed in WP:MOS - see WP:WEASEL.

It seems that you are of the view that correcting such errors is to be seen as someone pushing a "pet theory".

I have made clear why the WP:OR claims made are not valid - why the Brownmiller references is a is a Non sequitur - and also the concerns as to the quotes from the Encyclopaedia Of Rape is WP:UNDUE as it claims that feminists state ... when that claim is about only the USA - and not all feminists on the USA agree with the claim.

That does have quite a bearing on Systemic bias.

It is illogical to imply that one person has been influenced by a source that arose only after their actions took place. Such illogical speculation presented under the guise of an unverified assertion of other's opinion or the existence of multiple theories simply has no place in Wikipedia.

So Who is the person or persons who need to be cited as having developed and promoted these theories?

"Even with well-sourced material ... if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research." Why_Wikipedia_cannot_claim_the_earth_is_not_flat

I really shouldn't need to have to point that out. There is a rather large issue of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR.

If an academic paper is wrong as to source and history, it really is not a Valid Source that stands even basic scrutiny. A source may be sincere, but when in error it's sincerity is no reason for it to be used to propagate Its error within Wikipedia.

It's written in a book. it must be true.

Lord Kelvin famously used his scientific knowledge and standing to prove the age of the Sun and so prove Biblical History as correct. His theory was blown out of the water not long afterwards by Earnest Rutherford - which is why so few know of Kelvin's theory, other than as an example of paradigm shift and even Professors being fallible. Kelvin assumed that the Sun was made of Coal - and that God had mined the Coal in the Welsh valleys.

Lack of quality in sources can be pointed out directly - with Ironic Humour - in fact by any means, and yet the actual issue just gets ignored and not addressed.

It has even been disturbing to have to point out why claims of Internet activity attributed to only the UK and USA are misleading and Systemic Bias.

It is fascinating to check which domains for such places as the UK - Italy - France - India - Many African nations - Australia - New Zealand ... in fact globally all redirect to a .com domain owned by Facebook Inc.

There is one that does not and that is quite amusing. http://www.facebook.co.uk just does not go where people expect! UK users are obliged to use the .com domain for access.

Facebook is a global entity and cyber realm that has no borders - and assuming that all English Language usage there is from only two countries is false and manifest Systemic Bias. '''It does not matter if other's are quoted and their error reproduced. It is the responsibility of the Wiki Editor to consider such external Systemic bias and not reproduce it within Wikipedia itself.'''

Again - It's written in a book. it must be true.

I also remain concerned as to the validity of source claimed from 1974 - explained why there is concern - and even asked if the full Source has been checked over the Snippet View of two lines that exists in Google Books.

There has been no response to that point - but there has been pleading of special personal circumstances on other parts of the talk page - and those have been given due consideration and extra time allowed. The actual point raised as to WP:NPOV - WP:V still has not been addressed since 22:20, 5 May 2012.

However, such special pleading will no longer be accepted as a valid response to valid concerns as to page content. If the specific point is raise and not addressed the Wikipedia policy is WP:SILENCE.

It is not safe to present a snippet view of two lines as a valid source when the full source has not been consulted. It is noted that when searching the Google Book source there is no other indicated occurrence of the words in it's total of 283 pages. That is significant.

Even contemporary book reviews seem to have missed the subject, which is surprising given how powerful the phrase "rape culture" is. It indicates that the book was either not read in full, else the reference to rape culture is so insignificant as to be unnoticeable and transient.

It would appear that a poorly sourced confluence of two words - modified with the direct article - is being given WP:UNDUE, and you do not wish to address that point because it is you who have cited that source and present it under the guise of "Several different theories[citation needed] exist..." and yet you have not provided WP:NPOV WP:V references to address the passively made assertion.

I have asked if the full source text has been checked for validity - and I do note that the issue has still to be addressed or any response made. That is a most serious matter under WP:CHALLENGED.

Again - It's written in a book. it must be true.

After a month it is removed and you assert "(→‎Origins and usage: Don't be ridiculous. You can't remove entire cited sections because they contradict your pet theory.)"

Pleading special personal circumstances else where on the talk page does not negate the issue - only seem to be an attempt to divert attention from the issue of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR.

I do fear that you are POV Pushing and focusing only upon the USA to the detriment of the Global Issues and the subject of rape culture in general. After six months I am left with few other options and conclusions.

It would seem that WP:SILENCE is to be taken as meaning only after you have been given special treatment and extended courtesy - and then when WP:SILENCE is accepted as valid, the response is for you to claim that others are somehow or other to be viewed as pushing pet theories.... and yet you have not addressed your views or WP:CHALLENGED on the talk page.

You are aware that having pointed to the source of the concept of rape culture and very clearly using the term rape culture, I waited a most reasonable time and then addressed the deficits by producing the page "Rape Culture (film), and then integrated the valid sources and references in to the main "rape culture" page.

I did note that my earlier request for clarification as to the need for Disambiguation was Ignored. It seems to me that it was hoped that by ignoring matters they would simply vanish.

