Talk:Rape culture/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 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^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 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^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 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, "Wikipedia's policy on tertiary sources recommends that we use tertiary sources in evaluating due weight". This is undue here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 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^«৳alk» 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 Wikipedia 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: [1], [2], [3]. I had listed them above. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 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^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 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 Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia 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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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^(Talk?)

• Strongly oppose —— creating one request for comment after one has just ended reeks of filibustering, And feels like you didn't hear what others are saying. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
• Oppose and Close, per my comments below. APL (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• I do not think he is a bad faith editor, he is free to express his concerns.Justice007 (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

He is editing in bad faith. He's abusing the RFC process and he has deleted at least one comment in this thread (mine) that was critical of him.

I recommend that this RFC be closed prematurely to avoid allowing him to waste people's times with a duplicate RFC. I tried to close it once, but he reverted it, Someone else should do it the second time. APL (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not a repeat at all, the previous RFC was about sections, this is about content. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not a real distinction. The problem was the content. APL (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with APL. It's not real distinction. This RFC is predicated upon a failure to get the point. This is unhelpful and waste of others' time. We cannot ask the commenters of first RFC to comment all over again. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

APL, your comment was removed when I reverted your closure of this RFC. The previous RFC was entirely about sections, now you say it was about content? At this moment in time the gang rape and murder of a woman in india is in this article, however it is only to emphasize that India does not have a rape culture yet the opposing viewpoint has been excised, why is this OK? It is a serious violation of NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It is absolutely not appropriate to delete someone's comment while removing or placing a template.

I would have thought that goes without saying. APL (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Then you should not have removed mine, and I would not have had to revert you. What a peculiar thing to bitch about. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This sort of unwarranted use of vulgar language needs to stop DS. Please behave politely. He didn't remove your comment. He removed, and quite reasonably, the RFC template. You removed his explanation. There is a big difference. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Really? Who says it was unwarranted? He reverted my comments, the RFC was a part of the original post. I reverted his removal and his comments went with it, tough shit. He is fully capable of restoring his comment if he so chooses. Now how about focusing on the RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

"He reverted my comments" - I am trying to assume good faith and think that you it wasn't a deliberate attempt to misinform us. This diff shows he only removed the template. It wasn't a comment. But I will let APL answer that. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right. I didn't remove anyone's comment, only a template I felt had been used improperly.

Then Darkness Shines not only replaced the template, but also removed my comment that explained why I felt it was improperly used. This is clearly against policy, and downright rude. The fact that he still defends this (as opposed to apologizing for an accident) supports my contention that he is editing in bad faith. APL (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV tag

The removal of content which contradicts the content currently in the article about the 2012 Delhi gang rape case as an example of rape culture is a gross violation of NPOV Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You had an RFC on this, and consensus went against you. APL (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I dispute that, it was never closed out by an uninvolved admin, I see a fair few people saying it should be included, most of the oppose cotes gave to policy to exclude it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

A simple glance at the sections above will enable any observer to dismiss such an assertion. Consensus was clearly against the inclusion of such unscholarly material into a serious article. This is just another disruptive attempt at POV pushing.Handyunits (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Formal closure from an admin is not required.

"Most RfCs do not benefit from formal closure. If the matter is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable."

APL (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it is contentious. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you're the only one who thinks so. (Contentious doesn't just mean non-unanimous) APL (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I count an equal amount of votes for inclusion as those against, however a fair few of those against give to valid reason within policy to excludes this content, so ya, it is contentious. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Might want to revise your count. Take the same POV-pushing you tried before and take it somewhere that's not here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's only "Contentious" if people are arguing about whether a consensus was reached. Like I said, Darkness FallsShines, is the only person who seems to be doing that. APL (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Those who participated in the RFC most certainly do not get to call a consensus, not again. And kindly spell my username correctly. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say with that first sentence, but as to the second part, I apologize for screwing up your name. It was unintentional. APL (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment III

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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..

References

Due to highly disruptive closures of this RFC by involved editors I have had little choice but to begin it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Responders should also check out the Previous RFC two RFC threads. APL (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

End RFC: This is continued disruption by an editor who has no interest in working with others, nor of remaining civil. Knock it off. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved editor - The purpose of RfCs is to get input from uninvolved editors on disputed topics. The prior RfC #2 was closed after only about 10 days, and it appears that no uninvolved editors replied. RfCs nominally last 30 days ... one of the reasons is that many RfC responders rely on an RfC bot to get notifications, and that bot only sends out notifications sporadically. For that reason, RfC #2 did not serve the function that an RfC is supposed to serve. I suggest that RfC #3 be left open for the full 30 days, so that several uninvolved editors can reply. Shutting down the RfC process early means that the dispute would not get a fair hearing. If the proposed material is not appropriate for the article, that should become apparent by the responses gathered during the 30 days. There is no rush. --Noleander (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from an involved editor - On ending RFCs our guideline states "Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." Hence I would like you to reconsider your views since the comment didn't continue to flow. Almost everyone (except DS) who commented here got involved on the matter and agreed to close it. I don't see how that is unfair or a sign of maltreatment or how it deserves a third RFC? I am not going comment on this matter anymore. I have said what I could. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ten days is a very short time as far as RfCs go. What is the rush? In any case, I would like to engage in a discussion on the issue. --Noleander (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the "rush" was mostly a reaction to the fact that his issue has been hammered on by Darkness Falls and the now-perma-blocked user Media Hound 3rd, quite a bit. Both user's strategy seemed to be to continuously propose the same thing over and over again. Media Hound would do this until people don't bother protesting because they've done so in previous threads. Then he would claim WP:Silence and make the changes.

