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

The result was no consensus. I'm discounting the keep opinions by Montanabw and Greek_Fellows, and the delete opinions by FreeatlastChitchat, AHLM13 and Carrite because they appear to be intent on casting a vote rather than making an (understandable) policy-based argument. The remaining opinions are equally split between delete and keep. What they disagree about is whether this concept is sufficiently covered in reliable sources that we can cover it as the topic of an article without engaging in original research, and whether it would be better covered as part of other articles. That is a matter of editorial judgment with respect to which I, as closer, can't determine on my own who has the better arguments. So we're left with no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep.  Sandstein  08:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rape jihad

AfDs for this article:
Rape jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 26. This is an administrative action only; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. It didn't occur to me to capitalize the "J" when recreating the article, leaving the old one split off as a dead-end. Pax 04:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article must be kept before it can be renamed. Pax 09:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A rename might be good since it'd take care of the concerns of neologisms, but if it is renamed it would have to be to something slightly more specific since sexual terrorism can cover a fairly broad swath of topics and some could argue that the article should encompass sexual terrorism throughout the world. Sexual terrorism in Islam may be more appropriate since this article focuses specifically on Islam. However like Pax said, that's a discussion to be had if the article is kept. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pax • contribs has made few or no other edits outside Article for Deletion debates.

"Wartime sexual violence" is a quite lengthy article; given the scope of rape jihad (by that term or another) and unique (among perpetrators) publicly-promulgated justification and practice of permanent enslavement, a fork is actually recommended by policy. Pax 19:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...given the scope...", what "scope" are you talking about? What this article does is re-categorize the Darfur and other incidents, which is plain WP:SYNTH. Not a single of the ostensible "main articles" linked in the incident section even mentions the term. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 12:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not synthesis to note the common justification employed by jihadists in separate locations in separate conflicts, and such is a worthy topic for consideration. If you don't like the term "rape jihad", that's a matter for renaming. Pax 19:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is synthesis to do that unless reliable sources do it. Hut 8.5 19:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew C. McCarthy is certainly a reliable source. Pax 18:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this? It's an opinion piece. You could cite it as a source for a statement that the author believes something, but it's hardly suitable as the basis for an entire article. Hut 8.5 18:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If McCarthy were just some nobody spleening, you'd have a point, but he was the lead federal prosecutor in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and New York City landmark bomb plot convictions of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and his al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya cohorts. McCarthy is thus not only notable, he's an authority on the subject. Pax 19:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS says that opinion pieces are "rarely" considered reliable for statements of fact, and that the probability of them being considered reliable is increased for the "opinions of specialists and recognized experts". McCarthy is a lawyer and political commentator who is known for some high profile terrorism prosecutions. That doesn't make him an authority on Islam, and his being notable has nothing to do with it. If you wanted to cite this as a source for a statement along the lines of "Andrew McCarthy said/believes X" that that would be fine, but it's quite another thing to hang the existence of an article on it. Hut 8.5 21:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the jihadis overtly, indeed eagerly, confirm McCarthy's (and Spencer's) observation of the fact that their behavior is authorized in scripture, his expertise is not in dispute by the major players in the incidents. Pax 00:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What they confirm or not has nothing to do with whether this article should be kept. Abstain from citing opinion pieces, bring RS that actually define the term and describe your viewpoints. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 01:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the subject matter of the article, not its title, that is well-referenced and warrants inclusion on the encyclopedia. --DawnDusk (talk) 05:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been included in wartime sexual violence. If not, please do so. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 05:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the lead of the article, not all incidents are occurring during war. Wartime sexual violence is also a very long article whose major components (of which this is certainly one) would warrant separate articles under policy...which would put us right back here. Pax 21:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then include it somewhere else, if possible, but not here. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 12:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Greek_Fellows • contribs has made few or no other edits on the English wikipedia.