It was necessary to be careful correcting errors in the page "rape culture" as some editors had made hasty edits which had introduced errors that did need to be removed. It is a pity that they did not check the sources first. I was most careful in sourcing references that would stand careful scrutiny - including contemporary report as to the correct content and views as to the film and people involved. I have been most scrupulous in addressing what is evidently a contentious subject.

I have raised the issue of progress by addressing matters by Disambiguation - raised the bias of placing term over concept "Concept Vs Term - Essentially contested concept" and I have even acted on a Rfc to address the issue of Systemic Bias. The WP:SILENCE has been most revealing.

I note that you have not made comment to the Rfc, but have stated that raising the issue of Systemic bias is useless and unwelcome else where on the talk page.

To quote:

"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. - 19:42, 23 May 2012"

So you object to systemic bias being raised and - again raise the issue of WP:OR and even WP:V - and yet you do not extend the same requirements to yourself. There is self evident concern as to double standards.

I have even had to query your assertions as to unwritten and undisclosed rules as to what may and may not be page content. It was interesting that you have been so excommunicative on the rape culture talk page - and yet when I stated I was in the process of drafting content concerning India - and linked to a specific sandbox - comments came ever so quickly.

There were revelations as to Goal posts - suddenly the position had changed from the term rape culture had to be referenced upon to "..there needs to be at least one verifiable source of some reliable nature (something academic or in the press preferred, but some well-known blogs qualify per WP:RS) calling it "rape culture" or "culture of rape" or "rape-supportive culture" or some similar term."

Now who was it back in January raising the issue of Synonym? Could it possibly have been me and I was then told that it was incorrect and only the "Term" rape culture applied!

I even had to ask "Where goal posts you been using defined in Wiki? page link please!"

I do remain very concerned that such a valid source - the Film "Rape Culture" (1975) - references 20 Jan 1975 - and all the references to it have been ignored for so long. I do remain concerned that it was deliberately ignored for so long due to gender bias and even racial bias. It was very revealing to read the Interview with an eye witness to events and see the issues of racial bias reported so clearly as far back as 1974/5.

You should note that whilst I may be personally appalled at the issues of racial bias and gender bias that exist within referenced sources, I have not included such matters in Wiki Content as it would be against best practice - WP:NPOV even if WP:V is full satisfied. My personal views as to certain matters are not for the continent of Wikipedia. I have been most careful in not POV Pushing or expounding pet theories or personal concerns.

Having the opposite alluded to is to me unacceptable.

It really does not agree with WP:GOODFAITH - but then again such attitudes and comments are something that does cause so many Novice Wiki Editors to leave.

The ongoing failure to address Systemic bias also remains of great concern.

I have been struck by the number of times you have advised that I should write else where and should not be contributing to Wikipedia.

I have provided so many sources to the Systemic bias issue - from Afghanistan to Pitcairne Island - From All over Africa to Asia the Middle East ... and I still have not gotten to South America Yet.

Portuguese and Spanish are not languages I am familiar with - though I do note the concerns raised as to rape culture when a contestant in the Brazilian Big brother game show was raped live on air in 2011 - and the resultant fall out, campaigning and even International coverage of the issue in English Language International Media.

It did make Huffington Post - CNN - ABC - MSN - and even some more traditional news outlets such as the NY Times and Washington dailies. It even featured in other countries too.

Odd how such a "Prominent Incident and Allegation Of Rape Culture" caught on Camera - uploaded to so many Video Hosting sites - and covered in so many countries just passed so many by. In fact the concerns as "Rape Culture" big brother go as far back as 2006 and earlier, long before events in Brazil. I note that the subject is still being addressed daily across so many blogs. It's hard to miss.

I have been addressing China through a most valid source that even illuminates the issues with China, Taiwan, Korea and much of the far east with specific contrasting against the USA. It is hard to research oriental countries as the term Rape Culture simply has no direct translation, just as so many oriental words and verbal constructs simply can't be translated directly into English or other Saxon/Romance languages.

I have had to source references from the Arabic group of languages -covering such places as Lebanon - Iran - Syria and even the recent Civil War in Libya. Again there is no direct translation of rape culture into or from these languages.

In any event, such direct translation is irrelevant - and even foreign language sources addressing rape culture may be used in Wikipedia - Verifiability.

I do have to draw your attention to your edit summary January where you stated:

"03:06, January 12, 2012‎ Pi.1415926535 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,647 bytes) (+57)‎ . . (integrate media-hound edits with previous version. correct grammar and keep source referencing US. Not biased; merely an example. Find me references of other countries called rape cultures and they can be cited too.)"

I did respond promptly with the references and did have to ask more than once - what more was required "What would some have to do to get recognition. Have a Slutwalk in a Mine Field?... and notify the American Media in advance?"

At that time I was a Newbie, and have in the interim gained a wider knowledge of Wiki Land - Etiquette - and even WP:SILENCE. It is an advantage of taking part and exploring.

I did accept your claims that you would assist in integration of Global sources as WP:GOODFAITH. After, all I have provided all the source materials to make that easier. They were all in English language and even multilingual.

There was a poor attempt to address Systemic bias when a poor quality entry about South Africa was shoe horned into the page in January.

It has been regrettable that there has been no other attempt to improve the Global Issues since. As a Newbie it has been interesting to see how disadvantage is played upon - and how some simply like to be insulting and rude in edit summaries.