Close variations on this issue have already received a certain amount of outside attention. I think some of the editors now "involved" (including myself) become so because of RFCs like this one. APL (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Queries - In the 1st RfC, there was a suggestion that commentaries on rape culture from around the world could be included in the "Manifestations" section. Are there any objections to that suggestion, in general? What is the exact purpose of the "manifestations" section? Do any editors object to the article mentioning specific incidents? --Noleander (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I mention this below, but an issue here is that specific incidents can't really be clearly divided into "Rape Culture" and "Not Rape Culture". The would require divining what cultural influences caused a particular crime. APL (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• What on earth is going on?????? A third RFC? For my views on the matter please see RFC1. It is the same topic. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 17:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, Still the second really. RFC III is basically a continuation of RFC II. That discussion was getting away from Darkness Shines, so he or she rebooted it here. APL (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Challenging India’s rape culture (first source is an opinion piece)
  FWIW, I previously wrote: "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." (emphases not given in original)
  I am iffy about the inclusion of this specific line, in fact I am concerned about its credibility since it's coming from a source who is an activist, sex trafficking abolitionist. This seems perilously close to a personal surmise of one person. I am unsure about the neutrality also.

  Also like APL stated below "If this RFC reaches a conclusion that this paragraph should be included, I hope that it also reaches an explicitly spelled out conclusion that it should not be considered blanket justification for including large amounts of content about India or any other specific nation." Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is an opinion piece, it is attributed. It is no different to the opinion already present in the article which says India does not have a rape culture. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say that? I couldn't find that statement. She is not a sociology major but a feminist and it is all the more reason that she might not be the ideal person to label a whole culture as a rape culture. Even then the proposed part is of little or no relevance to the article (I have explained it below). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support, the sources directly discuss rape culture which is what this article is supposed to cover. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• I should like to point out that this edit which was added by an editor who removed the proposed content also discusses the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, but only in criticizing the idea of a rape culture in India, the opposing POV has been excised from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note to the closer — Darkness Shines is the initiator of the RFC. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons I describe above in the RFC and RFC II. describe below. APL (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment In the previous RFC, I understand that the objections to this sort of content were four-fold

1. It had become a laundry list that was of no real value to anyone.
2. It was being used to push an agenda to call out India as though it were the only nation with problems of this sort.
3. It was offering examples of rape, which is not useful in understanding the concept of rape culture.
4. The editors pushing for inclusion of the India content were otherwise acting disruptive.

The forth item there is not strictly a good reason to remove content, but it certainly does effect how people view the debate, and makes people suspicious that this is an attempt to "get a foot in the door" for a POV-pushing disaster.

The third issue is perhaps not an issue with this proposed short paragraph.

I feel that the first and second items on my list here are still worth talking about. Does this paragraph enhance the article besides just saying "India Too!"? I'm not sure that it does. APL (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC) APL (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This RfC is simply asking if the article can include two specific commentaries about rape culture. The commentaries seem relevant to the article. The underlying alleged motivations (dislike of India?) should be ignored when assessing inclusion. The "laundry list" concern is legitimate; but at the moment the article seems to be lacking specifics: the article looks like it is focusing on rape culture as a very abstract concept. Where are the specific examples? Lacking specifics makes the article harder to comprehend. I'd expect the article to contain "Scholar X says that incident Y is an example of rape culture because .."; or "Feminist B says that the 2005 incidents at location Y were examples of ..". Those kinds of sources can add great value to the article. The mere possibilty that in the future it may turn into a "laundry list" is no reason to exclude all specifics. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think this RFC shouldn't be considered in a vacuum. I was trying to reiterate the conclusions of the very recent previous RFC.

This article recently recovered from a point where the largest part of the article was basically just about how much rape there was in India. (Here is an example. It had already been trimmed a little by that point. )

If this RFC reaches a conclusion that this paragraph should be included, I hope that it also reaches an explicitly spelled out conclusion that it should not be considered blanket justification for including large amounts of content about India or any other specific nation. APL (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(Also, if policy allows it, some agreement that there should not be an RFC on this issue for some period of time, say a year, would be a useful outcome of this RFC.) APL (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so perhaps there is agreement that the article can contain some examples where notable persons (journalists, feminists, politicians, etc) identify specific incidents as examples of rape culture. Of course, such examples should not be a laundry-list or coat-rack. For the moment, let's assume that the examples will not be geographically categorized. Turning to the example from Inda that is the subject of this RfC ... that looks like it might qualify as a significant example: we have a person (who is "president of Apne Aap Women Worldwide and winner of Clinton Global Citizen Award in 2009") stating that there may be a rape culture in India, and she gives her reasoning. That seems like it is relevant to this article. Does anyone object to including that in the article (assuming that it is included in an appropriate manner that avoids coat-rack issues)? --Noleander (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, this brings me back to number 3 on that list of objections with the previous version. Is this an example of "Rape culture"? Or is it just an example of rape, after which an expert discussed rape culture? And does it add to your understanding of rape culture and how it "manifests" besides letting you know that one of the places it manifests is India?