The article now has a new section, which further illustrates the point. Because a source uses the phrase "rape jihad" in the headline of an article about sexual abuse in Rotherham, the article now has some text (taken verbatim from Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal) about that abuse. The source doesn't attempt to connect that abuse with abuse in Iraq, Nigeria or Sudan, but information about it is nevertheless included here with a claim that it is an example of a wider phenomenon. Hut 8.5 18:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Sexual jihad" isn't involuntary (i.e, rape), as the first sentence of that article makes clear; that article's topic concerns women offering themselves to men as an enticement. It's the very anti-thesis of what this article is about. Pax 09:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual jihad occurs with consent. Rape jihad occurs without consent. Sexual jihad involves Muslim females. Rape jihad involves mostly non-Muslim females. BengaliHindu (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rape is a subset of sexual. Both articles are about the same thing using sex in jihad, a "Rape Jihad" section in sexual jihad makes sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been stated, sexual jihad is distinct from rape jihad, because the former is voluntary. It would be the equivalent of merging the article serial killer in with article on suicide.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 12:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a stub about murder cults and I head a stub about suicide cults, and both articles had neologisms for names I would look at making an article. "Death in cults" or something. Rape jihad is what you'd read in Urban dictionary, Sex in jihad is what you'd expect from Wikipedia. Love jihad ,Anal jihad, Rape jihad, none of these are great articles by themselves, we could get all the references from all three, pull some more info from academic sources and make a great article. Organic growth is fine but we want to consolidate growth from time to time when it makes a better experience for the user. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of "Sex in jihad" is demonstrably WP:WEASEL when the practitioners of the subject are blunt concerning their right to forcibly enslave and rape their captives. To be clear, rape is only kind of "sex" performed under this particular sura-authorized practice. Therefore, its inclusion within the title does not violate neutrality. Pax 00:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to argue that an article about feigning love to convert people with sex, or to voluntarily provide fighters with sex, to condone men to have sex with other men, and to rape women sexually is not about "Sex in jihad" then you've reached a point in the discussion where you are unreachable. I want to treat the subject with the best references we have to offer. The stub sprawl of the topic is organically grown but can be consolidated now to created a better article that treats the topic while delivering it to the readers in a better format. Rape jihad is a neologism, it's part of a constilation of stubs that could easily be harvested together to make a great article with a lot of references treating a highly notable topic. We should be Bold and not say "well a stub meets the minimum requirement so let it be" our readers deserve better than that. Bryce Carmony (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bryce, the first sentence of your reply above is a straw man fallacy because I did not make such an argument. (The suras in question deal with captive women.) Otherwise, "sexual jihad" is also a neologism, and one which I would add has a minimal level of reliable sourcing and concerns a topic which happens less frequently and is of less arguable importance than this subject. But if minimal levels of reliable sourcing are enough to keep that article, then they're enough to keep this one. Pax 21:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was worried he might have crossed the line of WP:CANVASS when I saw my page. However, that should be relevant discussion for his talk page, not this article for deletion, don't you think? DawnDusk (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is appropriate to include a note in a discussion saying that it may have been improperly influenced by canvassing. I have separately warned this editor on their talk page. Hut 8.5 18:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the argument is so slight that Christian Terrorism survived both AfD and deletion review on the same day as this article despite being a synthetic neologism (among a host of even worse problems). The inescapable conclusion is that for some editors the rules go out the window concerning some topics, while molehills are made into mountains in the case of others. Pax 06:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that DawnDusk (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

This is true only insofar as Pax posted on my talkpage about this. If anyone would like to check, I was involved in the speedy deletion and deletion review; I check my contributions, watchlist, and all very often. I guarantee I would have come here, talkpage notice from Pax or not. DawnDusk (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: FreeatlastChitchat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside Islam/Muslim-related topics.

  • Err, because those are completely different, and your last statement is simply false? DawnDusk (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • where is the mention in JSTOR? I come up with big zero. Where is mention in any reliable book? I come up with zero. Can you link any reliable book which supports what is written in the article?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't access JSTOR right now. Forgive me in advance, as I will not be able to offer the full response your question merits. "Perfect Enemy: The Law Enforcement Manual of Islamist Terrorism" uses the term in the precise manner this article does. " Islamic Violence in America's Streets" does not use the term, but does everything else (by that, I mean it describes the exact same phenomenon in this article without calling it Rape jihad). National Review obviously uses both the term and describes the phenomenon, while Newsweek does the latter. You'll see this pattern in all the sources - they all describe the same phenomenon, and the plurality (not the majority) describes it with "Rape Jihad." If you're not satisfied with the plurality, OK; fair enough, you can make the point that it's a neologism. But that doesn't change that the contents of this article warrant staying on Wikipedia, at the very least under a different name (and my friend, you're going to be hard-pressed to find a more frequently used term to describe the phenomenon). --DawnDusk (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources don't do what you claim they do. Perfect Enemy does define the term, although it doesn't appear to do much more than that. The definition given is "the sexual assault of vulnerable young infant girls, especially in Western countries". There are significant differences between this and the article, which defines it as "the organized abduction, rape and enslavement of non-Muslim woman or children" and proceeds to list examples which aren't from Western countries. I'm not convinced that the source is reliable, as I can't find much on the author other than that they appear to work in US law enforcement.