It has been of concern that sources such as Maitse 1996-8 citing South Africa as a rape culture just got missed. Instead more recent material from less valid and shallow sources were used instead - inducing a bizzare reference to South Africa being a War Culture.

I did question if such a reference to "War Culture" did not in fact open up the whole subject area to address bigger issues - but that was met with WP:SILENCE.

I did note that queries on the talk page as to the validity of such did not get an response. I did get a response that queried why I was raising the on going issue of bias and was advised to write else where and not on Wikipedia. It has been a recurring motif! Not Here! That motif is consistent with WP:OWNERSHIP.

The need to address Systemic bias has not happened and the delay is now unreasonable. As such I will continue to address the issues on the page of WP:OR - Systemic Bias - US centrism - History - and the massive omissions that have gone on for so long.

If you are unable or unwilling to address the ongoing issues with Systemic Bias - US/Anglophone Focus - Recentism and not address concerns on the talk page, I will have to conclude that you are acting under the presumption of WP:OWNERSHIP.

It is a recognised pattern that avoiding the talk page can be a deliberate act to prevent consensus and progress in any way. It is interesting that when WP:SILENCE has occurred and so WP:SILENCE is accepted as valid and permitting editing, suddenly the WP:SILENCE vanishes and edits are contested and reverted - even done poorly necessitating re-editing to again address typos that had been corrected, but were reintroduced.

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.

I do regret that it has become necessary to make so many points clear, but I understand that it is a necessary step of Wiki Dispute Resolution. I do fear that your refusal to communicate on issues has been to block consensus building so that content can be improved.

That has been ongoing since January, and it is now overdue for resolution. I am here and I'm editing and I foresee a long future doing so.

Forgive me If I'm busy - I have been having to both research sources on a global scale, and also look at issues around existing pages addressing non USA manifestations of rape culture, where the original authors have either cited incorrectly, or cited sources from the net have been lost due to Link Rot. P^)

Some have just invented supposed facts such as claiming that the term corrective rape was coined in 2008 - and there are earlier sources which are not hard to find! Some are actually referenced in the sources referenced on the page itself. It seems that Students are just not as attentive as they used to be. I'm still having to chase an elusive source from 1984. I may have personally been using the term "corrective rape" back in the 1980's, along with a number of other people addressing many issues of sexual violence and homophobia - but I am still obliged to comply with Verifiability, not truth.

It does seem that Students generating content as a class project is a very large issue, especially when they walk away and leave a trail of such errors behind for others to have to discover and clean up. I even find it odd that an issue that is so prominent in the media over the last years has not been looked at and checked. Demonstrably false content is just accepted and left to lie.

As a consequence of inattention whole sets of pages relating to other countries and linked directly to the issue of rape culture are at risk of deletion and a number have become orphaned. I have been working to address that so that relevant content to other countries is not lost or left in the Wiki Wilderness.

It is hard work delving into multiple sources, often in multiple languages to locate either copies of the originals - or suitable replacements. It takes time, care and very careful consideration of available sources which of course have to be judged against WP:NPOV and WP:V.

I have even had to track down Court Papers for landmark Court Rulings which have a direct bearing and even pivotal role in rape culture within specific countries. Some go back to the 1970's - and when located they have to be read and studied in detail, even referencing upon additional sources to ensure they actually say what has been reported else where.

It is not clear why such highly valuable sources have been missed - especially when other sources reference them so many times.

I do fear that the issues of None First Language English Wiki users are far greater than many people recognise - and that understanding academic and even legal referencing in English is a subject area that is not even taught at Cambridge Proficiency Level in EFL/TESOL. I have checked.

I am sensitive to language issues and English as none 1st language - and so I do quite readily detect Translation Errors and incorrect usage of time references which are implicit in tense structures. So many do not grasp that English is a most odd language which contains tenses that have no equivalent in other languages. The present perfect (the most common tense in the English Language) is a case in hand. Implied time in English is taken for granted by so many, and yet it is not a feature in most other languages at all.

Once I have located and been able to cite such High level legal sources to address others language barriers, I have appended them to the relevant page, and am also having to consider how such sources relate to other matters and pages that postdate such sources - but which are linked by developments over time.

It is interesting to see a Supreme Court lay out a legal judgement, brought as a result of gross and ongoing miscarriage of justice, and then shortly afterwards reverse and ignore the very judgement made - negating it and the protection of Millions of people.

It does make sense of a claim such as "Rape culture signifies ways of doing party politics and managing governance in which brutal collective sexual assaults on women remain enclosed in contrived orders of impunity.".

In light of the facts such words are beguilingly mild and temperate.

It is also very necessary to give extended consideration of how to rephrase ambiguous tenses in the English Language so as to not introduce new errors - and that takes a great deal of checking against available sources where time dependent language needs to be changed. Again, extensive levels of reading, cross referencing, study and consideration are required. It takes a great deal of time and even multiple considerations over time to ensure that new and improper bias is not introduced.