That's not clear to me at all, but I would defer to people who know the subject better.

Personally my largest concern is that this article seems to be a magnet for POV issues, and I would like any agreement we reach here (regardless of what is decided about this exact paragraph) to include some language that specifically and clearly avoids giving POV-pushers license to fill the section with their favorite examples.

(If we can also preclude the possibility of near-term repeats of this RFC and other forum-shopping on close variations of this same issue, that would be a bonus.)

As it stands so far, I remain opposed to the proposal of this RFC because it doesn't seem to me to add any valuable information to the article, and is clearly a tactic to gradually reintroduce material that a single user has repeatedly fought for, despite consensus against it. (A consensus formed by bringing previously uninvolved editors to this article, myself included.) APL (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree and furthermore the phrase "rape culture" obviously should be treated as a concept with a dubious definition. It would be best if tertiary sources were put forth (needed because we are derogating a whole culture by attaching a nation with it) and not somebody's personal opinion. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. If we decide we need to talk about the rape culture in all the different nations of the world, the fact that it has a somewhat flexible definition means that the sources will be expert opinions. Anything else would be OR. (We can't decide that experts are using the wrong definition, for example.)

APL (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please expand. Did my comment give away the impression that I am asking others to "decide that experts are using the wrong definition"? If so then I am sorry, I am not. I am saying the subject itself is a critical one and should be dealt with caution. I don't consider activist's personal opinion to be an ideal source (I even doubt how credible it is). Just like in an article related to medical science we would prefer peer-reviewed journals or papers, and not personal opinions of people (has something to do with due weight).
Actually we need to be careful as to who we might label as "expert" in this topic. And who decides which source is an authority to label a culture a "rape culture"? I believe "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and context matters, don't you? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

However, the term "Rape Culture" can be and is applied, in degrees, to all cultures of the world, so the extraordinary claim would be that it does not apply to India. (This is why it's strange to me that you and Darkness Shines are both so concerned with how India is presented in this article.)

As for "labeling" people as experts, I don't think it would be difficult to identify scholars and activists who represent mainstream feminist thought as it relates to any given culture. Certainly not a nation as populated as India! APL (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"the extraordinary claim would be that it does not apply to India." — Am I asking anybody to include this claim? All I am saying is find me better sources which can add to my understanding of the "Rape Culture" (as in how X culture legitimizes, tolerates or condones rape) apart from trivial or its literary mention (I thought you and I agreed on that) and I will shut up. Besides, being feminist/activist doesn't automatically make one an expert in the fields of cultural studies or sociology. I have asked a few guys to know what might be a solid source. So far I got nothing intriguing. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You understand that this is article is about a term used in feminist thought and philosophy, right? The whole point is to report what feminists think.

Ruchira Gupta mentioned above is a respected feminist with strong knowledge of India. She would be a perfectly good RS for reporting on feminist thought in India. I don't understand why you think otherwise.APL (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"I have asked a few guys to know what might be a solid source." Perhaps you should ask a few ladies. :) APL (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Feminist theory? No, I don't think it has any credibility solely as a feminist neologism. That's all. Even if so, it still has inescapable and pretty patent sociological overtones. Come on. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand.

This article is about a feminist theory.

The description of that theory, and any "manifestations" of that theory need to be presented from the point of view of proponents of that theory.

This would be the case even if the theory could be proved false.

The fact that the people of India, or any other nation, might be offended is not actually relevant.

APL (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"The fact that the people of India, or any other nation, might be offended is not actually relevant." - You're attacking straw man, I am sorry. I didn't say that.
I understand it, but you don't understand that the topic isn't just talking of a feminist view-point. Although it may have been coined or popularized by feminists it just isn't defined as only feminist hypothesis. See the tertiary sources [4] presented by CK below. The origin of the phrase has a little bearing on the scope of the phrase. Just as all physicists are not equals of each-other, feminists aren't either. She is prominent but the section proposed above by DS. I think Kaldari would agree with me that the proposed section doesn't add much perspective to the subject apart from letting us know that ″in India that girls are raped″. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Now you're arguing a strawman. It should be obvious to any observer that I have argued more than once, in this very thread that the paragraph proposed by DS shouldn't be included.

However, you suggested that it would be difficult to find an appropriate "expert" to discuss how "Rape Culture" applies to the nation of India. I pointed out that one such authority had already been mentioned.