    Of the other two sources you mention, the National Review article is an opinion piece and thus unreliable, as noted further above. The article cites two Newsweek articles [19] [20] but neither describes the concept (or uses the term). They discuss sexual abuse of Yazidis by Islamic State but don't attempt to connect this with sexual abuse by anyone else or argue that these are instances of a more general phenomenon. Although those sources certainly support the notability of Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency they can't be used to support the existence of this concept without engaging in original research. Hut 8.5 20:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. The definition (in Public Enemy) read "...vulnerable young infidel girls...", not infant girls. That changes the meaning considerably. Pax 00:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. It is a common, but wildly erroneous, assumption that a source cannot be "opinion"ated for it to be reliable, when in fact WP:BIASED indicates precisely the opposite, and I quote: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Pax 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DawnDusk so there is only one source you can come up with which uses the term. And as an experienced editor you know that basing everything in an article on biased sources will create bigotry. btw why are you against inclusion of this in Sexual jihad where mention of forced sex (which is just a fancy politically correct name for rape) is already present. Instead of two articles with questionable content there will be one better content. As far as neologisms are concerned I am sure that it will be a can of worms and the semantic debate will be long drawn out. Also if you look at the recent history of this article you will see that rotherham child abuse scandal has been added, which I deleted. This is just the beginning of a trend, for every time there is a muslim rapist it will be added to this article which is huge bigotry. If you have time a simple google search will show that being forced into sexual jihad is a term which has been in use for the past 2 and half years ever since the ISIS and their ilk reared their ugly heads. So it stands to reason that this material be present in sexual Jihad instead of a new article which is bigoted.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand me. Last I counted, which was on the crap version of this article that was first put up for deletion, 5 reliable sources used the term "Rape Jihad." But like I said, you missed the big picture of my response. This article is about the phenomenon. If the title "Rape Jihad" is being challenged by you as a neologism, even if you win that argument, you're in effect proving that it warrants a pagename move, rather than a delete. --DawnDusk (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my original delete comment it clearly says that as long as there is sexual jihad present this should be deleted. you can see that 75% of the article is not worthy of keeping in an encyclopedia, the rest can easily be written on the sexual jihad page. however a merge vote means that we just merge the existing content which is biased and uses only non neutral sources. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to take a closer look at sexual jihad; its subject matter is women offering themselves up for the sake of Islamic rule. The phenomena in the respective articles are totally different. Our conversation is becoming a bit cyclical here, but again the only true issue there is with the similar titles causing confusion. This leads us back to the beginning: you say that 75% of the article is unencyclopedic and drawn from biased sources. That simply isn't true. You're making that claim because of concerns with sources and synthesis, correct (stop me if I'm wrong)? The only real argument for synthesis, again, is using the term "rape jihad." Because when it comes to those sources, there are countless unbiased, reliable ones that do indeed describe patterns of "organized abduction, rape and enslavement of non-Muslim woman or children by Islamists", which very well warrants its own article. --DawnDusk (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am very happy that you have used the word Islamist here. Are there any reliable sources which say that the rotherham guys were islamists?FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you would be happier with the article if it described perpetrators with the broader term "Muslim". So, are you sure you're unhappy with "Islamist"? Otherwise, suggest an alternative, because disliking a single word in an article is not grounds for deletion. (BTW, here's an informative James Delingpole article here that I think would be useful.) Pax 07:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pax: what you've quoted there misses the point. The opinion piece would be a perfectly good source for a statement about someone's opinion if it was attributed in the text. It isn't being used like that. It's being used to support factual assertions about sexual abuse in Islam, and to support the notability of the article subject. Our guidelines don't allow that. The problem isn't that the source is biased, it's that it's an opinion piece and so isn't subject the same fact-checking procedures as other types of articles. Apologies for the error in the quotation, I had to copy it out. Hut 8.5 06:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that ISIS and Boko Haram are not only not disgreeing with the "factual assertions", but providing the basis for them, this retort isn't making any sense. Quite literally, the facts aren't in dispute: both the bad guys and their opinionated critics agree on what they're doing.
Opinionated critic: "The bad guys are enslaving and raping people!"
