Misplaced Pages

Talk:Rape culture

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ApLundell (talk | contribs) at 06:58, 5 March 2013 (→Request for comment II). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:58, 5 March 2013 by ApLundell (talk | contribs) (→Request for comment II)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Rape culture. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Rape culture at the Reference desk.
WikiProject iconWomen's History Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFeminism Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


Question about how to best add with a cite.

I'm sorry if this is not the correct place to ask this question. I would like to add a bit to the Feminist Theory section, adding Schlafly's observation that a married woman cannot be raped by her husband (http://www.sunjournal.com/node/682725), but I am not sure how. Can someone please assist me?108.15.50.162 (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A simple and quite adequate procedure is to add the information and put details of the reference in brackets. Someone will notice and format the reference correctly (if the material seems helpful and complies with WP:RS and WP:DUE). To ask a "how to" question, see WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 22:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
For the technical end, just use the {{cite news}} template. (Similar templates are available for books, journals, and general web articles.) For this specifca article, you can just copy-paste the following code at the end of the sentence/paragraph you add: {{cite news |url=http://www.sunjournal.com/node/682725 |title=Schlafly cranks up agitation at Bates |author=Leonard, J.T. |newspaper=Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal |date=29 March 2007 |accessdate=10 November 2012}}
As for the writing end: marital rape already has a well-written article, so you'll need to show why this is specifically rape culture. Per past controversy on this page, I recommend being able to cite someone with reasonable authority (i.e, an academic, a well-known feminist, etc) who has liked marital rape to rape culture. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone for their assistance. I thought it would be relevant to "For instance, sexist jokes may be told to foster disrespect for women and an accompanying disregard for their well-being. An example would be a female rape victim being blamed for her being raped because of how she dressed or acted. In rape culture, sexualized violence towards women is regarded as a continuum in a society that regards women's bodies as sexually available by default" Especially the last bit about being available by default. No? Making allowances for wives to be raped not part of rape culture?108.15.50.162 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Has there ever been a survey to determine what percentage of individuals excuse, tolerate or condone rape?

Quoting; Within feminism, rape culture is a concept used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape.

Does the framing of "'Within feminism'" excuse the lack of evidence presented that the prevalent attitudes concerning rape are "normalize, excuse, tolerate, or condone"?

What is the purpose of "Within feminism"?

'Prevalent' is easily supported by anonymous surveys yet there are none linked. Shouldn't this be noted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vapidave (talk • contribs) 08:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment: Rape culture and incidents by nation