APL (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW (just to clarify), I didn't mean to attack you. I get the impression that you think Ruchira Gupta is an "expert" or a credible source in this context (one who singlehandedly decides when and how a ′rape culture′ is creeping in Indian society). Since ″each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content″, I am arguing that she is not a reliable source, not talking about offensiveness of the claim. But again, the claim is a big one and we need something more than personal opinion. I posted below CK's previous comments from above RFC-1. If you already believe that this phrase should not be included then why are you disagreeing with me?
You've given your comment about the proposal and I did the same for another reason. Maybe our reasons don't match but that doesn't one of us has to be wrong. You believe the current proposal is irrelevant and doesn't add to the understanding of the subject and I agree. Now you may not agree, but do believe that personal surmises of Ruchira Gupta or anybody else for that matter (without referring to a tertiary source), do not at all meet the criteria for being reliable in this context where we can label XYZ culture as a ″rape culture″. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am no fan of op–eds and neither are Wikipedia's policies/guidelines, but in absence of better sources we can use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE in determining how reliable a source is for a particular statement. Ruchira Gupta has done extensive work on sex trafficking as a journalist and with UNICEF. There is no reason to believe she would be an unreliable source for a claim pertaining to trafficking. In Challenging India’s rape culture the following paragraph:

In the course of my own work I have seen the steady creeping in of a rape culture into the fabric of India. I work to organize women in prostitution to resist their own and their daughter’s rape. We have been campaigning to change the anti-trafficking law to punish customers and pimps and the biggest challenge I face is the normalization of the rape of poor women in our culture. Their prostitution is considered inevitable and the men who buy them are considered natural. Politicians, senior police officials, heads of foundations and even policy makers, have told me: “Men will be men,” or “Girls from good families will be raped, if prostitutes don’t exist”.

is explicitly referring to her own work in the field. I don't see any WP:V/WP:RS or WP:REDFLAG issues with any content based upon this paragraph, as long as it is attributed to her. The first sentence in the proposal above, "Ruchira Gupta, founder of Apne Aap Women... steady creeping in of a rape culture into the fabric of India", might not be very informative, but it looks reliable, at least to me. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 06:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"but in absence of better sources we can use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE in determining how reliable a source is for a particular statement." — yes, you can say that. I think the portion you picked is better and more relevant than what is being proposed. This way we are not merely reporting her opinion but also here experience. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe this comment by CorrectKnowledge is relevant here:

• This article appears to be a coatrack of the most disturbing kind. Wikipedia's policy on tertiary sources recommends that we use tertiary sources in evaluating due weight. A cursory glance at tertiary sources with dedicated articles/sections to rape culture reveals:
  • Rape culture in Ritzer, George; Ryan, J. Michael (3 December 2010). The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology. John Wiley & Sons. p. 493. ISBN 978-1-4443-9264-7. does not mention rape incident in any country at all.
  • Understanding rape culture in Nicoletti, John; Spencer-Thomas, Sally; Bollinger, Christopher (2009). Violence Goes to College: The Authoritative Guide to Prevention and Intervention. Charles C Thomas Publisher. p. 134. ISBN 978-0-398-07910-9. again doesn't mention any country.
  • Cultural Factors in Rape in Odem, Mary E.; Clay-Warner, Jody (1998). Confronting Rape and Sexual Assault. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 111. ISBN 978-0-8420-2599-7. devotes two paragraphs in two and a half pages to comparison of rape incidents in US with other modern societies.
  • Rape–Prone and Rape–Free Cultures in Ryle, Robyn (2011). Questioning Gender: A Sociological Exploration. Pine Forge Press. ISBN 978-1-4129-6594-1. does mention statistics unrelated to countries.

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.

User:CorrectKnowledge

The above material from CorrectKnowledge is a bit misleading: first, it is confusing 2ndary and tertiary sources (the sources listed are 2ndary, not tertiary .. tertiary sources are encyclopedias). Second, the quote is referring to a prior version of the article, and it is inappropriate to apply it to this RfC's proposal, which is quite different. Third, the quote ends with " If editors still feel the need to include incidents from other countries, they should be summarized neutrally within other sections." which is actually reasonable, and does not support opposing this RfC. --Noleander (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a clarification— I am not really confusing the two. Per WP:TERTIARY, tertiary sources are "...compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources" including "many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks", which is what Refs #2–4 are (#1 is an encyclopedia). The tertiariness of these sources becomes more obvious when you notice that they are only summarizing what other sources say about rape culture for most part. Still, I had some problem with Ref #2; can't remember why exactly but it didn't seem like a textbook pertaining to sociology or gender studies; which is why I didn't refer to it again in my reply to DS. IMO, others can be used freely to evaluate due weight. Regards. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected ... I did not realize those sources were compilations of 2ndary sources. My apologies. In any case, the quote above was offered to buttress an "Oppose" !vote in this current RfC, but I still maintain that the quote does not include a policy-based reason to exclude the material that is the subject of this RfC (namely, commentary by feminists about rape culture). --Noleander (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose again. Continuous disruptive editing by Darkness Shines is disappointing.Handyunits (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Your lack of any actual policy for excluding the counter arguments to text you added speaks volumes. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I will ask Handyunits to give a more elaborate comment (you may find much of it above in RFC no. 1) and to focus on the content, albeit I understand his disappointment. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

@Handyunits - Could you give some more details on your Oppose !vote? Are you suggesting that the article should never contain material by notable feminists where they discuss rape culture? Can you be more specific on when you feel such material could be included or not included? --Noleander (talk)

The arguments against inclusion of specific countries are detailed in the first RfC (this RfC is merely a disruptive rehash of the first one) and I will not be bothered to repeat them, except for a short summary. Selecting specific countries out of a long list is WP:UNDUE, and trying to include all countries where somebody said that "boo-hoo they have a rape culture, can I have a green card now?" is WP:Coatrack. The purpose of this article is to present a general discussion on the topic of rape culture, not name specific countries. The references, even those by so-called "prominent activists" that contribute nothing constructive to the topic of rape culture beyond the fact that "aggressive brown men rape women" should be ignored. However, sources that do mention specific countries and then proceed to discuss the concept of rape culture meaningfully (as Parenti, Baxi etc. have done) are already included in the current version of the article in a neutral manner.Handyunits (talk) 05:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