The Bad Guys: "We sure are!"
...I'd say that's adequately fact-checked.
Otherwise, your remaining quibble is whether or not the article should have some quotations (hardly grounds for deletion, given that you haven't tried, let alone been reverted). I don't think any of the Keep !voting editors here are adverse to some quotes (I didn't include any, aside from Boko/ISIS, to keep the article neutral-toned and less prone to coatracking. Pax 07:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know where you got the idea that I'm just saying that "the article should have some quotations". I'm not. We got into this discussion because someone asked for reliable sources about the article topic, and this one was mentioned. It is not, in fact, a reliable source. That concern is not a "quibble", without reliable sources we can't have an article on this or any other topic. Hut 8.5 18:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While many marauding armies have committed mass rape, few had any organized, long-term ambitions (i.e., extending after the war), let alone had religious authorization overtly advanced as justification. And, in the case of Rotherham, the children of kufr are targeted in an organized way even in the absence of armed conflict ("war"). Pax 17:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have Love jihad, Sexual jihad, Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism. If those titles aren't problematic, then should this one shouldn't be either. Pax 17:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Jason from nyc (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

Note: User:WalkingOnTheB • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside Article for Deletion debates.

The Second user to vote for no delete, no rename, no merge is User:Greek Fellows who has only 15 edits to his name, none of which are even remotely connected to this article. Then out of the blue he comes here and states his opposition to changing anything.
The third user is User:BengaliHindu. We see from the very first notice on his talkpage that he used to canvass as well, and of course he created the article so he is going to say keep.
Then there are the users User:DawnDusk and User:Jason from nyc who have come here only after Pax called/canvassed them to endorse this article.
The icing on the cake is User:WalkingOnTheB who has come here to support this article but he has only 4 genuine edits and is currently under investigation for being a sock puppet.
So you can see that the 'ENTIRE' side supporting the article is highly suspicious. Perhaps there is a nicer way of saying this, a couple of the guys supporting the article User:DawnDusk and User:Jason from nyc look ok, but they have been roped in during a canvass, all others are highly suspicious. I hope this is taken under consideration when a decision is made.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please adhere to WP:NPA. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 16:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC) (Note:The comment immediately above was removed after this comment was aded)[reply]
  • Whoa, whoa! That very policy is what I was about to point out. Comment on the arguments, not the people! You went quite a bit out of line, Chitchat. (edit: Not only is it wrong to just attack the opposition in place of arguing the points at all, but some of what you said is egregiously wrong and biased on your part (the Greek gentleman, for example, is someone who appears to contribute a lot on foreign language wikis))--DawnDusk (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stick to what I wrote. I am not "attacking " the opposition. My points were that there has been illegal canvassing and that the users who did not come here after a canvass are have suspicious behavior. Do you deny any of this? I mean no disrespect but that is what the diffs show. This is not a personal attack, this is just a comment. If you think I am out of line please copy and paste the part of my of my comment which you did not like and I will link diffs to prove it. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's run through the delete !vote arguments, and see what we have:
  • First, there are the claims that various sources are "biased" or have "opinions" and hence cannot be reliable...except that, as noted previously, not only does that not exclude sources from being reliable per WP:BIASED,"...sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources."
So, these !vote have to be discounted as being founded upon an errant reading of the rules.
  • Next are those who think it should be deleted because Sexual jihad exists (which isn't about rape or slavery) or because Wartime sexual violence exists (which doesn't cover cases like Rotherham, whose section a certain delete !voter keeps attempting to remove in a rather naked display of vandalism), and is otherwise a very long article for which such merge inclusion would immediately warrant forking to a new article such as this one is at present already). Likewise are the editors who incongruously !vote delete while saying the information nevertheless "should be on Wikipedia somewhere" (but they don't have a solution, which at least the isolated keep-and-renames do).
  • Then there are the numerous persons (such as the delete !vote immediately below) enamored of the neologism excuse, except that sufficient RS are using the term, so it's a no-starter.
  • Nearing the end, we come to the delete !voter's trump card (which I delivered to them on silver platter): the canvassing claim based up my reminding six editors (no more than half of the total keep !votes in previous discussions, by the way) that the interminable deletion process was now heading through another loop of Wikipedia's intestinal tract. Except that it's all WP:ADHOM not speaking to the subject. (An example of adhom would be pawing through all the delete-!voting editors contribs to determine which ones have an excessive interest in keeping "bad" things about Islam out of Wikipedia, and noting that such persons have COI and faith problems when they do not reveal that up front. But let's not name any names.)
