Talk:Gang rape

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Most rapes aren't reported and so citing any study automatically risks inaccuracy?

Generally a very poor Wikipedia article - for a start it should be overloaded with MSM reports from credible sources going back centuries everywhere etc instead of constantly attempting to state general (modern) patterns some of which not even exist at all (the idea that troublemakers are automatically attracted to edit such an article seems not mentioned anywhere when surely it is blindingly obvious?) A lot of it seems to be just conjecture too - very poor.

If an article is contested and likely to attract divisive troublemakers, that should be said the article. Just stick to reported MSM case facts and state why much the issue can't be clarified conclusively (the Wikipedia obsession with establishing infinite truths which can't be established - there should be a word for it).

e.g. 2020 United States presidential election 7.4 False claims of fraud - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#False_claims_of_fraud

Why is that article held to a different standard? That word "False" is presumably cemented into the article to prevent divisive troublemakers removing it?

(The article seems to say that UK gang rape is a purely 21st century phenomena - it certainly cites no cases from before then. Is Wikipedia like many scientists say about a time machine and that it can't go back further than its own existence?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.210.174 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Why would anyone redirect this article? It was a redirect once, but since March 10 text and sources have been added. It's still short, but the subject is notable enough for an article.Sjö (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The content at the redirect is plenty, the content was created by an opinionated editor that then became blocked as a result. Off2riorob (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) According to your edit comment the "Artice was a redirect and was reverted by a blocked uesr, this is the defaut" . Is it really standard practice to revert all changes made by a user that was later blocked, regardless of whether the edits were good or bad, and regardless of whether users in good standing have contributed after the blocked user? If so, I think that policy is counterproductive to the efforts to produce an encyclopedia, as well as disrespectful to the user that has edited after Giornorosso (not me, but WLU).

Sjö (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that a stand alone article is required then I would ask you to write it yourself, and not to use the content created by that user. As it is a controversial topic perhaps create it in your userspace and get some additional input as to its balance and any NPOV issues - Also , the user that started the reverting and recreation again today is now indefinably blocked - see here Incidents#Racist userpage - Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason for this redirect to be protected. --Clidog (talk) 13:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AN for additional discussion on the best way to proceed (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved

While doing uncontentious maintenance stuff, I was rather surprised to see that there was an article called "Gangrape". I've moved it to the correct title, "Gang rape". —Tom Morris (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missing info

There are gang rapes that are partaken as punishment due to the rulings o f local courts. This is not in the article. Perhaps under a @legaL" section?(Lihaas (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Please describe some more. I am really not getting what type of edit you want. OccultZone (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lihaas: I have added them, read Gang_rape#As_punishment. OccultZone (Talk) 05:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad source

My edit [1] removed a bad source, and a possibly good rebuttal source that is unneeded after the first one goes away.

The Color Of Crime website is not a reliable source. It is a propaganda site, apparently catering to a white supremacist audience, though perhaps the casual observer might not know it. Jehochman Talk 16:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, you might want to keep a lookout for Kohelet, who added that source and keeps adding it back every time it is removed...as recently as here. Seeing his edit history and that he WP:Edit wars over including that information, I decided not to tackle it. I have enough things to worry about on this site, than to be the lone registered editor opposing Kohelet until I take it to an appropriate noticeboard where more drama may ensue. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. Now the things we should keep in mind, that this article was nothing, before 3rd May 2013, the first major edition to this article was racist too,[2] lead and United Kingdom(section). But there is no neutrality, If someone still wants to add, they must add the propaganda of both sides or nothing. OccultZone (Talk) 09:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I returned it back, this time with the data source from the "racist" study. Is data racist?--Kohelet (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kohelet: You checked the link? Seems dead to me. OccultZone (Talk) 05:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not dead.--Kohelet (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How? Can you provide the link to main page? Page that lead you to this pdf. OccultZone (Talk) 06:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just walk away Kohelet. Next time you insert that content or misuse that source in any article on Wikipedia, I will go to WP:ANI and request that you be banned from the site. It is not acceptable to insert racist propaganda into Wikipedia. The link you cited does not verify the content you inserted. Jehochman Talk 14:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case you've not noticed, Wikipedia is an open and uncensored encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sourced information belongs here and this specific information belongs in this article.--Kohelet (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see this discussion before I added "verify source" to the paragraph. NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY, 1992-2003, that's given as a ref isn't available online. I won't mind if somebody removes it until it can be sourced with a reliable and verifiable source. Sjö (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why the data should be available online. It's the same as with books.--Kohelet (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link does not verify that white supremacist propaganda. Don't insert it again or you will be banned. Wikipedia is not Stormfront. Jehochman Talk 01:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a playground for preaching your liberal propaganda either. You will achieve nothing by threatening me. I'm not breaking any rules, but you are. See WP:NPA.--Kohelet (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kohelet: are you serious? You have already broken the 3 revert policy, you have edited same content for at least 4 times. In last 24 hours. I am dead sure about Jehochman, he is not wrong at all. You have been adding racist content to the page for long now.[3] OccultZone (Talk) 01:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave it at that. I took the matter to AN/I, and you can read the result here. Jehochman Talk