One update: The comment made by Noleander here is interesting and possibly doable, provided the section is not disproportionately large, a section titled "Global perceptions" can include some material specific to certain countries where such allegations are made. I should, however, urge readers not to be misled by the large amount of material on India here. Given that India has a pop of over 1.2 billion (nearly 20% of the human race), it is natural that a high proportion of the material found in the literature pertains to India. However, the level of emphasis on specific countries in this article cannot be a function of demographics, but of 'scholarly value to the article itself. Therefore, a few short sentences detailing perceptions of rape culture in western countries, middle east, south asia and subsaharan africa can be considered for addition after a rough draft has been in this talk page and due process followed with respect to content and consensus.Handyunits (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In conclusion, I maintain my strong oppose vote to including the ridiculous paragraph suggested by Darkness Shines, but am more amenable to Noleander's more nuanced suggestions.Handyunits (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This material is relevant to rape culture and is from a prominent activist. Comments above that are opposing are very muddied, and refer to editor behavior issues and to prior RfCs which had an entirely different scope. --Noleander (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That material is absolutely from a prominent activist, but I'm unconvinced that it supports the article, as written it seems like it's just tacked on so that the article talks about India.

• For example, the young girl on the bus is basically just an anecdote. Pretty sure that there's long been a consensus here that examples of rape do not constitute examples of rape culture.
• After that there's an unsurprising quote about Rape Culture as it applies to one single nation.
• The bit with child trafficking seems relevant to me, because that's something that's not covered in the article yet, and it certainly seems serious. I think more on that would be relevant.

(Again, I would defer to people who know the subject matter better than me if they tell me I'm wrong.) APL (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

@APL: Can you clarify your comment "it's just tacked on so that the article talks about India."? This RfC is not suggesting creating a section about India, nor a section about geographical distribution (which was rejected in a prior RfC). This article is a work in progress. We do not wait until it is perfect before adding material. If we agree that commentaries by notable feminists about rape culture are acceptable, we can add them into the article incrementally: eventually, there will be a decent section containing some thoughts of notable feminists. Also, you write "examples of rape do not constitute examples of rape culture", yet it is not for WP editors to use our own judgment to conclude that a source that uses the term "rape culture" is in fact not addressing rape culture. --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The rape and murder of that young woman is a perfect example of rape culture, as Gupta puts it in her article. "Let us talk about Ram Singh, the chief rapist of the Delhi gang-rape victim, who told his rape-colleagues, as they cleaned the bus, “not to worry, nothing will happen.’" Darkness Shines (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - needs new section on rape culture in different countries: It's certainly a short enough article to benefit from such a section. This news archive search of Rape culture and india shows a lot of returns, including mentioning other nations. One article that is not too WP:RS (though it is used as a source in Wikipedia) mentions that " the 5 top countries considered to have the highest cases of rape are: Afghanistan, DR Congo, Pakistan, India and Somalia." It would make sense to research all those countries and "rape culture" for starters, as well as other nations that show up in a more general search like the above. As in many cases, arguing seems to take the place of doing more research and looking at another approach. Try it. CarolMooreDC 19:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Carol: Yes, this article is missing lots of important information. What makes this RfC confusing is that the article, several months ago, did have a section sort of like that, but it was very poorly constructed. See RfC: Talk:Rape_culture#Request_for_comment:_Rape_culture_and_incidents_by_nation ... where that section was removed. One of the problems was that that section had a huge amount of material on India, so there were some UNDUE issues. But, now the article has nothing. So, one way of looking at this new RfC (RfC #3) is: how can we properly insert some analysis of rape culture, by various feminists? Organizing geographically may not be the best idea. Should it be a collection of what some notable feminists think? or should it be based on widely-reported incidents (which were characterized as "rape culture" manifestations? --Noleander (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I found a source the other day which discusses rape culture in South Asia. The author says it is not just limited to India, so a section on South Asia which could combine a fair few countries may be suitable. See Feminism, Literature and Rape Narratives: Violence and Violation p148 Darkness Shines (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Any section which draws attention to a particular country or region will probably be inappropriate at this point in time, based on the outcome of the first RfC. The main problem is that readers may think that rape culture problems exist only in the listed countries; or readers may think that rape culture is regionally proportional to the amount of text the article devotes to it. Therefore, a better path to take is to create a new section on "perceptions of rape culture" or "applications of rape culture theory" or "allegations of rape culture" (or similar) and include in that section a handful of commentaries on rape culture by notable commentators. That would be a neutral presentation that would not run afoul of the geographic WP:UNDUE problems that RfC #1 addressed. --Noleander (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable solution. Kaldari (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Noleander. I am quite happy with your solution. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