I would like to file an official Request for comment on this section. There is a great deal of material that has primarily been edited by User:Media-hound- thethird, an obvious political activist who has now been indef-banned for POV-pushing and WP:BATTLE . The section focusses exclusively on three countries, India,South Africa and the United States, which, to my reading, seems like WP:UNDUE, as well as a WP:SYN implication that rape is exclusive to these countries. Furthermore, the sections are essentially a POV fork of three other wikipedia articles, Rape in India, Sexual violence in South Africa, and Rape in the United States, violating WP:POVSPLIT. It seems to me that an article on rape culture should focus on general discussions on the subject, rather than become a list of specific countries and instances cherry-picked to advance a POV. Handyunits (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Without knowing anything about the user's other edits, I don't see the additions as implying that these three countries have worse rape cultures than other places. However, I also don't think most of them were productive; the user seems to have trouble distinguishing the subject of the article, rape culture, from rape as a topic. I also don't think "geographical" and "list of incidents" are useful ways of structuring an article - we should organize by theme, with specific examples used to illustrate particular points where necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It should not have been removed, I very must doubt that rape culture is only a concept used by feminists. And the content was reliably sourced. In fact your one edit to this article was to remove this content, one has to wonder why you would follow an editors contributions as you obviously did here just to remove content? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I was the one who originally started the country sections; when I was first expanding the article in March 2011, I added a section titled "Prominent Incidents" for lack of a better description. Most if not all of the US/UK stuff is mine (as is a bit of South Africa); the country-stratifying and the India sections were by Media-hound. If it belongs better as part of Rape in the United States etc then so be it; I originally chose to include the incidents here because they'd been specifically labeled as rape culture, quote unquote, by others. The blocked user brought up examples of what may have been labeled as rape culture in a number of countries which may yet be useful; one possibility for the article would be to have blurbs about each relevant country then {{main article}} links to Rape in $COUNTRY. That would keep the relevant material in its proper place (a neutral context), while providing reasonable connections from this article for specific declarations of rape culture.
As for the intro: the cited source was brought in by the user specifically for POV pushing, and I'm fairly certain it's being used out of context. Definitely deserves a second look before keeping it in the article. I'm particularly very wary of their contributions to the introduction and feminist theory sections as they showed a definite POV-pushing tendency that in some cases went against non-negotiable evidence like publication dates. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems like a small number of examples makes sense, but a country-by-country list would be tedious and never complete anyway. The country doesn't matter, so long as sources clearly identify it as an example of the phenomena of rape culture.
Simply describing the situation in India, without bringing it back to academic descriptions of "Rape Culture" is just soapboxing OR.
Perhaps that's unfair. Perhaps there are no such sources, and perhaps more should be written about India's rape-culture, but it's not WP's duty to lead that charge, or to right the world's wrongs. APL (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
"It seems like a small number of examples makes sense, but a country-by-country list would be tedious and never complete anyway. The country doesn't matter, so long as sources clearly identify it as an example of the phenomena of rape culture." - I strongly concur. I also wonder why this reiteration of the caste related and tribal rape cases??? Mr T 07:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The idea of rape culture is a claim, a hotly contested one, that certain cultures are particularly conducive to sexual violence. The article should focus on the claim and the way in which it has been theoretically supported and criticized. It should not end up being a "list of cultures that have been described as rape cultures", because that would be ascribing the theory a validity that as far as can tell there is no agreement that it has.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
In light of these sources, it is surprising that the article not only devotes largest amount of space to rape incidents in three countries, the section on India is actually larger than the main article. Rape statistics already has separate sections on countries with greater rape statistics and such sections are justified there. However, such sections here would only make the article lose focus of its topic. If editors still feel the need to include incidents from other countries, they should be summarized neutrally within other sections. This book is probably a good example of how rape incidents from all over the world are reported within its analysis of a global rape culture. Correct Knowledge 19:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - The naming of three specific countries does not violate SYNTH or OR policies: it may simply be that editors have not yet gotten around to finding material on other countries; or it may mean that sources are not readily available for other countries. WP does not insist that an article be 100% complete. Also, I don't believe that including material in this article that is replicated in other articles such as Rape in the United States is a prohibited POV fork. WP permits material to be duplicated in several articles, provided it is relevant to each of the articles. About the only significant issue I can see with this article (discussed below) is that some sources, apparently, are not discussing "rape culture" per se. If they are not, then grabbing material from those sources may be a violation of OR or SYNTH. Sources used for this article must be discussing "rape culture" in some fashion ... although it is not required that they use that exact phrase .. other wordings may also be satisfactory, such as "climate that encourages rape" or "rape-encouraging society" etc. --Noleander (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - (I don't know if I am commenting in the appropriate section, if you want it moved, let me know) I couldn't agree more with the statement that it seems that the article has become a list of specific countries and instances cherry-picked to advance a POV. Rape culture and rape incidents are not exactly the same thing. I also concur with CorrectKnowledge. And as Handyunits rightly pointed out, there are far too many sources that don't even mention "rape culture". Frequent occurrences of rape doesn't mean that in that whole culture is a rape culture where people and media tend to normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape. I see in India section they mention dowry death but how is it relevant here? There are many unsourced and impertinent assertions. These also need to be gotten rid of. Mr T 07:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Currently the article delves redundantly in Indian caste system. "The Dalit or untouchable caste have been identified as particularly vulnerable. Bias by police, medical professionals and the Judiciary concerning caste is identified as a factor. Police have been willing to accept bribes from defendants in rape cases, thwarting the legal process" but the source that supports it, Smita Narula (1999). Broken People: Caste Violence Against India's "untouchables". Human Rights Watch. makes not one mention of "rape culture", like I said earlier recurrence of rape doesn't make the entirety of the culture "rape culture". Mr T 07:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The article should scholastically/academically treat the hotly contested theory of Rape Culture, its origin and criticisms of the term rather than listing scattered incidents of rapes in specific countries and passing mention of the phrase based on unreliable personal preconceptions. Mr T 06:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of content