It is also most interesting to observe how some pages relating to specific global areas show a more than proficient use of English, and yet others are not attended to. It is even more fascinating to note how the lack of attentiveness also identifies a Gender Divide and what would appear to be manifest and ongoing Gender Bias.

I have also found it most odd that most suitable Ref Boxes have not been applied to those pages - and even how extant Ref Boxes divert attention from pages that do bear closer attention and even maintenance.

Access to the English language can be a gender issue, as can access to I.T. resources and even access to Wikipedia. It is fascinating to keep detecting patterns that correspond with those.

So you will have to bear with me as I work systematically and sympathetically across multiple languages, ethic groups, culturally specific references and even religious diversity as I work to maintain and even improve the content of Wikipedia respecting a number of very complex factors that require more than careful consideration of WP:NPOV - WP:V - WP:GLOBAL

Oh, and I must also make sure that what is done is not inadvertent WP:OR.

I am also disappointed that so many others have missed the issues in the rush to edit other pages and even on related subjects.

I wish to make clear that I am in no way presenting my ongoing endeavours as some form of special pleading as to my personal life. I keep my personal life out of Wikipedia as it has no place and is not counted as WP:NOTE. - I also do have a personal life and personal issues that are fully out with Wikipedia, and that is where they remain.

In the mean time, it would be useful if known existing issues were dealt with under Wiki Policy such as WP:CONSENSUS where Language barriers and even access to sources is not a barrier to progress.

Deliberate time wasting and use of WP:SILENCE has consequences beyond the individual.

I also note that there has been a growing trend in the number of page views on "rape culture" since the introduction of the expanded information on South Africa. It is quite prominent and even rivals past viewing spikes linked to specific events in the UK/USA media. Ref - Ched Evans - rape trial - rape culture says the Guardian. (See rape culture Talk Page). In fact when you factor out hits due to known specific events and high socila media traffic ( ref Slutwalk ) the page has 200% higher page views in 5 days!

It is bizarrely significant.

I do have to wonder why the increase has occurred?

There is no concomitant or relevant spike or sustained increase visible from other web profiling resources to explain it. There is no corresponding media spike or spikes in Google Web Trends.

Could it be that Quality Verified content is the cause?

I would be fascinated to be able to study the global IP mapping for page hits to see if there are any other related changes in the IP demographic - and even geography.

That may also shed some light on the reasons for the growing trend in page views and even Geographical shifts which may even be globally significant.

I do remain fascinated by some reference from and about the Film Rape Culture. - the quoted reference as to "unholy trinity of rape, genocide and war." both within the film and quoted directly in Norsigian source is very revealing. It shows how the concept of rape culture interfaces with such events and was seen as such from day one.

I am finding it very hard to locate any references to recent Genocidal Events in the USA - though such events in US history and related use of rape as a weapon do exist.

The links to the history of Slavery in the USA are all too evident, and yet have not been mentioned. There are so many quality sources - and a number already feature as sources cited on the rape culture page. That deficit as to History does need to be addressed - and even links to Bible usage to excuse slavery and slave rape would even bear study and consideration.

I know a number of Theologians who have written on that very issue in the recent past. The sources are not hard to find. Daniel 13 - Susanna - the biblical lesson that when gang raped and molested just shut up and say nothing.

So odd that in so many places on the planet such Biblical Zeal is actually being pro-actively preached - Uganda - the Philippines - Borneo - New Guinea and other less well known places. It's fascinating how such zeal is also being funded by Dollars raised in certain churches.

I am also unable to locate any references to War within the USA which are recent - But there are a great many references from the US Government to Interstate War and Civil War in other parts of the Globe - and even concerns as to how rape has been used as an act of warfare, terror and even genocide. Maybe those are not seen as valid sources for inclusion in Wikipedia? Are they not WP:NOTE?

I do think that the updating of The Geneva Conventions to address rape as a weapon of war and genocide may have some bearing upon addressing "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 sexual violence."

Of course, that occurred some years ago - Ref Rwandan Genocide. It may have had little bearing on US life, but it has had a bearing on the lives of so many others in different countries around the Globe.

and media has been used quite deliberately to highlight the issue of lack of media access when civil unrest, war and even geographical location and cultural issues can be adversely affected by too high a focus upon media which promotes not only a focus upon the recent - but also allows media bias itself to become embedded within Wikipedia.

It is a Known issue in tackling Systemic Bias. Maybe I have personal experience in the matter - but that again that is not WP:NOTE so it has no place on the wiki page, just in editing practice and consideration of Wiki best practice, policy and guidance - and page content!

It would seem that the US Governments reticence to use the modified noun "rape culture" in official and politically sensitive diplomatic situations has blocked some to either recognising the issues or citing them as references. I have of course located sources (as told was required) where the modified modified noun "rape culture" is used explicitly and so opened the door for such US Governmental Sources to be brought to bear on the subject and expand on the content of the page.

It's a pity that such groups as Amnesty International - many NGOs - and so many other sources who go where media types fear to tread, just get lost when Media Hype and Viral Networking gets let loose! Whilst some may wish to portray facebook - twitter and other such venues as significant, they do themselves suffer gross Systemic Bias and exclude many billions of people on this planet.