My response to this is here. In principle, it is not a terrible idea and a rough draft can certainly be formulated. However, it can't start from this mindless bafflegab of Cotaracking and undue weight.Handyunits (talk) 06:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Handyunits, the pre–RfC 1 version of the article had many problems, not least of which was coatracking the article with content based upon any source that included the words "rape" and "India" in it. I wouldn't bother salvaging it. Creating page length sections about rape culture in any country using a similar process is equally easy. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Conditional support. The proposed sentences say nothing about why India is considered a rape culture (other than the fact that lots of people are being raped and sexually abused). What is it about India's culture that makes it conducive for rape (or perceived to be conducive for rape)? If this can be explained with quotations or other material from The Hindu article (or other sources), I'll support it's inclusion. Otherwise, we might as well just write "People are raped in India too" as it conveys about as much insight on the topic. Kaldari (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the details you mention would give useful context. We should view the proposed text (at the top of the RfC) as a starting point; more can be added, if necessary. I think the sources given above do include some discussion of the underlying context of why the sources feel there is a rape culture ... and by all means that rationale/context should be included in the text. --Noleander (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that it's not just feminists who use the phrase rape culture, per some of the news sources I provided. Somebody's just got to do the work of re-creating this deleted section with more refs and less on India. Though I would change section name to something a bit more general like "Rape culture in various nations". This way we don't have to emphasize specific "incidents" but can discuss articles using the term/analysis and citing statistics, and any other relevant information, whether or not specific incidents are discussed. CarolMooreDC 02:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this potential material is not limited to feminists: it could be politicians, journalists, whatever. The material that is missing is discussions of purported rape culture: various places, various situations, various incidents. It would take a lot of work to assemble the material. As Carol says, there are probably some good sources in the "Geographic" section that was deleted, but it will take some work to extract the valid material, and couple it with fresh research to put together a new section. I don't concur with the section title "Rape culture in various nations" since that would almost certainly lead to the same UNDUE problems (singing-out a few nations for scorn) that caused RfC #1 to delete the entire section. The word "incidents" is also not ideal. Maybe a title like:

• "Analysis of rape culture"
• "Manifestations of rape culture"
• "Rape culture commentaries"

Those titles won't encounter the problems that per-country sections would have. --Noleander (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe "Rape culture worldwide" so not singling out nations or continents per se. CarolMooreDC 05:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Carol that would be my choice too. But we need to set protocol for filtering out irrelevant and trivial mentions otherwise it will act as a magnet for POV issues (against specific nation). I cannot stress it enough. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a source below that reflect the global issue and not just India. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Global Rape Culture (Michael Parenti 2011, page = 71 onwards)

In many parts of the world, rape is accepted as an everyday occurrence and even a male prerogative. In 1991 at a coed boarding school in Kenya, seventy-one girls were raped by their male classmates, and nineteen died in the ensuing panic. The deputy principle reassured the public: “The boys never meant any harm against the girls. They just wanted to rape.”83 In some societies, the rapist frequently is a family member. In the maternity hospital of Lima, Peru, 90 percent of the young mothers aged twelve to sixteen have been raped by a father, stepfather, or another close relative.84 In Punjab province, Pakistan, rapes are a common occurrence, but only a small percentage are ever reported or prosecuted. Half the time the women who do report being raped find that there accusations are treated as an admission of guilt. In accordance with Islamic decrees that criminalize extramarital relations and dictate that a female's testimony carries no legal weight or credibility, the women are judged guilty of having had illicit sex, and sent to prison. In contrast it is well neigh impossible to convict a rapist in Punjab province (in many other places). His crime must be confirmed by no less than four male Muslim eyewitnesses.85 We do not have to go to Kenya or Pakistan to find retrograde notions about rape. In many locales within the United States, women who report being raped are frequently disbelieved, accused of ulterior motives, and subjected to slurs about their personal lives. Some authorities still question whether the victim "brought it on herself" by dressing and acting provocatively.

Also read page 59 to read about India and Iran. Also read [5]. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections to "Rape culture worldwide" ... but we should wait and see if other editors object due to concerns similar to those expressed in RfC #1. --Noleander (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Editors seem to be focusing on the "culture" portion of the term as meaning the its divisions are based on ethnicities. The article should not make this rookie error. The term is broad and the article should not have sections focusing on specific nations or cultures. Defining concepts can be found in the sources cited if we wish to expand the article. News corps could help fill in some of the blanks.

1. The Nation is cited in the article, so perhaps the addition of information found in this other in-depth non-feminist piece on rape culture would be helpful: http://www.thenation.com/article/172643/ten-things-end-rape-culture
   I found other examples that specifically talk about rape culture but I'll just post a few for now:
2. In American entertainment: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/10/how-rap-can-help-end-rape-culture/264258/
3. http://www.thenation.com/blog/168866/meet-comedians-who-arent-defending-rape-jokes (Article uses the term "rape culture".)
4. In the US military: http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/201303130043-0022608
5. In Egypt: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/07/1556381/egyptian-protestors-rape/

