Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:47, 10 May 2015

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Rape jihad

Rape jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this via speedy deletion as a WP:G4 candidate since the topic was deleted back in 2013 under the title Rape Jihad, where it was argued that it was too much of a neologism to pass notability guidelines. This article is somewhat different and has additional sourcing, some of which is fairly recent, so I've decided that this should go through a second AfD as opposed to just outright deletion. If this is deleted a second time via AfD I'd endorse this getting salted to prevent recreation before the article/topic gets approved via deletion review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• You can see the prior AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rape Jihad. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete I wanted to nominate this myself. The sources used here that use the term aren't really scholarly or unbiased (National Review and FrontPage, for example) or reliable (Daily Mirror and Uday India). The only decent sources, the BBC and the Guardian, don't directly use "rape jihad", but only point to its use among the openly Islamophobic English Defence League. What's really troubling about this article is that it misses this nuance, and suggests the "rape jihad" is indisputably a real thing, "the abduction, gang rape and enslavement of non-Muslim women by jihadists". There's nothing here to overturn the consensus of the previous AfD.—indopug (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete per previous Afd, WP:NEO. Salt both the titles. --Fauzan_{✉ mail} 13:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per above, Salt titles too. –Davey2010 16:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Oh no, are the many solid RS "biased" (i.e., came to a conclusion you didn't like)? Well...that's a tough pork-chop; chew harder. Nobody is going to report on a demographic-warfare tactic without having a pretty strong opinion of it, either for (Muhammad) or against (the filthy kafir targets). Pax 03:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Please make sure to remain WP:CIVIL while taking part in an AfD. In any case, the basic argument against the articles and the sources seems to be a lack of scholarly sources. Sometimes unbiased websites can be used as a reliable source but they should not be the only places to report on the term as it is written in the article. However in this case FrontPage has been deemed an unusable source at RS/N as a source for factual information on multiple occasions. The basic gist is that many of these pages can be used to back up opinions depending on who is writing the article, but they can't be used to back up something as fact. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are non-binding discussions (crowded with partisans, of course) full of "allegedly" weasel-phrasing like "...not generally regarded as...", etc. If FrontPage (et al) were actually verboten, they'd be URL-blocked (e.g., examiner<dot>com). Pax 08:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. It takes a lot to blacklist a website and the powers that be usually look at the website, if it's verifiable, and how often people use or misuse it as a source. If the website is so notoriously bad or unusable and attempts to add it as a RS to Misplaced Pages are so widespread that it becomes an issue of disruption (and becomes a spam issue), then they'll blacklist it. Otherwise they just generally leave it up to editors to find and remove or replace any sources that would be considered unusable in specific situations. In other words, they only blacklist sites under extreme circumstances. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• That said, if you want to open up a new thread at RS/N addressing the site's usability as a RS and previous RS/N discussions over the topic, you should feel free to do so- especially if you believe that the prior consensuses were subject to bias. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

With the rewrite (see below), that shouldn't be necessary anyway, as the article no longer hinges on, say, FP. (It should be noted that Spencer is notable in his own right, and so it subsequently doesn't matter who's relaying a quotation provided it's accurate. In any event, the genie has left the bottle and is now in wider use.) Pax 11:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete — the fact that the only user arguing in favor of keeping it (Раціональне анархіст) can't do so without being offensive goes to show why this page is inherently POV. Only articles cited that actually use the term "rape jihad" are on far-right websites. Super gross motivations here. CircleAdrian (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine that just about everything appears to be "far-right" to a communist (as you proudly describe yourself on your user page).

What you're essentially proposing is that an unsavory tactic be put out-of-sight/out-of-mind because all of its current practitioners belong to a certain religion whose other adherents and defenders are ever sensitive to criticism, unlike those of other faiths who've evolved to handle the heat). But this is all beside the point, since the article is abundantly RS'd (despite your attempt to smear them), and !vote tallies are not what matter in the end. Pax 07:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I've rewritten the entire article to a neutral tone and prettied it up in other ways; it now contains three-dozen sources. Pax 09:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A quick ctrl+F tells me that many of the newly added sources do not contain the words "rape jihad" at all. Interestingly, some don't even have the word "rape"...—indopug (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not necessary for all of the sources to; what matters is that sufficient RS do. It should not be in dispute at this point that there is sufficient usage of the term "rape jihad" in reliable sources. (The remainder of sources are there to buttress the other facts asserted in the article so as it does not become festooned with useless {citation-needed} tags because, believe it or not, there are plenty of people around who resolutely prefer to believe these incidents have not even happened, or, when dragged into reluctantly agreeing that they have, will nevertheless maintain there's no common connection.) Pax 19:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Strong delete as per nom. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not appear to have read the article prior to forming your "strong" opinion, as it has been completely rewritten since nomination. Expanded comment: I am also under the impression that you are nursing a grudge (possibly politically or religiously motivated) against the creator of the article. Pax 07:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not holding grudge against the user but the user is continuously twisting facts and sources to disgrace my country Bangladesh as well as my religion, Islam. Almost all the contribution and creation in wikipedia is served the above purpose. These types of contribution are not acceptable according to wikipedia policies like WP:SOAP, WP:PLOT, WP:CHAOS, WP:BATTLE. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh is not mentioned in the article. Sounds like a grudge to me. Pax 22:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I had voiced my concern in the talk page. I'm putting it as a comment here. This page should not be speedily deleted because this article about a term that has been used by several writers across the globe. BengaliHindu (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.