I find it odd that blogs about a website, little known outside of the USA, get so much prominence, and the question of Genocide by rape - abusing national - tribal - cultural customs being discussed by the US Government does not feature at all. Maybe that reference to media in the lead is misleading when getting media coverage from a war zone can be so hard.

Maybe the media reference should be removed from the lead so as to not promote Bias to media which already suffers such massive levels of Bias?

Which takes precedence in Wikipedia - a company who use a rape joke on their website which is objected to, or a country where by estimate every 17 seconds a rape occurs and they have no net access?

The answer is simple - neither gets precedence. Where Verifiability, and not truth exists they have equal place - and excluding one over the other is to Skew and Distort WP:NPOV.

I also look at the statements by the film's producers as to their intent in making the film, calling it rape culture, and what they set out to achieve. "The film also attempts to expand our society's narrow and sexist concept of rape to its real and accurate limits."

Our society is a fascinating term - and even more fascinating if you research the background of the Film's producers. It is not as limited a term as some wish it to be.

It is also of great interest that it is also said "The term Rape Culture is defined for the first time and the film has played a major role in the emerging movement to combat violence against women."

I'm still looking for any references that go against that claim of origin - and I have noted that such sources as Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology actually back the claim made.

There are so many sources to support the claim and it just proves impossible to find others that Disprove It. Even US and international copyright agrees with the claim.

I also find it very odd that given how the term "rape culture" has become so prominent since early 2011, (In fact it's been trending for over 5 years) no one else has made any claim as to origination or provided any other possible source. I have been looking and asking questions - and so many experts simply can't locate any other valid source that pre-dates January 1975.

It does seem to be a pivotal point in time for the recognition of "rape culture", it's definition and usage. January 1975.

It would seem a pity that after some 37 years that aim set out by the film's makers has still be be addressed on a GLOBAL scale.

So could you please address the concerns as to WP:OR and WP:NPOV and WP:V and join the discussion on The Talk Page on how to improve the rape culture page and content so as to address the Systemic Bias that has no place in dealing with a Global Issue.

I do think after 37 years it is time for it to be addressed. I do believe that Wikipedia is a most valid place for that to occur.

I also note that in other languages the wiki page on rape culture is being referenced and even used as a source. It is a pity that in other parts of the world are looking to the page as a source and being presented with such poor quality content. That in itself does nothing to address Systemic Bias - it only promotes it - Globally.

Again I am advised to bring to your attention the concerns which need to be fully addressed.

Should this not work, It would appear that it will be necessary to proceed with dispute resolution. I won't be wasting more time in highlighting the multiple issues which have simply not been addressed in six months.

I am no longer willing to be made party to on going Systemic bias to satisfy others default position. In Wikipedia, no-one should be expected to. In fact no one is required to at any time. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  00:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I cannot make heads or tails of that entire post, so let me address the title. You have removed cited content which was accurate and to the point, while obfuscating your reasoning with giant, difficult-to-read talk page posts. You edited a direct quote from a source - a blatantly dishonest action. You continue to insist that your editing is the only good editing and that any editing I or anyone else do is just a reinforcement of this very vague "systemic bias". I do not believe you are editing in good faith any longer. I also believe that you are simply too invested in this page - a conflict of interest of your own, perhaps. You should take a step back and let the issue rest for a few days. That's what I'm trying to do. Then bring it to some form of dispute resolution before you make any more edits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * As usual you claim you can't read and don't address the issues - the avoidance is highly developed, well structured and ongoing. It is interesting that you claim you can only address the "Title" and not the subject - avoidance again! So to keep it real simple some bullet points to aide reading:

1) Could you please provide sources for the claim - "Several different theories[citation needed] exist..." under the heading of Origins and usage.

2) Presently it is WP:OR and needs to be addressed under WP:V. It is WP:CHALLENGED - that means the obligation is upon you and not me.

3) It would of course be better if you addressed matters on the talk page for rape culture. Maybe you will reply there and stop avoiding the issues and misdirecting away from the correct page?

4) If the points are not addressed I will take WP:SILENCE as valid and again remove the incorrect content. You may also find Determining consensus useful.

5) Thank you your clarifying your presumption of WP:BADFAITH, I have been suspecting such for some time.

6) Thank you for also clarifying that Dispute Resolution is appropriate. I have suspected as much for quite some time - and do wonder why you keep replying in the wrong places. It does make it so much harder for anyone dealing with dispute resolution to have a clear oversight. Is that deliberate?

7) However, as WP:CHALLENGED exists it is up to you to provide the answer and references - and it is not necessary for me to seek dispute resolution before content which is not WP:V is addressed and if necessary removed. Cart before Horse does not apply. When you say "Then bring it to some form of dispute resolution before you make any more edits." it shows that you have the matter back to front. It is you who is disputing valid edits - not me! If you wish to address the matter the correct place in the talk page for rape culture

8) Again - you have not addressed the issues raised or the view that the whole rape culture page needs to be rewritten and restructured to allow valid expansion and to address the subject. It is on the rape culture talk page.