Note : User Darkness Shines has reinstated all of the blocked user's material in this edit. This strikes me as very improper since it was clear that there was not a consensus for this material, and there was an ongoing RFC debating its inclusion! APL (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, among the claims being reverted by Darkness Shines is one made by Brass that women were forcibly aborted in India, a claim proven in court by forensic experts to be a false Blood libel by Teesta Setalvad. Can we WP:AGF with this guy anymore?Handyunits (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Other interesting sources of material involve allegations that this "Rape culture" in India business is nothing more than a rehash of 19th century colonial racism, specifically involving British propaganda about Indian "rapists" during the 1857 rebellion. This is duscussed in numerous academic references ignored by the editors, such as Karen Beckman's "Vanishing Women: Magic, Film, and Feminism" (2003) p31-33, John Keay's famous 'India Discovered', Kent, Eliza Kent's "Converting Women" (2004), and other articles such as this one. The section, as it stands, seems to ignore this point in order to advance a conventional stereotype of black and brown-skinned people popular in the circles of racist and fascist feminism within the broader feminist movement.Handyunits (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Re APL, the content was removed without consensus. Re HU, your first source does not mention rape culture and nor does your second. Karen Beckman's book has no mention of rape culture in it, nor John Keay's India Discovered nor does Eliza F. Kent's Converting Women: Gender and Protestant Christianity in Colonial South India Would you be so kind as to explain how these sources back your position. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Well "rape culture" is essentially a neologism coined by neocon feminists to demonize non-white societies as inherently rape-friendly and (implicitly) worthy only of colonization and subalternification, either by economic means (neoliberalism, Foreign direct investment) or (to more militant fascist feminists) direct military invasion and subjugation (Iraq, Afghanistan, potentially Iran and Syria in the future) in order to 'liberate the women'. This term is essentially a rehash of the 19th century racism indicated in the references cited above. Furthermore, the claims made by Paul Brass in the cited references were recycled from claims made by Islamist sympathizer and anti-Indian lobbyist Teesta Setalvad and her financier, illegal Pakistani lobbyist Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai (who is currently in jail). Forensic evidence has established (per my cited sources) that these claims are essentially lies told by the Islamists, similar to Blood libels against Jews made in Christian and Islamic societies during the middle ages and even today.I fail to see why outright lies should be included in an article to WP:SYN-support a racist position. Is that encyclopedic? It seems to violate WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE,WP:SYN and numerous other policies.Handyunits (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
What a pile of bollocks. And your sources, s I believe I have already pointed out have no mention of rape culture. You may want to remove your BLP violations from your statement above before I do BTW. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Without debating the veracity of the facts in the Indian section, can we first establish if it would belong in the article if true? Do the sources describe these events as specifically resulting from a "rape culture"? If not, they are poor examples. Examples need to be sourced as examples. Since we're only looking for examples, and not a comprehensive list, any item that doesn't have a sourced connection to "Rape culture" should be removed, without a side debate about it's veracity. APL (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you. It seems to me that the claims are being added by DS simply because the sources cited mention 'India' (or 'South Africa' and 'United States') and the term 'rape culture' in the same article. To claim that these sources are somehow representative of a widespread 'rape culture' in either of these countries is Original Research, synthesized from the opinions of a few. DS is clearly assuming bad faith with his detractors, and bullying edits into the article against a consensus that goes against his agenda. Handyunits (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
One thing that can be done is to select the sources in the section that do talk about 'rape culture' and interleave them with the sections where the corresponding aspects of this alleged phenomenon are discussed. Am article on alleged 'rape culture' should discuss the allegations and specific aspects thereof, rather than become dominated by a 'list of countries who have been attacked by some dudes for having rape culture'. The article, as it stands, is dominated by the country sections and has very little actual content discussing the term and phenomenon.Handyunits (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
For instance, the India section seems to be focussed primarily on judicial processes involving specific rape cases in India over the course of half a century. Most of the sources cited therein make virtually no mention of 'rape culture', (Personal attack removed). These judicial processes need to be removed completely. Claims of rape culture made by Baxi et al are already sources in the lead, and need not be repeated in the body of the article except in cases when they discuss if the government of alleged 'rape cultures' minimize the importance of rape cases. Similarly, the South Africa section is focussed on apartheid, the lack of legal porn, and racial polarisation rather than 'rape culture'. This can be trimmed down only to sources that specifically discuss links between apartheid, porn and rape. A couple of sentences in a 'causes' section seems to be a proper way to improve the article.Handyunits (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
"used by DS and Mediahound to advance their claim that brown people are intrinsically rapists" — you need to link that to the appropriate diff if it exists; if you cannot provide a diff, you need to strike that part. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
This discussion seems to cover the issue at hand, and has been closed, so let's move on to more important things.14.139.193.45 (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC) (ip address of Handyunits (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)).
Thanks for pulling accusations out of your ass, then. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Remove your accusation or I will. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Er, not to flog a dead horse, but that is not how I'm reading the consensus in that discussion. The consensus seems to be that the accusation of "accusation of racism" is essentially a red herring meant to deflect attention away from tendentious editing with the result (whether inadvertent or heedful) of advancing a non-neutral orientalist POV. In any case, as far as I am concerned, the matter is closed. If certain persons choose to vandalize edits of other participants on this talk page, I will defer to consensus on whether it should stay or not. I will certainly not wheel war in a talk page (or any page for that matter) under any circumstancesHandyunits (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine, I have done it. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Some sources currently cited in the article that make no mention of 'rape culture'