166.147.88.47 (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The RfC does not propose to "have sections focusing on specific nations or cultures". Are you confusing this with RfC #1? --Noleander (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Going by the replies I had the impression the scope of what was being discussed had widened. I will comment exclusively on the proposals in the RFC. Pardon me for not being more clear. I don't think there should be a special focus on India without adding other countries, but the concept of rape culture isn't defined by the amount of rapes per capita. I think different regions should have separate articles and smaller mentions here. I am opposed because if there's focus on India, we have to also add a section for Egypt, then America, Brazil, South Africa, Italy, and so on. 166.147.88.32 (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the IP-response. It should not single out any nation because there are equally reliable sources that talk about rape cultures outside of India and unrelated to India, I hope it becomes clear or it will not be neutral and the pattern of edit wars will never end. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Statistics. 166.* is the third editor here to imply that India/South–Asia might have higher incidents of rape than other parts of the world. Statistics from UNODC, perhaps the most reliable source for this, suggest otherwise. There are problems with the UNODC statistics for rape between 2003–10. The accuracy of crime reporting, definition of rape etc. vary across countries, but more importantly only around 50 countries participated in 2010 (70–75 is the maximum number of countries in any year). Among the countries which participated in 2010, top 5 in terms of Rate/100,000 of population were Botswana (92.9), Sweden (63.5), Nicaragua (31.6), Grenada (30.6) and United Kingdom (England and Wales) (28.8). These stats are also available here, but for some reason there are differences with the table I've linked (Australia for instance isn't mentioned after 2003). A map representing the same is available here. Figures for US were 27.3 and India, which was the only South–Asian country to participate in 2010, were 1.8. Other South–Asian countries participated in different years and the highest statistics in any South–Asian country in any year were for Bangladesh in 2006 (8.2). China, Brazil and many countries of Middle–east and Sub–Saharan Africa didn't subject themselves to this scrutiny. I am of course not arguing that we should focus only on top 5 countries or that this article should simply be a content fork of Rape statistics, but those who are basing their arguments on statistics, regardless of whether they are supporting or opposing the proposal, need to get their numbers right. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 17:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A large part of "Rape Culture" as a topic is the allegation that it can discourage rapes from being reported to law enforcement, and can further discourage law enforcement from properly recording the reports.

Therefore low incidents of officially recorded "police reported rape" is not necessarily an indicator of a weak or nonexistent rape culture. Without additional data you could argue it either way depending on the point you were trying for. (Perhaps high numbers of reported rapes are better because it proves the police are taking victims seriously.) APL (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware that stigma associated with rape causes under–reporting of incidents. Likewise, age at which consensual sex is legal and lack of a social net for prostitutes also affects the figures. The latter, despite being politically incorrect, is a significant part of rapes reported in India. One can use estimates, even exaggerate the figures by 10 times, that still won't make the subcontinent among the worst places with regards to rape per capita. Perhaps because percentage of women in workforce is lesser than those in western countries, but this is just conjecture. I am not in any case arguing for statistics to be used strictly in representing rape culture, neither am I saying that South Asia doesn't have a rape culture because of lesser number of incidents reported. It's up to those who are arguing from statistics to take a note of the UNODC report which claims to use multiple sources for these figures. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 18:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I stumbled across the statistics some months ago. Per-capita reported incidents are quite low compared to other countries, even developed countries. Also we cannot put our own estimates of reported rape to push our opinions. This gives the total number of rapes in 2009 (note: it is not per capita). If you would like divide them by population figures see the results. United states has roughly a quarter of India's population and unreported rapes are more than 4X that of India. It means it has at least 16 times more rape going on per capita than that of India. United Kingdom has 15,084 cases what fraction of India's population will that be?

  It's no use discussing rape per capita because it is quite different than rape culture. This is what I tried to argue in RFC-1. Just because people are raped in XYZ nation that doesn't automatically prove that the whole culture is a rape culture.
  ″Perhaps high numbers of reported rapes are better because it proves the police are taking victims seriously.″ — in this context, not necessarily because we must take a note of the ratio between reported rapes and unreported rapes. Who knows what is the number of unreported rapes in XYZ nation? Like I said our personal conjectures are not worth a damn here. This is what Michael Parenti wrote, "In many locales within the United States, women who report being raped are frequently disbelieved, accused of ulterior motives, and subjected to slurs about their personal lives. Some authorities still question whether the victim "brought it on herself" by dressing and acting provocatively." — I wouldn't be surprised if I hear a case where women didn't report rape in USA because of the fear of social stigma, that's not to say the whole US is a rape culture. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Also see 54% of rapes/sexual assaults are not reported to the police, according to a statistical average of the past 5 years. Those rapists, of course, never spend a day in prison. Factoring in unreported rapes, only about 3% of rapists ever serve a day in jail. This source says 75,000 rapes were unreported in USA. Let's not pretend that only south Asian nations are grappling with rape incidents. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Some sources: Twine, ed. by France Winddance (2001). Feminism and antiracism : international struggles for justice. New York: New York University Press. pp. 280-. ISBN 0814798551. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
I don't know how many of you are familiar with Lara Logan. Here is a post about her. I recommend you read them both. After India, will come USA, UK, and other Western, South Asian or middle Eastern or East Asian nations again it will inevitably be a cacophony of scattered mentions of rape culture by feminists and a stupefying quagmire of POV-pushing content. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: We are making and deeling a very simple thing, in wrong direction, one can discuss long and long, but we should keep in mind that what the topic required and what is the concept of the subject?. Is it not clear, is it so difficult to understand?, we are discussing again and again on one editor's desire, it is useless. Let me say when you are going to write on the topic of poetry, or etc, the concept will be focused only poetry, not the countries of the world, Indian poetry, Pakistani poetry, that is bad , that is good, it will be non-sense. May you mention names of the countries if reqires that. We are creating the article on the topic of "The rape culture", the concept of the topic needs to discuss, mention and focus the content/ character of the subject,not the specific country or countries as sections. If you include the unrequired matter, it means you abusing the concept of the topic. This is very simple, why we are busy to make that difficult, may I say, wasting the time too?. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I have never edited this article before. My view is that the origin and usage section ought to have a subsection titled "Usage in India", and that subsection's content can be the content in dispute. It seems, however, that there is a fundamental dispute regarding this article's content, between the point of the article being to discuss rape culture, i.e. cultural attitudes regarding how people respond to incidents of rape, or to discuss "rape culture" as a phrase. There is no reason for the article to not cover both, but in separate sections. In the meantime, there's no reason to exclude the content in dispute from being in the article.--JasonMacker (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This article is about a specific (if broad-based) thing described by experts. It would be offtopic, not to mention a quagmire of OR and POV-pushing, to use this article to discuss "cultural attitudes" that have not been linked to the article's topic by academics, activists, or at least news outlets. That's not emphasis on the phrase, that's emphasis on the topic of the article.