9) I also note that yet again the page hits are up - and believe that this may be linked to improved content and the reduction in US Centrism, Recentism and caused by a more global view of the subject of "rape culture" - Reduced Systemic bias. I will take the improved page usage as evidence that improved and less Systemically Biased content improves Wikipedia and even user interest/utility. The page is supposed to address Human Knowledge of the subject of rape culture, and not just American interest or to be used only for US centric content. The bias towards only one group has been a long standing issue which is now being resolved. I have to wonder at the resistance to such improved content? It is not in keeping with Five_pillars and WP:BALANCE.

10) As for your comment "I also believe that you are simply too invested in this page - a conflict of interest of your own, perhaps." - if you bothered to read you would see that I have already addressed that point - so maybe if you did read you would not again be making Pointed Comments that seem to be more about garnering attention and misdirecting others. It is a pattern that you do need to stop using. It is a well known avoidance pattern which is easy to perceive and detect. Commonly referred to as Conflict avoidance and Avoidance coping. Repeatedly not addressing the issue in the correct place and in ways that do not progress resolution are known factors.

Should you be having personal difficulty with matters due to personal issues, It is actually rather silly to believe that other's are not sympathetic or even aware of the causes of such behaviour. As I have said - "'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'm busy! So I will allow you a reasonable amount of time to read and consider matters. To paraphrase Pretty Woman - "I have to go referencing".

Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  13:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (to make editing easier)
Thank you for the bullet points - I'm able to respond to them much easier.

1 + 2) I do agree that the section needs rewriting to make it satisfy WP:OR and WP:V. That said, there are at the very least two separate places that the two-word phrase "rape culture" evolved. There's the 1975 film, whose website claims it originated the term. And there's the 1974 use in Rape: The First Sourcebook for Women. Both of those are currently in the article. Since the 1974 use cannot possibly draw on the 1975 use, and the 1975 use is apparently separate from the 1974 use, that gives us two uses of the phrase that were developed separately. I believe that's well-cited.

The indirect citation to Against Our Will: Women, Men, and Rape is, perhaps mildly questionable. I need to get my hands on a copy to be sure. But it sounds like the 1992 article is tracing "rape culture" directly to "rape-supportive culture" in this 1975 book; if so, I would argue it belongs as part of that section. My copy of Transforming a Rape Culture (a 1993 Milkweed paperback reprint) also references Brownmiller as being the forefront of "a large and growing body of factual literature on sexual violence". So, even if she's not the originator of the phrase "rape culture", Brownmiller is very definitely worth mentioning.

The Encyclopedia of Rape citation is less important. However, I think it may be useful later on in the article, as a lead-in to the United States section of the individual country sections. Once we've cleared out the backlog of other countries that need inclusion, I'd like to change the US section from being a collection of individual examples to being a holistic description like you've created for South Africa and India. It's not a high priority as of yet, but down the line I think it worthwhile.

3) I'm not sure what you mean by misdirecting replies. I don't believe I've discussed the article anywhere except the talk page, except in reply to your posts here on my talk page and on the talk page of your India draft. Incidentally, user talk pages are not strictly the wrong place to discuss changes to an article. Not the right place to start a discussion, but in cases like this it's often appropriate to move them to a user talk page.

4) I find it very difficult to reply to lengthy posts. I'm not sure how much of that is me, although other editors have told you as well that they find it difficult to reply fairly to lengthy posts. Keep in mind the size of what you say on a talk page. A lengthy reply, such as mine here, is equivalent to a 5-10 page essay. I find it difficult to respond coherently to any text of that size, be it a post by you or a conventional short story.

5) I have assumed that you have overall good intentions since your entry here. My thoughts of bad faith occurred only the other day because you appeared to be editing with an agenda when you removed the cited sources (which I believe merit inclusion for reasons mentioned above) and when you changed the wording of a direct quote. Because you went out of your, I am throwing out that accusation and once again assuming good faith on your part. I hope you can do the same. Neither of us is an easy person to work with - I mean, I have the soul of a a hermit crab crossed with a mule - but I do believe we're aiming for approximately the same end result: a comprehensive article about what rape culture is, where it came from, and how it relates to different countries and incidents.

6) Again, I don't know what you mean by replying in the wrong places. But to clarify: no, I do not intend to make life difficult for any overseers. Do you have thoughts on what method of resolution would be appropriate?

7) I suggested that both of us back off and go to dispute resolution because we currently disagree whether or not the material meets WP:V. Since we disagree about whether it does, I believe that it needs a third party of make that decision to avoid an edit war.

8) I saw that you have posted that. I would say that's a reasonable thing to take to arbitration, because it's a big issue that piggybacks on other open issues.

9) I have at no point claimed that there should be a bias towards any one country, nor have I ever opposed you adding information about other countries. No I have added very very little of such content myself. But that's not an indication of an opposition - it's an indication that this page is not always my highest priority. I see no reason why you should fault me for that.

10) Clarify for me then: do you have any potential conflicts of interest here? I would far prefer a certain answer so I don't make rash assumptions.

I do not own the article. Neither do you. But no matter that the reason that I don't always discuss and edit the article, why do you interpret that as hostile on my part?

Have a good time referencing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why am I not surprised by the response? I note that you have Yet Again side stepped the direct question- so here it is again!"1) Could you please provide sources for the claim - 'Several different theories[citation needed] exist...' under the heading of Origins and usage."It's quite simple - who has proposed these theories? - where are the sources?