This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Most of the offline sources cited (I don't have acces to all of them) could to be independently fact-checked in this manner. However, I suspect that none of them mention 'rape culture' either, just a 'culture of silence', or a 'culture of victim blaming', or an 'apathetic government that does little to combat rape' etc, none of which point to a 'cultie of rape' as such. Trimming doen the jenkem in these sections and finally eliminating them altogether by interleaving the residual content with the body of the article is the way to go.Handyunits (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Replacement of section in question

As a starting point, I propose replacing the entire 'rape incidents by country' section to a more general (and much shorter) section titled 'manifestations of rape culture' and include the material below. I will be updating it with more as time progresses, and would welcome additions by others involved in the RfC, as well as commentary from others involved in the RfC

I'd recommend you move this to a sandbox page - maybe Talk:Rape culture/Manifestions - which would make it easier to prepare than as a section on a talk page. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. It has now been moved to Talk:Rape_culture/Manifestions#Manifestations_of_rape_culture. Thanks for the suggestion.Handyunits (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Manifestations of rape culture

Moved to Talk:Rape_culture/Manifestions#Manifestations_of_rape_culture.Handyunits (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Commentary

Correct Knowledge, are you entirely stupid? Do not take this as a Pa. it is a serious question based one what you have just written. You honestly think "feminist theory" which BTW is not just a feminist theory. should be merged into one section, on, let me guess "manifestations of rape from feminist theory" then ███████ off . Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that Correct Knowledge is thoroughly wrong in his suggestion this post seems to signal a significant shift in your interpretation of WP:NPA from earlier this week.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Your comment is funny. Did I suggest that there should be no section "manifestations of rape" or that we should create a section on "manifestations of rape from feminist theory"? The content in the proposal which overlaps with feminist theory and should logically go into that section. If that is hard to understand you should reconsider who is "entirely stupid" here. Correct Knowledge 18:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
For instance, Feminists also link rape culture to the widespread distribution of pornography, which is seen as an expression of a rape culture that objectifies women. The fusion of several pornographic motifs are seen in the accounts of rapists... in the proposal overlaps with Pornography has also been commonly targeted as a contributor to rape culture because it is said to contribute to larger patterns of oppression. One of the ways that it is said to do this is by reducing the female body to a commodity. in the section on feminist theory. Having that in two different sections is pointless. Correct Knowledge 18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Maunus, please note what I wrote, for instance I did not call anyone a racist, nor imply it. I asked a straightforward question. Here is a personal attack. (Personal attack removed) Darkness Shines (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Folks, need I remind everyone that the paragraph is only a draft and that there is no need to get quite so heated in discussing it. If some sentences are a repeat of material already present in other sections than those can be adjusted accordingly. Additionally, please feel free to edit the sandbox page to add or remove content as needed.Handyunits (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


