Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Forced Seduction

Forced Seduction

The filing party (the editor who opened this request) will add the basic details for this dispute below.

Editors involved in this dispute

1. David edmonton (talk · contribs) – filing party
2. Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

1. Forced seduction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated

What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

First paragraph under article describes "Forced Seduction" as "man-on-woman rape". In my opinion that is a unacceptable fringe view that most experts would not agree with similar to defining rape as "man on woman forced sex" or murder as "black person killing white person". Flyer22 seems to be vandalising page in any source I cite as being "unacceptable" while not making any effort to fix underlying problem with page, which I think does not meet wikipedia standards.

There are lots of examples, articles, etc about female on male rape in media that leads to "man falling in love" with woman, effort seems to be made to vandalise page to exclude them. If my citation is good but my wording is less than perfect, and page is seriously flawed then a good editor would improve the wording rather than fight to keep forced seduction as "man on woman only" using imo poor excuses.

In my opinion if no one wants to fix this page, then perhaps page should be deleted as not up to wikipedia standards in similar way to a page "forced death" that described "black person killing white person" and excluded any source that described someone other than a black person doing murder. David edmonton (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn's comment

I explained myself at the article talk page, noting that we go by WP:Reliable sources and WP:Due weight. David edmonton, as an IP, used a poor source (a wiki) to add personal commentary to the article about female-on-male forced seduction. He engaged in WP:Synthesis/WP:Editorializing. The article is about "a theme found frequently in romance novels and soap operas wherein man-on-woman rape turns into a genuine love affair." It's about a man and woman falling in love after the man has raped her, or the woman falling in love with the man after he has raped her. And again, it is about the theme in fiction. It is not about rape in real life (although a comparison can be made with reliable sources tying the theme to real life). Despite this, David edmonton described the concept as "the equivilent of defining 'rape' (reworded as forced seduction) as exclusively 'male on female', which is obviously not the perspective of vast majority of people or experts" and stated that I "seem to be engaging in vandalism in order to protect an extremely sexist view that rivals the Klu Klux Klan for prejudice.... eg KKK might define for example murder as when a black person kills a white because statistically that is more common. How do I report this web page a vandalised and not up to wikipedia standards by an extremist biased minority." He then engaged in WP:Synthesis/WP:Editorializing again. Although this source, which is a poor source for the topic, is about the fact that men can be raped, it is not about the forced seduction theme. If David edmonton can produce reliable sources (by Wikipedia's standards) tying the forced seduction theme to female-on-male rape, then there will not be an issue (except for keeping the material WP:Due). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional issues (added by other parties)

• Additional issue 1
• Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.

1. Agree. David edmonton (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.

• Reject. Rejected under prerequisite for mediation #9, that "the Committee has the discretion to refuse or refer back to other dispute resolution venues (e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion) a dispute which would benefit from additional work at lower levels of the dispute resolution process", with Third Opinion particularly recommended in this case. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC) (Chairperson)