  • Finally, the last possible hope, is that more delete !vote appears. Except that, as we are reminded by the tag at the head of this AfD (thoughtfully provided by the editor worried about canvassing) which clearly states: "....please note that this is not a majority vote". (Isn't it interesting how irony work?). Pax 04:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you haven't included my argument I'll restate it here. The sourcing for this article does not justify its existence. The article documents a number of cases of sexual abuse by Islamic groups (by copying text from articles) and states that these are all instances of some broader phenomenon called "rape jihad". Virtually all the sources cited just document those instances of sexual abuse and don't attempt to claim that they are part of any broader phenomenon. This is true even of some of the few sources which actually use the term "rape jihad". In order to have this article we need reliable sources which perform this dot-connecting exercise. Without that the subject isn't notable and connecting these instances of sexual abuse is original research. There aren't more than a handful of sources cited which make any attempt to do this, and the quality of those sources is very low - they either aren't reliable or don't devote significant coverage to the subject. Hut 8.5 07:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article's Justification section connects the dots: ISIS and Boko Haram make it abundantly clear what they're doing and why. Given groups on separate continents engaging in the same mass enslavement and rape of kufir with identical justifications (publicly pronounced) rooted in surah authorization, that a "broader phenomenon" exists is not in serious dispute. Pax 07:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's clear-cut original research: your interpretation of the justifications presented by these groups is that they are the same, so you wrote an article stating that they are part of the same phenomenon. You aren't allowed to draw that conclusion here unless reliable sources do. Hut 8.5 18:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS says its views are supported in the Qu'ran and the Hadiths; Boko Haram leader says "Slavery is allowed in my religion". This is not original research, and the two statements are functionally equivalent. In fact, Wikipedia has a whole article on it (even linked from this one). Pax 03:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about Islamic slavery, and if it was we would delete it as a duplicate of that other article. Furthermore I'll bet the sources cited by that other article do actually discuss slavery in Islam, rather than just using the term "Islamic slavery" to describe an instance of a Muslim enslaving someone. Hut 8.5 06:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...I must point out you're essentially agreeing with Pax at this point. --DawnDusk (talk) 09:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, no he is not. He is saying that every rapist who is a muslim is not doing "RAPE JIHAD". saying so is blatant POV, OR and bigotry. If this is allowed on any encyclopedia ever it will lead to pages like "Christian incest", "Jewish necrophilia" etc etc. because the minute you start to think that you can label another person as something or that you can label their act as you wish you are committing POV editing. Bring a 'Single' source which says that the rotherham guys themselves say that they were doing jihad . let us see if this article can provide even a single source for its existence. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Pax's previous response to this. This simply means the term, not the phenomenon, is an inappropriate descriptor for that part of this article. --DawnDusk (talk) 10:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely am not "essentially agreeing with Pax at this point" and I'm baffled as to how you could think that I am. The problem with this article is that very, very few of the sources that it cites actually document Islamist sexual abuse as a phenomenon, rather than simply describing some instance of an Islamist group sexually abusing people, and the few sources that do aren't very good. That problem remains regardless of what label is used to describe Islamist sexual abuse. Pax's response has been to claim that such sources aren't necessary, which simply isn't true. Hut 8.5 17:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me if it seems like I'm pestering all delete votes. Please see my response to Chitchat under his delete vote and do join the discussion regarding the issue of coherent unsynthesized phenomenon and neologism. It seems to be the discussion that needs to take place. --DawnDusk (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally (and this argument was also addressed in the previous AfD, improperly closed IMO, but I digress), it is not necessary for most of the reliable sources to use the term, only that a sufficient number do (and a half-dozen is sufficient). Other claims in the article need their own sources, and that is indeed why they are there. So, another delete !vote based upon misunderstanding of the requirements. Pax 00:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted several times above, the article has been entirely rewritten from the last two AfDs, and recently survived a speedy deletion review. Pax 04:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is false statement. The article has not been changed in anyway. Rather new synthesis, POV, OR, bigotry and unreliable sources have been added to the article since then making it a mockery of NPOV. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you're calling me a liar when it takes me like ten seconds to link a comparison? What is wrong with you, ChitChat? Not one sentence is retained intact from the old version. On the talk page, it's become clear that you get your information from Russian front-groups and Islamist propagandist outlets. In light of this, questions as to why you are here arise. Pax 08:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chitchat, you keep going way too far. I don't like commenting on people over arguments, but I looked a little at your history and saw that you have a past of getting blocked for being incorrigible and violating policies in article matters such as this. You need to drop the stick. --DawnDusk (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'only' time I was blocked it took a puppet master and his five socks to get me blocked. Due to my efforts (sacrifice seems to much lol) he was unmasked and subsequently blocked. Yes people have tried to get me blocked but boomerangs are not uncommon in those cases. And FYI you are also guilty of adhom now. Comment on the article not editors. My comment stands, everything added since the last AFD is 'synthesis(taking a bunch of things and making them look like links in a chain based on an opinion piece from a controversial unreliable source), POV(saying that something is a phenomena even though there are no sources saying that it is, aka saying that every rapist who is muslim is committing "jihad" when they themselves did not say so), OR, bigotry(creating entire content of a page based on 4 or 5 highly biased controversial and unreliable sources) and unreliable sources'. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you calling Ymblanter a sock-puppetmaster for blocking you for for violating 3RR, or is this a Freudian slip on your part? (From your extended contrib history, I find it hard to believe you are a "new" editor fresh on-the-scene as of last Dec. 14.) Pax 00:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I am calling This guy the puppet master. The guy who does the blocking is only an uninvolved admin lol. Where did you get the idea that I was calling the blocker a puppet master? Perhaps this is just another false statement on your part.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ....Yes. I freely admitted that in the very comment you replied to. Allow me to explain: if you didn't make the connection, my point was that it's a bit damning that you got into a revert war over an article on that looks poor on Islam when you have been blocked for doing so in the past. It's quite different than your claims of sockpuppetry of above; you see, you've made bigotry and controversy your fighting points against Pax a couple of times here. This is why I felt it necessary to bring up that history - you've responded with one-liners that beg the question when Pax challenges your objections, which suggests that you might have a conflict of interest or something else riling you that clouds your ability to take and respond to his objections the way he responds to yours. And that is a legitimate concern much different from the above. I fear we are getting a bit too into "you" and "me," but I'm more than willing to continue this discussion here if you'd like because it is relevant. --DawnDusk (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon me but you made me laugh implying that I have a COI and I don't want this article because it mentions Islam, cuz you see I routinely add content which depicts the extremism which some muslims are engaged in. I just don't like adding content which is pure POv simple as that. Next time you want to cite COI on somebody make sure you read their history thoroughly. I already explained that my edit war was necessary to prove sockpuppetry, and I will not go into that as it removed a sock master from the encyclopedia. You can see from the Islam article that the content which I removed was later permanently removed so your citing that as COI is kinda amusing. And so far no one has responded to even the very first of my objections, which is pretty simple. The objection is "Please show a Single source where the Rotherham guys say that they were committing Jihad when they raped those girls".Let us see if there is any response to this. When you reply please reply to this objection first then respond to the other part of my comment.FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nicer I try to be, the ruder, more aggressive, and more confrontational you get. Take a good long hard at WP:STICK and WP:BATTLEGROUND sometime. --DawnDusk (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok I will ask politely. Perhaps you did not post a source because of my tone, so lets get that out of the way. I am sorry for being rude with you. Can you please post any source where it is written that the Rotherham guys claimed that they were committing Jihad when they raped those girlsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AHLM13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside Islam/Muslim-related topics.
Note: This user is currently blocked and unable to respond.

ISIS is raping women in public, then selling them into slavery. Really: it's in today's news. (This also gets to the heart of my reply to BlueRaspberry above: the additional sources are included because there are a lot of people who adamantly refuse to accept that these atrocities are actually happening even though the perpetrators are openly boasting of their deeds.) Pax 21:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS, some delete arguments at the two previous AfDs (1,2) are still valid and apply to the current article too. It will also be worthwhile to salt the titles if this discussion is closed in favor of deletion
Also, if you disagree with me regarding what constitutes a reliable source, what is a neutral POV, or what is or is not OR and SYNTH, then you have reached a point beyond which I am unable to argue meaningfully with you. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 15:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to share how you came to the conclusion the article is an "original essay"? Did you mean original research (which the article obviously isn't)? Pax 04:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd read the preceding commentary it is explained why there are multiple reasons why the article cannot go into Wartime sexual violence, why the neologism argument is overcome by sufficient reliable sources using the term, and why the title is not inherently POV. Pax 04:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More