I do consider your question quite odd and even bizzare!

"10) Clarify for me then: do you have any potential conflicts of interest here? I would far prefer a certain answer so I don't make rash assumptions."For Ref:"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."Perhaps you will clarify where pointing out that sources are incorrect and that there is a vast amount of information on a subject - and even systemic bias - is a conflict of interest?

Is there WP:COI in:


 * Questioning Neutrality - and providing multiple sources to show exactly why the question is valid?
 * Repeatedly asking why there is, in my very strong and clear opinion, an incorrect focus upon usage of the term rape culture over the concept of rape culture which is skewing content and even excluding Billions of people affected by rape culture - sexual violence - and who just don't have access to the net to correct the deficit by writing in English for other's convenience and being Trendy on Google or other search engines by use of "Rape Culture" in quotes to make it easier for editors to find THEM?
 * Being told that to meet WP:V the term rape culture needs to be used in sources else it will be seen as WP:OR and accepting that as the standard agreed upon by other editors, even when it's to the detriment of the concept and those people who don't use the term due to cultural, political and even Linguistic Barriers
 * Pointing out synomic, diplomatic and cultural usage such as "culture of rape", "culture of dishonour", "culture of shame" which raise issues linked to different cultures and language usage in those cultures which makes them hidden when term if given precedence over concept?
 * Raising the question over repeated language usage which raises "Concept Vs Term - Essentially contested concept"?
 * As there is no progress querying "Do we need to address "Rape Culture (disambiguation)"?" - to allow balance between focus upon the term and to allow the concept on a Global basis to be addressed?
 * Stating "..I am very interested in Other Editors Opinions, especially on the issue of Sytemic Bias."?
 * Using Rfc to query the best route forward - and editors who responded advising that Disambiguation is not necessary - just improved content which removes the Systemic Bias issues.
 * Providing multiple sources addressing a Global Perspective - and the use of language - From January and ongoing - Even providing Bi-lingual sources to show the issues around translation - and that in France one translation is "Rape in the suburbs"? - they also have "Rape In The City" or "City Rape" which deals with Social Barriers unique to the demographics of France.
 * Questioning content that does not meet stated standards from other editors - such as references to Ched Evan's case UK? "It has to say rape culture".... and it does not?
 * Locating sources Ref Ched Evan's case which do meet the requirements laid down by other editors - and then providing them on the talk page? It says Rape Culture - and It's the Guardian Too - quite a reputable source, isn't it?
 * Being asked what I am doing when I first Query Content where there is, due to the unanswered and unresolved issue of Term Vs Concept and the stated position of other editors "It has to say rape culture" to be WP:V - and questionable the content is removed by another editor and not discussed - and then I provide relevant sources which meet the WP:V when they become known?
 * Repeatedly sourcing Country Specific Sources to address the issue of Systemic Bias - and all using the term rape culture to meet the position of other editors that "It has to say rape culture"?
 * Locating and providing sources such as "The Culture Struggle"; Michael Parenti - http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QIhkVEPmyTgC - Chapter 8 is most informative, Titled "The Global Rape Culture" - in the hope that it may, just may, prompt a wider perspective - and making sure that others can read the source and check it.
 * Querying why Slutwalk is given such prominence on the page when Slutwalk is not evidence of rape culture, or a synonym, and also it is not possible to have a slutwalk in a number of other languages as the word slut does not translate. In fact being able to hold a slutwalk is evidence that the incidence of rape culture is in fact low - so giving slutwalk WP:UNDUE prominence is actually evidence of the ongoing Systemic Bias.
 * Researching and expanding content?
 * Locating additional sources that are both illustrative of rape culture and which are critical - I did only locate 2 that were critical Vs Over 100+ that were not!
 * Locating missing information such as ISBN numbers for such books as "New York Radical Feminists; Noreen Connell; Cassandra Wilson (31 October 1974)." - no easy task as there is an error over different numbers coming from different sources - but it got cracked and sorted.
 * Noting citation errors and correcting them - same source cited twice under different names?
 * Reading cites/sources and noting that they are Internally contradictory and pointing out that as such they are questionable sources? Bit of an issue that one with WP:V!
 * Drafting additional material in sandboxes and only when ready transferring the detailed content, fully references into the main article.
 * Pointing out incorrect language and focus such as WP:ALLEGED in the section heading "3. Prominent incidents and allegations of rape culture" - suggesting alternatives - avoiding edit warring!
 * Pointing out that the page would benefit from a complete rewrite to address the multiple issues - receiving no response!
 * Being told that Goal Posts have been set and that Previous Rules that it must say "rape culture" are maybe, just maybe, not valid and that if it says ""rape culture" or "culture of rape" or "rape-supportive culture" or some similar term" that is now the new unwritten rule and Goal Post - and I have to ask for the new rule book
 * Getting fed up with the lack of progress and doing as it says - anyone can edit and even be WP:BOLD! - adding content - improving content - proving WP:NPOV and WP:V sources all the way.....
 * When questioning content querying it's use via the talkpage - repeatedly before editing - only to be told ""(→‎Origins and usage: Don't be ridiculous. You can't remove entire cited sections because they contradict your pet theory.) ""

Sorry if I'm bemused - but I have to wonder why I would be asked if I am somehow or other burdened with WP:COI?