As a point of interest, when this RFC started, Most of the material from a perma-blocked problem editor had been removed by a few different editors. Three hours after the RFC started, User:Darkness Shines made an edit to the article which was to restore all the controversial material. We know User:Darkness Shines was aware of the ongoing RFC because two minutes previous he or she had commented on the RFC. I bring this up because now User:Darkness Shines is leaving edit summaries implying that he or she is somehow protecting the pre-rfc version of the article. This is not the case. APL (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. The content was added well before the RFC. It was removed and restored by myself before the RFC had begun. The RFC is about this content, and there is no consensus for removal. Kindly get an uninvolved admin to close out the RFC when it has run it's course. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
It was originally added by a now-blocked user. Then the content from that user was removed by a number of users. Then the RFC started. Then you commented on the RFC. Then you re-added the content. It's all there in the article's history, unless you're claiming that Misplaced Pages's date/time stamps have gone wonky. APL (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
No, RFC started by HU on 06:34, 28 January 2013. My revert of the content in question 18:22, 27 January 2013, which would be the day before the RFC began. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
No, that was an edit about the origins of the term "rape culture".
Your revert about the "Incidents by Nation" section (the topic of this RFC) occurred at 28 January 2013‎. Three hours after the RFC was started, and two minutes after you commented on it. APL (talk) 01:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
No, look again Not all of that revert deals with the origin at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal : Wrap-Up

Nobody has commented here in a week. I think it's safe to say this discussion is winding down.

As far as I can see the strongest consensus is that :

  1. The "Rape culture and incidents by nation" is a coat-rack that can never approach a state of completeness.
  2. Many of the sources used in that section are about rape but not rape culture. Including them as examples is WP:Synth.
  3. The section could be replaced by the more descriptive "Manifestations of rape culture" section currently under construction.

Did I summarize this correctly? APL (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not true. Please see WP:RFC#Ending_RfCs.
If we come to something resembling a consensus here we can either agree to close it ourselves, or request an uninvolved editor to close it for us. There's no reason to wait the full 30 days for the bot to delist it if the discussion has stalled out. APL (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content

I added new content today which discusses rape culture in India, this has been edit warred out and I want to hear a good reason as to why. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Your edit summary needs to be within the accepted standards of civility, DS. As for your claims of edit warring, I would like to clarify that you're the one who is getting involved in revert war against multiple editors.

About the contents you added to the article in your latest edit, I think in these sort of cases while talking about a specific culture as a whole (which I don't think is a good idea to begin with), we need tertiary sources and not someone's personal opinion. Also your assessment of consensus seems erroneous. Mr T 11:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Bollocks. There was no consensus to remove the original content, and there is none to remove the new content, and unless a reason within policy is given for the removal I will restore it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, can be made based on tertiary sources. Cherrypicking someone's personal opinion about one particular nation while ignoring comments about other nations, is not appropriate at all.