Individuals mentioned

There are some individuals that are mentioned by name in the article, either as victims or as offenders and I don't think that it's in the spirit of WP:BLP. If the cases haven't been very widely published I think that the article would be better without them. It gives an undue weight to particular cases, and might skew the picture of the situation in the particular country. Comments? Sjö 06:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can notify about them here. I will remove/replace. OccultZone (Talk) 06:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was one in the UK section and one in South Africa. I removed the one from the UK since it didn't really contribute to the article, but I only removed the name from the SA one since the case appears to have gathered a lot of media attention.
I think that the references to individual cases could be pruned. It looks to me as if many of them are only random cases, and not put in the article to contribute to understanding the situation in that particular country. (At worst, the examples are put there by someone with an agenda against a country, an individual or a race.) I would suggest that specific cases only are mentioned if they give us some germane information about gang rape in general or in the particular country. One example can be that they have been widely published in international press, or that the following protests has led to some major change in that country. Another can be references that are examples of something that is common or specific for the country in question, i.e. "In Xland gang rape cases are often tried by the village elders" and a link to a case that is an example of that, especially if the reference supports that statement. References that I think are unneeded are of the type that talk of a woman being gang raped, but gives no context and doesn't tell us if the case is in any way representative of the situation in that country. Sjö (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. OccultZone (Talk) 07:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some cases per my earlier edit, that give no information about gang rape in general or in the specific country. As far as i can see they were neither widely published in international press, nor have they led to change. Sjö (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sjö: I usually let the IP make their full edits. Once they are done of their preferred version, I would clean it up, or expand. Unless their edits are totally vandalism and non-encyclopediac. Always note, that if the criminal was convicted, you are allowed to write their name with the crime.
So why you have removed "In April 2007 at Hackney, East London, a 14 year old schoolgirl was gang raped. Six boys were convicted. Three others participated in the crime. The gang claimed at the time that they had previously committed similar crimes."? OccultZone (Talk) 08:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that I interrupted the IP that made a small edit six hours before me or the one that added several cases a week earlier? As you can see from the edit history, I did not. As for the reason, I removed the cases per my earlier edit. Gang rape cases that teach us nothing about are about as useful as the content of most "In popular culture" section, but worse since the also go against the spirit of WP:BLP. Also, when I looked closer at the cases they were about non-white perpetrators, which makes them look like WP:CHERRY to me. Sjö (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Race"

Regarding this edit by OccultZone, I understand that we are coming off the Kohelet matter noted in the #Bad source section above, but I don't think that it's appropriate to censor everything regarding "race" in this article. For example, males (minor teenagers and men) make up the vast majority of rapists, but we don't call reporting that matter "sexist," and we certainly should not WP:Censor it. The same goes for various topics on Wikipedia regarding sex (as in gender) and "race." And I only have "race" in quotation marks there because many scientists, the vast majority, it seems, state that "race" does not truly exist, and that, in this regard, it is more accurate to think of people in terms of clines. I'm certainly not stating that we should include the type of reporting that Kohelet included (I was clearly against that in the aforementioned section above); I'm stating that we should not be excluding all prevalence material with regard to "race" and gang rape. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these issues are really very complicated, the source wasn't bad either way. But the way it was targeting blacks and "other mixed races". What is "mixed races", seriously. The author had no clue. You have made your opinion. I have made mine. A number rational editors got this page on their watchlist. I assure you, I wouldn't go against any consensus, or quality of argument. OccultZone (Talk) 16:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean by the way that the material was included; it was included without good context, such as offering up other prevalence studies on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of Rapes/Gangrapes

I had added the following para under "Causes...". (It was deleted. I am not complaining, but there is a lot of truth in this. If people don't avoid pornography they will be driven to madly gratify their lust, to the extent of committing ghastly crimes. Let the paragraph remain in talk.)