Given that it is you who have repeatedly obstructed and queried my conduct WP:OWNERSHIP, I think you have had Quite Sufficient answer and Evidence already! How you have chosen to view matters is a choice that has been and remains yours. I will not be burdened by your choices! PERIOD.

I do not believe that your claims that you have set aside your views of WP:BADFAITH are valid. If they were you would look at the Evidence with a less Jaundiced eye! br /> And again - I note that you have Yet Again attempted to side step the direct question at point 1 - more diversionary tactics. So again for clarity:"1) Could you please provide sources for the claim - 'Several different theories[citation needed] exist...' under the heading of Origins and usage."I must therefore ask, "Do You have a conflict of interest?", as you seem so determined to state that there are "theories" and yet not cite them or account for them. Who's Theories Are They?

I would like to know the WP:V. I do believe the standard is Verifiability, not truth! - if these Theories exist they need to be addressed Truthfully - with WP:V -and not disguised with WP:ALLEGED Poorly disguised behind a very large WP:WEASEL !

Now, as I have said "I'm Busy" - I've even shown you the courtesy of explaining why I'm Busy and what with - so kindly address the most prominent question asked of YOU - stop playing games, and stop the diversionary tactics! The pattern is not showing YOU in a good light! Again, as I have stated:"'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.'"If the WP:SILENCE continues I will progress with improving content - and removing the ongoing issues of Systemic Bias - and that will be addressed on the correct talk page for the page being edited. If you wish to communicate further you can use this link - Talk:Rape_culture

I am not interested in your further comment here in light of you most Impertinent and frankly WP:BADFAITH question as to WP:COI.

Should you not address matters in the right place that will be taken as WP:SILENCE. Should you wish to ask for Dispute Resolution, '''please do! I will welcome it!''' -

Again - To paraphrase Pretty Woman - "I have to go referencing" - I even welcome it when people ask me to help them out as I do happen to be rather good at it! Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  23:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is no longer productive to continue this argument. I would like to pursue dispute resolution, starting immediately. I repeat: which of the methods at Dispute Resolution do you wish to use? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Also: for the dispute resolution, which personal pronouns do you prefer for yourself: she/her, he/his, they/theirs, or one of the family of constructed gender neutral pronouns? (I prefer they/theirs for myself). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, Pi.1415926535. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


 * Thanks for notifying me, APL. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Rape_culture#RFC_-_Multiple_Factors
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Rape_culture. Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk)  20:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Photo needed of Gene Sharp
Hello Pi. I noticed that you take a lot of photos for Wikipedia in the Boston area. We really need a copyright-free photo of this individual, Gene Sharp. He has a whole series of articles about his life and works, and he's been nominated for the Nobel Prize a couple of times, and he lives in the Boston Area. But we don't have any photos of him, and there's been a "photo needed" template on the article (talk page) for some time now. Any chance you'd be in a position to help? Or else could suggest it to some other Wikipedia photographer in the Boston area who could? Many thanks for your consideration, and good luck with your college studies and other projects -- Presearch (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

List of MBTA bus routes
I think you could probably try for WP:Featured list status for List of MBTA bus routes. With your recent changes it looks well sourced and organized. The only issue I see would be the historical timeline at the end. Grk1011 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

New workshop
Hey there. Please take a look at this proposal to start a new workshop in the graphic lab. Please add your views on this. Roshan220195 (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi!
Hi, you recently fixed my image of Sonja Sohn, remember? Thanks for that, however I was wondering could you fix Dana Delany picture? Im not sure how you could do it, to try and make it so she is facing the camera more, but if you could, or know anyone who could, could you tell me at my talk? If you feel someone/you can, i'll submit it at the workshop, then someone/you could do it there. Thanks for your time! — M.Mario  (T/C) 17:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"One crooked picture"
Hi! I wanted to warn you that I uploaded the wrogn version of that picture. This is the correct one. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sunnyside (LIRR station) coordinates
I reverted your edits to Sunnyside (LIRR station) because the coordinates in the infobox is for the Hunterspoint Avenue (LIRR station). I kept them hidden because I don't know the coordinates are for the future station. The link between the two stations are here, but I can't get the coordinates for Queens Boulevard & Skillman Avenue, which is where Sunnyside station is supposed to be built. DanTD (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, gotcha. I've updated the article with the actual station location per the reference. Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's always good to give as much correct info as we can. DanTD (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Definitely. I'm absolutely swamped right now - I've got Shore Line East and a lot of the MBTA to rewrite plus about 800 picture to upload, but I've watchlisted Sunnyside. Sometime, I'll notice it on there and spend an afternoon researching. Unfortunately, we've got 7 years before the thing is actually going to open. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you help me with a map?
I saw your work on the Greater Bristol Metro and was wondering if you could help me with a map of Timbuktu. That article has been in need of a good city map for over 2 years. We can work from the OpenStreetMap data that I already edited. What do you think?

Cheers, Pim Rijkee (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)