This is an op-ed (opinion-piece). Op-eds are primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact, which is certainly not the case here. Come on for once! Mr T 11:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Bollocks again, it is attributed. The content will be restored. 12:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Determination of "rape culture" would ALWAYS be opinion. The content in question is appropriately attributed. The question is does this person's analysis represent the academic opinion. From what I have heard after the incident, it seems to represent at least a significant proportion of the pop feminist opinion at least. Not sure about academic consensus. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but not every opinion is equally credible. I am talking about opinion piece (op-ed) and it is not a reliable source in this context because we are talking about "Rape Culture" and summary points. Tertiary Sources are needed. Mr T 15:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Ever more bollocks, the source is fine for the opinions of the author, the content will be restored as the only reason it is being removed is nationalist pride. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Three support, one oppose (you). Clearly consensus is against you. Please do not edit disruptively any further, especially after a week long block, otherwise further preventative measured may prove to be necessary.Handyunits (talk) 15:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
NOTAVOTE, consensus is determined by policy There are no consensus for removal of content which discusses rape culture. The content will be restored. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Do that, and I, together with all involved editors, will jointly petition for your permaban on the grounds of persistent incivility, edit warring, and general disruptive behavior. Please read WP:UNDUE, WP:NOR and WP:SYN more carefully.Handyunits (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"opinions of the author" is not reliable here, albeit that might prove to be appropriate in Rape in India article if used with care. We are talking about the concept of "Rape culture". Like CorrectKnowledge said, "Misplaced Pages's policy on tertiary sources recommends that we use tertiary sources in evaluating due weight". This is undue here. Mr T 15:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
"We are talking about the concept of "Rape culture". I consider it valid point, we should not limited the article to mention particular country/countries.I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The content is reliably sourced, the content and sources are about rape culture, it will go back. How is it OR or SYN? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am not talking about sources, the topic should be covered generally, it will be nice for readers, we are not targeting any country, we can mention the states name with care, but to create especially sections, I do not think it meets the common sense.Justice007 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:NOR again. Material related to India is already in the article viz the works of Parenti and Baxi. Consensus in the rfc is clearly against mentioning specific countries explicitly, and discussions of rape culture restricted to general manifestations. Please remain civil. Do not attack, threaten, intimidate or insult hardworking editors or disciplinary actions may prove to be unavoidable.Handyunits (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Please stop claiming a consensus were none exists. And I ask you again, where is the OR? The sources used all talk of rape culture, and are quite explicit in India's rape culture. Given the amount of sources on this then in is most certainly DUE. Keep your pathetic threats to yourself. Re Justice, who says that article is about the concept? The name of the article is "Rape culture" as such all information on this needs be included. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Well I do not say, you do not mention the reality, but you must know there are nearly 56 or more Muslim States, you have to create separate sections/subsections for that, because you cannot deny that rape culture exists in whole world. Why then we should target only one specific country. We are here to provide best work for the standards of the wikipedia, we are not here to play political parties role, or personal interest to make one side up and other side down. As rape culture is a global issue, so we have to look and deal in that concept. Reliable sources are everywhere, that is not problem.Justice007 (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
But that is the rub of it. Nobody is targeting any particular country. There were three to begin with, they were removed and I began to rewrite them. We are meant to expand articles, not remove content. So the content can go back and other countries which have been written about can be added also. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, I am not against to expand and improve the article, neutrality of the article is then, when we begin numberwise sections of all counties, if not, then we just mention the name of the countries, and delails of the topic in general way of style, that is the NPOV. If we persist or insist, for that and that, is not possible to expand and improve the article. That will be just wasting the time. It is pity, no one is going to remove the content as tag suggests. First we should take a look at whole content, when that is ok, we go ahead to expand and improve further. That is the best way to compromise providing the best informative article to the readers. You are a best and experienced editor, you leave minor and invaluable things for the best. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Adding to Justice007's comment, availability of secondary sources alone (which btw op–eds are not) does not by itself establish how much weight something should be given. One could simply combine any country with "rape" or "rape culture" in google news, books etc. and find any number of reliable sources. That does not mean we should write long sections on a handful of countries. Both WP:NOR, which suggests that tertiary sources may be helpful in evaluating due weight, and WP:NPOV, using which one can argue for a global perspective free from systemic bias, should be considered here. Overall, the relative prominence of various subtopics in this or any other article should not deviate much from other reliably published tertiary sources. WP:Recentism, as in this edit, should also be avoided. Just because an event has received a news spike one should not overburden the article with content on it. Correct Knowledge 22:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Two things, were are these tertiary sources on rape culture which you are using to decide weight. Second from the NOR you guys so blithely mention Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Given the sheer amount of secondary sources (and op-eds are such) then due weight says we should have sections on nations which discuss this issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
First off, op–eds are not secondary sources and the part of WP:NOR being referred is "Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight...". I've never insisted that you need to source anything from tertiary sources. You can source them from reliable secondary sources all you want, it's perfectly legit. Evaluating due weight however is another matter. Here are a few tertiary sources (one encyclopedia and two college texts) with dedicated articles on rape culture: , , . I had listed them above. Correct Knowledge 23:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes exactly, I agree with CK and Justice. Besides, our policy is pretty clear on primary sources' reliability. Op-eds are rarely reliable for statements of fact. This is certainly not one of those rare exceptions. We should look for tertiary sources and fortunately they exist (as demonstrated by CK), then why this predisposition to use a not-so-reliable personal reflection on Indian society?
I think this is getting tendentious. We must consider how much focus on op-eds is actually due weight in such an article. Where was the consensus to include all these garbles? I think this an academic concept and should be treated as such. Definition of rape is already a difficult issue and societies differ but that doesn't mean that the whole culture should be vilified based people's opinions. We need more than primary sources to be neutral. Better yet, let's not name any country unless there are at least a good many academic papers or sources supporting the claim. Mr T 03:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