Sociology may be a "soft" science, but we shouldn't treat it as though it's terms and definitions are open for our reinterpretation and expansion.

If this article just becomes "A Selection of Attitudes Towards Rape", then the original important concept is lost, or at least confused and buried. APL (talk) 00:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with APL. "rape culture" is a very specific term, and this article should only include material where the sources use precisely that term. Sources which describe attitudes about rape without using the term "rape culture" should not be considered for this article (although they may be appropriate for other articles). --Noleander (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• I echo APL's concerns, and furthermore, RFC-1 established a clear consensus against singling out any nation. We already have enough of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as it is. Besides, that is not the subject of this RFC. We need not a spiral imbroglio on top of all this. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with the above summary of any list of local usages as "a laundry list ... of no real value to anyone." The current state of the article is good and there is no need to buttress it with individual usages. Shii (tock) 11:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think this RfC is proposing a "list of local usages"? RfC #1 may have been addressing material organized in a geographic fashion; but the emphasis of this RfC (#3) is simply whether two specific comments from notable journalists/commentator can be included in the article. --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment on process from an uninvolved editor — This discussion should be a way to include well-sourced material, including opinions by scholars studying rape, commissions, etc. It is desirable per WP:CSB to include a selection of material from places around the globe. The way the discussion has been going seems to reflect a refusal to WP:AGF and a belief that RfC and other processes are about winning one's argument, rather than making Wikipedia into a space where all knowledge is available.

Turning to the topic: The nub of contention, however, seems to be the idea that "India" (or "South Africa") and its culture are defined as a rape culture. This understandably elicits emotion and defensiveness. Based on my knowledge of the concept, the term rape culture is not intended to stigmatize certain ethnic cultures as pro-rape, but rather to identify those elements of any culture which make rape more likely and accountability for rape less likely. So, the defensiveness may be unnecessary and misplaced.

As with any controversial topic, the best way to address this is to attribute controversial opinions, if they come from reliable sources or prominent figures. If a particular position arouses widespread opposition, that opposition should also be represented and attributed.

All of that said, my initial !vote would be Support for this text, with the proviso that it should be expanded to cover other opinions in a neutral voice. The official panel's use of the term in its analysis seems particularly unimpeachable.--Carwil (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that just about every sentence related to this proposed material (and similar material) should follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, that is, should identify the source in the text itself (not just in the footnote). --Noleander (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Question for editors - Is anyone aware of sources that might counterbalance the material we are considering here in RfC#3 - namely Ruchira Gupta or the Justice Verma panel? See WP:BALANCE. Specifically, are there any reliable sources that represent views opposed to the views of Ruchira Gupta or the Justice Verma panel? --Noleander (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - per others. United States Man (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I find the sources to be unreliable. Ruchira Gupta's own article says she estimates 10,000 people are trafficked, then there is a figure 10 times as large reported by some Indian panel put together in haste to try and get some change made. None of these people are motivated by a dispassionate interest in figuring out the exact number of victims. I would prefer to see secondary sources on attitudes towards rape in India, specifically the lackadaisical attitudes of the police, and little else on India in particular. This is per WP:UNDUE and WP:WORLDVIEW — an article on rape culture worldwide should only report the important differences between different nations. All the reporting I have seen on India and rape suggests that is the failure of the police to go after rapists that is the most striking feature of rape in India. Abductive (reasoning) 03:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Disruptive. Scoundr3l (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2012 rape and murder

I removed mention of this per the RFC which says no mentions of specific countries should be included yet Handyunits reverted it back in, please explain why. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You're partially correct in that the mention of specific countries in this article is, by consensus, a bad idea. NOnetheless, the article cited does not necessarily focus on a specific country but discusses the concept of "rape culture" as orientalist stereotyping Middle eastern people and South Asians (not one oparticular country) and cites media reports of the Arab Spring and the Delhi rape case as examples. Therefore, I have made an edit that removes country references and makes the content less country specific. If the earlier edits aren't just trolling, then this should be satisfactory to all parties concerned.Handyunits (talk) 08:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)