Rape is punishable in most countries, but not watching pornography. Too much exposure to pornography is a possible reason why a group of male persons are driven to rape a woman. When a group of male persons watch pornographic videos together, repeatedly, it is highly likely that they are driven to gratify their lust, and become criminals.

-Polytope4d (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you'll need a study which backs this claim. Although I would be highly dubious that such a claim is true. Many criminologist to this day say it is impossible to concluded, currently, whether the individual’s violent tendencies attracted them to the media or that the type of media increased their violent tendencies. This generally the great debate of media’s influence. So really the paragraph should talk about the debate on this issue, rather than to take a side.
So my advice is find a reputable study and phrase it like “there is evidence that… yada yada yada, whatever the study claims”. Also "Rape is punishable in most countries, but not watching pornography." sounds like you mean that not watching porn is punishable. Far as I know watching porn isn't mandatory. I believe you mean to say is, “Although Gang rape is prosecuted in most countries, pornography depicting gang rape is not illegal in most countries.”

--Mikeymikemikey (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

Race It's a highly contention issue but it is the nature of gang rape discourse in UK. I say in this in the light that the Home office in 2013 realised a reported stating 'However, we can see recent cases show a particular model has emerged of organised, serious exploitation and abuse that involves predominantly Pakistani-heritage men grooming and abusing predominantly white British girls. Together, as communities, we need to ensure these sickening crimes no longer remain hidden.'[1] Whether one believes this true on not,(taking no side on this issue), it is the climate of gang rape discourse in the UK.--Mikeymikemikey (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, but contradicted by the recommendations of the Committee itself, on the same page of the report:
""We caution against focusing just on one particular model of child sexual exploitation. We have heard evidence that models vary within and between different types of child sexual exploitation. For example, the majority of child sexual exploitation conducted online is by white perpetrators ... Stereotyping offenders as all coming from a particular background is as likely to perpetuate the problem as is a refusal to acknowledge that a particular group of offenders share a common ethnicity"
-- Euryalus (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know how your appraoching this, but I don't want to say this is stereotypical of gang rape in the uk but of the discourse. That a pattern or a 'particular model' of gang rapes has lead to a specfically racially charged media coverage.--Mikeymikemikey (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Child sexual exploitation: response to second report of the Home Affairs Committee (PDF). London: Home Office. 10 September 2013. p. 28. ISBN 9780101870528.

"Gang rape incidence rates are high in wealthy college campuses"

This statement needs more proof, other than some obscure biased feminist book. It's a total joke that something like this can be written as fact without any sort of corroborating statistics by official crime-fighting agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thralleyes (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gang rape. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gang rape. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gang rape. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gang rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gang rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gang rape. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

The topic of gang rape is in the news because of allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brett_Kavanaugh_Supreme_Court_nomination#Julie_Swetnick --Chickencafe (talk) 11:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the friendly tip. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mathglot (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

India has been characterized

It appears the article has showed the following for an extended period:

India has been characterized as one of the "countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape".ref

@Kleuske: The same issue is at Rape in India. Please have a look at the above source. It says: "The countries with the lowest per capita rates of rape are ... India (0.014)" (my bold). That supports "lowest". Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of the word "Mpumalanga"

It is stated that "amongst the Mpumalanga of South Africa... " this is erroneous, because there is no culture or ethnic group in South Africa called "the Mpumalanga".

Mpumalanga is one of the 9 provinces of South Africa, and the major ethnic groups which live there are the Swazi, Zulu, Ndebele and Tsonga. Levan Gwerin (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated information on grooming gang report

@JayBeeEl:, please explain specifically what in my recent edit "aggressively misrepresented sources". I worked hard to accurately describe the material in the sources, and while I see that I erred in replacing 19,000 "victims" with "perpetrators", and will correct it, I fail to see any misrepresentations, let alone willful ones. Thanks! Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Gang_rape"