All but one editor involved seems to be opposed to the material and has explained why. How could that not be a consensus? Consensus does not mean "unanimous". One person disagreeing is not enough to say there isn't a consensus. APL (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

CK, for tertiary sources those are poor indeed. The first source is just a bare mention of the concept. The second has a focus on the US, yet the section on the US was removed. The third also has a focus on the US. MRT opinion pieces are not primary sources, again it comes down to how many source discuss a specific issue, and the sheer amount for the US and India means it needs be mentioned in the article. Of course if we are to remove all opinions from the article then it would be blanked, as this particular concept is nothing but opinion. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The article "Rape culture" is not about rape culture in India or US or any other country, it seems to that you just want to focus specific country/countries, that is not NPOV, nor constructive to exact concept of the topic. You cannot create or add hundreds of subsections to separately mentioning the countries. I think at this point, article will be the biggest and major one artcle of the Misplaced Pages that we would ever have. Let me say that is academic humor.Justice007 (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
removing sourced content about what (may, perhaps) be overly specific applications of the topic before other sourced content that provides broader viewpoints has been added to the article does not seem to be helpful to readers.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Prevalence of the term

Can anyone explain why the use of "rape culture" in books peaked in 1998 but its use in internet searches doubled in 2011 and tripled in 2012? What is causing that? Farrah Watkins (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a chat forum - do you want to include this in the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
There's no need to be rude. I just saw the discussion of the origin of the term here while doing research for school work and thought that someone might know the answer to what caused its recent popularity on the internet. If you do, sure, please put it in the article I guess. I'll ask at the help forum you pointed me to as well. Farrah Watkins (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment II

Should this content which directly discusses rape culture in India be restored to this article?

Ruchira Gupta, founder of Apne Aap Women Worldwide writing for The Hindu after the rape and death of a young girl on a bus has said that she has "seen the steady creeping in of a rape culture into the fabric of India" It has been estimated that up to 100,000 children go missing each year, with the majority of them being sexually abused. The Justice Verma panel has said this is due to a rape culture and that missing children are trafficked, sexually assaulted and that the police are complicit in these crimes.. Support, the sources directly discuss rape culture which is what this article is supposed to cover. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines is the initiator of this RFC, he doesn't need to formally "vote". Mr T
  • Oppose I realy do not deny facts that you are concerned, but it should not be included in this article (as not related to the concept of--), you are realy going to rape the article with that. Please there are more other options to fulfil your concerns anywhere else or create new article for-.Justice007 (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose—— Essentially a repeat of the previous request for comment. This one is clearly a bad faith RfC.Handyunits (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This is just a repeat of the previous RFC. It's pointless and bad-faith to waste people's times with a new RFC simply because the previous one didn't go the way you'd hoped. I have therefore removed the rfc template. APL (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

  1. Gupta, Ruchira (January 10, 2013). "Challenging India's rape culture". The Hindu.
  2. Sharma, Nagendar (January 27, 2013). "Missing kids victims of rape culture: panel". Hindustan Times.
Categories: