Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:17, 21 June 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Islam and domestic violence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Gender studies This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : see Unassessed Gender studies articles and Unknown-importance Gender studies articles Cleanup : edit to see Collaborate : see /Collaboration Copyedit : edit to see Deletion sorting : see /Sexuality and gender Expand : edit to see Infobox : see Gender studies articles needing infoboxes Merge : edit to see Notability : edit to see NPOV : edit to see Orphans : Brannon Masculinity Scale · Holy Virility · Media and gender · Michael Kaufman (author) · Women's education in Saudi Arabia Photo : see Misplaced Pages requested photographs of gender studies Split : History of feminism Stubs : see Gender studies stubs Translate : see /translation Update : edit to see Verify : Riot grrrl Needs attention : see Gender studies articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Islam and domestic violence. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Islam and domestic violence at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 December 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Marital rape in Islam

Does Islam recognize forced sex in marriage as a form of abuse? If so, does it advocate for its prosecution under any law? Does the concept of marital rape exist under any shape?188.25.159.251 (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Islam and domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070414164755/http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/sau-summary-eng to http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/sau-summary-eng
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110813095734/http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Muslim%20Power%20and%20Control%20Wheel.pdf to http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Muslim%20Power%20and%20Control%20Wheel.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible WP:NPOV Violation

This passage ] isn't NPOV. It should probably be removed, but for such a controversial issue, a talk page discussion is probably the way to go. Any thoughts? @Al-Andalusi:. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 17:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@ThePlatypusofDoom: I removed the 2 paragraphs on the grounds that they are WP:OR. For example, "Muhammad believed women were inferior to men with regards to intelligence" is based on WP:Primary sources which is problematic on its own. Further, the sources make no reference whatsoever to domestic violence to begin with, which makes their inclusion here a violation of WP:SYNTH because there is an implied conclusion (not supported by the sources) that domestic violence happens in Islam because Muhammad believed that women were inferior to men. The end of the paragraph with the "woman is considered to have been created for his pleasure" claim is uncited, and and is a false one as Muslims unanimously believe that human beings were created for the sole purpose of worshiping Allah. As for my other edit ("Violence against non-Muslim women and girls"), this is Counter-jihad propaganda and the link to Islam is unfounded and does not hold up to scrutiny, not to mention the abysmal sources. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc:, what is your defense for the restoration of the sexual assault claims to an article on domestic violence and Islam? where do you see the connection? Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Domestic violence is violence against women. It is about male supremacy and the wider context is relevant. Please restore the consensus until a new consensus is reached per WP:BRD. Please do not edit war. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with the removal of the paragraphs that cited only religious texts; this was pure original research.

However, Al-Andalusi's arguments against the paragraph about violence against women are mostly groundless. Sources like The Guardian and The New York Times are not "abysmal" sources, they are reliable sources. The reports in those sources are factual, and easily verifiable that countries like Sweden and Germany have experienced a disproportionate number of incidents of rape perpetrated by Muslims, and those countries are trying to do something about this. The deleted paragraph doesn't claim that a culture of rape is a characteristic of Islam, although including it in this article does have that implication, I'll admit. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: Not according to Misplaced Pages: "Domestic violence is a pattern of behavior which involves violence or other abuse by one person against another in a domestic setting, such as in marriage or cohabitation". Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Amatulic: The paragraph has Counterjihad and Eurotrash propaganda written all over it.

1. The described sexual assault/rape claims are not reported as domestic violence. Again, why is this content here?
2. The title "Violence against non-Muslim women and girls" is statement that claims non-Muslims are particularly targeted among possible targets.
3. The first source is an opinion titled: "Sweden Opened Its Doors To Muslim Immigration, Today It’s The Rape Capital Of The West". This IS an abysmal source. It correlates between the rise in the number of reported sexual assaults and the increase in "Muslim" immigration. A disputed claim. Rape in Sweden goes into more analysis.
4. "Muslims have also targeted children in sex trafficking schemes and child rape." Cites The Guardian, but the article makes no such claim. The word "Muslim" is not even there in the article.
5. NY Times on immigrants being taught wisdom from Norway. And this is relevant here because?
6. Breitbart is a crappy source.

I don't see any good intentions behind including this content here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you, @Amatulic:, that the New York Times article is substantial and it is used several times through out the paragraph. The cultural context discussed in the article is important to understand the general cultural factors that have importance to our article. Al-Andalusi does have a point with the Guardian article. While the individuals mentioned are Muslims, the Guardian article does not connect that fact with the behavior involved. A better source would be needed. PS, Your last concern about miss-implications is valid. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As there is a consensus for this section, I'll insert an edited version largely relying on the New York Times. I omitted the Guardian article but left the sentence with a note for a citation if one can be found. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: No consensus was ever reached, and the content remained largely unchanged. Let me make it clear to you Jason, if you are to insert your Counterjihad propaganda crap again into this article, then you leave us with no option other than to report you to ANI. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You do not have veto-power. Your argument, that this type of background material shouldn't be in the article, wasn't accepted. Several people agree with me that it should. I agreed with you that the Bretibart source isn't reliable and the Guardian source doesn't support the given statement. But we have a consensus for the rest. Stop edit-warring and accept the consensus. And please stop the personal attacks. They don't intimidate me but they create a hostile atmosphere that might discourage new editors from contributing. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• What's reliable here is a NYT article, which is misrepresented in the section, and a Guardian article, which has nothing to say whatsoever on the topic. The offending paragraphs (they used to be even worse) are not neutral, they suggest that Islam is a rape-friendly culture and that Europe is being flooded by rapists, and they lack reliable sources to verify the statements made. Also, I see no consensus for anything whatsoever; edit summaries by Amatulic and others merely indicate that "there seem to be reliable sources", if I may paraphrase. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies:, You don't agree that Amatulić, Flyer22 Reborn and myself are in agreement on the need for this section? We also find it needs to be rewritten to avoid miss-implications. Are you agreeing with Al-Andalusi that the New York Times citation has no relevance for our article? I want to understand clearly your objections. I thought we had an agreement on the need for a section but that it required more work. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Misimplications? I don't see a need to rewrite what was cut for all the right reasons. I am not really interested in parsing the arguments of others here, and I don't see there is consensus for a need for such a section. In general, if we're going to have content of this kind, this possibly inflammatory kind, in an encyclopedic article, we should require strong sourcing--that means books and academic articles, not a few newspaper articles from here or there. And note the comments below. Drmies (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• The whole NPOV, Islamophobia, RS stuff aside, how is the paragraph in question at all about domestic violence? Only one sentence about spousal rape and honor killings seems remotely related. On top of all the other concerns, the paragraph is COATRACK. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• • - Completely agree with Drmies and EvergreenFir above. Non-neutral paragraph which misrepresents the only reliable sources it uses and is tangential at best to the subject of the article. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with Drmies etc. Section was POV synthesis which used unreliable sources and misrepresented the one reliable source. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• I'm fine with the removal too. In my initial comment I expressed some reservation about the implied connection between Islam and a culture of rape, and I agree that the connection with domestic violence is tenuous. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, the entire "women in islam" section has little, if any, connection to domestic violence except insofar as to insinuate that there is a connection. It would be one thing if it were actually a summary of women in Islam given as background/context, but instead it selectively highlights e.g. clothing, leaving us to assume that one is connected to the other. This may be unpopular, but given we have a pretty well developed article on the subject, I removed the section save the {{main}} links pending the addition of an adequate, less contentious summary (ideally one which attempts a connection between the role of women in Islam and domestic violence). — Rhododendrites \\ 21:26, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, good move. Yes, no connection, besides implication that is. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, I agree with the removal of that too - there was nothing about domestic violence in it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• C-Class Gender studies articles
• Unknown-importance Gender studies articles
• WikiProject Gender studies articles
• C-Class Women's History articles
• Mid-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles