Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bible and rape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result was Delete on the basis that it is cited from a clearly unreliable source (a Bible article based on a website called "evil bible" - "This web site is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible."). Otherwise it is original research. These very strong points have not been addressed sufficiently by people proposing to keep this article. Though the topic probably does merit an article, it needs a complete re-write from reliable sources which do not have a blatant POV.--Konst.ableTalk 01:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Bible and rape

No substantial information. Related articles like The Bible and homosexuality and Biblical references to incest are full of information and examples, but rape seems out of the Bible's context. Even in Sex in the Bible there is no mention of rape. --Gabi S. 23:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. -- Em-jay-es 21:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not a biblical scholar, or anything like that, but isn't there some stuff in Deuteronomy Ch 22 that could be read to have to do with rape? Edward Wakelin 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Keep. Forget to put that in. Edward Wakelin 17:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a biblical scholar either, but I checked and there only a few references to rape in the Bible. It's not an issue anywhere there, and it certainly doesn't justify an article. --Gabi S. 23:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, expand, and possibly rename as Biblical references to rape - there are several references, one or two of which are mentioned in Biblical references to incest. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Biblical references to incest. If I had noticed the references there, I would have redirected the original article myself, instead of going through the AfD procedure. Currently I think that this is what has to be done. --Gabi S. 16:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not sure if there will be an article developed here, but given that this seems to be Library of Congress heading [1] and there are specific books about it, I'm inclined to say keep, at least as long as we're going to keep the other bible articles. FrozenPurpleCube 01:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is notable and verifiable; ergo article should be kept. Possibly renamed, definately expanded and improved. Bad writing is NOT a criteria for deletion; only notability and verifiability are. The subject is notable, and also part of a class of articles dealing with topics in the Bible. Definate keep. --Jayron32 04:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Verifiable yes, notable no. A handful of rape cases in the Bible don't justify an article more than Biblical references to monetary policy, Biblical references to democracy or Biblical references to joint partnerships. --Gabi S. 16:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The Bible certainly talks about rape. And even if it's spoken of rarely, the very fact that rape is today considered such a heinous crime, it's nonpresence in the Bible is all the more noteworthy. I find it shocking that rape is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments. This article should exist if only to point out that the Bible says nothing about rape being bad. - ShadowyCabal 07:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: there are an infinite number of "The Bible and..." topics one can arbitrarily create. (For example, "The Bible and witches"; "The Bible and fish"; "The Bible and beards"?) This is an encyclopedia, not a biblical discussion. Just because a subject exists doesn't mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia.--LeflymanTalk 18:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Although I can't agree with everything Talk states, we do need to be careful about the proliferation of "The Bible and ..." articles. However, the Bible is a cultural artifact that has had an indelible impact upon western culture. This impact continues to this day in the Bible’s role as sacred scripture to various religious communities. As such, it is important to have an encyclopedic entry discussing the biblical description of rape, its varying interpretation (Jewish, Christian, Islamic), and the influence of this interpretation today (How does it effect the way modern societies view sex and violence?). Em-jay-es 21:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - This article seems to be original research for the most part, any information on this topic could easily be included in one of the related topics. -- Chabuk 21:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is mentioned there and it is a subject. I do not see in which way it is related to Judaism. Why should it be on the 'Judaism-related AfD list'? Then it should be about the Jewish view on rape. This way, all you get is Christian 'bible scientists' who don't care about what Judaism says. So better make two pages, for example: Christian view on sexual assault and Jewish view on sexual assault. --Daniel575 | (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR violation with no sources. If someone wants to write a better article with this title later on, let them.--Aaron 23:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as suggested by Daniel575. Jon513 17:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:OR and notability in the absence of sources, which may exist. I believe it is always original research to identify a series of Bible verses and claim, on ones own word, that the verses form a coherent whole. One has to have proof that other people have seen these verses and thought them notable enough to string them together in a similar way. Are there theologians or scholars who have written about the Bible and Rape in a manner similar to the article? If so, source, quote them, and keep the article. If not, this is not a notable non-original topic, and delete for WP:OR and failure to establish notability. --Shirahadasha 01:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Because so many people say that the bible should dictate all behavior, ANYTHING and how it relates to the Bible is notable. - ShadowyCabal 18:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:Notability doesn't cover whether editors think a topic ought to be notable because of logical arguments, it covers whether a topic is notable based on an the presence of published sources. In order for this article to be encyclopedic it needs to be sourced-based. Best, --Shirahadasha 20:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, renaming to Biblical references to rape. There is also potential for there to be articles on Christian view on sexual assault and Jewish view on sexual assault perDaniel575. --Richard 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Biblical references to rape" would be the very definition of Original Research, unless a secondary source which presents such a topic is also found.--LeflymanTalk 03:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as suggested by Daniel575. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 02:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's four votes for my proposal already. I'm going to get to work on it tonight, b'n (without an oath). Will turn the current page into a disambig to Jewish view on sexual assault and Christian view on sexual assault, and write a beginning for the first article. --Daniel575 | (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • But the Christian view is not the Biblical view. And the Jewish view is not the Biblical view. All three articles should stay. - ShadowyCabal 14:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. ShadowyCabal, it is very easy: the 'Biblical' view is not the Jewish view. The Jewish view is based on the Talmud. The Christian view is purely based on the Bible. Thus, 'Bible view' automatically implies 'Christian view'. --Daniel575 | (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I would say the predominant Christian view is that rape is bad. The view expressed in the Bible is not that rape is bad. Therein lies the destinction. "Christian view" is what Christians believe, based on, I don't know, some stuff in the Bible. "Bible view" is the view expressed in the Bible that, in most cases, Christians ignore. - ShadowyCabal 03:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Sigh. There *is* no such thing as 'Bible view'. There is the Christian interpretation of what the Bible says, and there is the Jewish interpretation of what the Torah says. Those are two completely different things, worlds apart. What you are now proposing is plain OR. --Daniel575 | (talk) 11:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
      • There is the Christian interpretation of what the Bible says, The Jewish interpretation of what the Bible says, and then... what the Bible actually says. I see that as three categories. Enough with the ad hominem sighs. - ShadowyCabal 12:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
How is a sigh an ad hominem argument? רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 05:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"You are not only wrong, It's a waste of my time to correct you" - ShadowyCabal 18:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
SIGH... - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Lutheranism and Bestiality </facetious> Strong Delete as OR bible commentary - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • And let's not forget that almost the entire article in an infringement on God's copyrights (which never lapse under an exception to U.S. copyright law because He is Eternal). - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with CrazyRussian (DELETE as WP:NPOV and WP:NOR commentary), especially without secondary citations ... and I also agree that "The Bible" implies a Christian (POV) bias ... claiming that this article is about "how rape is regarded by Judaism, Christianity and Islam" is simply wrong, and highly deceptive to the readers, even if (some of) the same stories are in the Torah, the Old Testament, and the Qur'an. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 22:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Crazy Russian must be joking, as God obviously doesn't have a copywrite. The Bible is public domain. As for the whole Christian bias thing, the Bible is favored by Christians, but everyone agrees that it is a significant document. What I am trying to do is this: The Bible is often used to point a finger at homosexuals. It is rarely used to point a finger at rapists, because the God of the bible has no problem with rape. Because most Christians agree that rape is bad, this article can show that the Bible is not the basis for modern day morality. - ShadowyCabal 23:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment The reasons for the article are irrelevant, the article needs to comply with WP:OR. Statements such as "the God of the Bible has no problem with rape" particularly need to be sourced.--Shirahadasha 00:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although a rather poor source, the linked website demonstrates this isn't original research. Add that to the fact that anyone can pick up a Bible and confirm these verses. The article needs work, but that doesn't warrant deletion. Perhaps the references can be organized more along the lines of topic. Perhaps: Prominent incidences of rape, Punishment for rape, Forced marriage, and Rape as a spoil of war. More than just a list of verses is needed in the article, though it will be tough to not add POV. The verses could use some straightforward NPOV context. --Aranae 01:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One of the benefits of Wikipedia is the breadth of its content. Religion is an important component of people's lives and sets the context for how people behave in both religious and secular environments. If other articles on theology and interpretations of the Bible are worth including, then I don't see how this one is not. It is of significance that this informs worldviews, and therefore compiled information on the topic is of value to those who seek to understand such worldviews. The fact that you can make an article titled The Bible and X does not take away from the significance of this article, it only means that articles on those topics haven't been written yet. The Bible is a major force in the development of civilization in the West, and anything that adds to a context that helps in understanding it is of value. This can be especially noted in the development of legal systems through the code of hammurabi through the ancient laws of the twelve tribes of Israel through to the codes of Rome, the Middle Ages, through today (this is a rather controversial argument in American society, the extent to which the founding fathers based the fledging democracy on views put forward in the Bible). Also, there are plenty of sources to support this article that would make it not original research. Because the article is inadequate now doesn't not mean that it'll remain inadequate in the future. Everything takes work, this is just a beginning, and we should work to add more information in an impartial way.
  • Comment: www.evilbible.com clearly does not meet WP:RS criteria. But there are some reliable sources out there, e.g.:
    • Mary Anna Bader, Sexual Violation in the Hebrew Bible: A Multi-methodological Study of Genesis 34 And 2 Samuel 13, Peter Lang Publishing, 2006
    • Susanne Scholz, Rape Plots: A Feminist Cultural Study of Genesis 34, Peter Lang Publishing, 2000.
    • Note that Alton Meyer Winters, Rape and the Bible, Authorhouse, 2000 does not comply with WP:RS because it is self-published (See www.authorhouse.com ("the leading self-publishing company...")
Why not use and stick to material that's reliably sourced? It would cover less, but it wouldn't be subject to deletion. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh and Peter Lang Publishing is Reliable, right? Hold on, tomorrow I will incorporate Crazy-ass Russian publishing and produce ridiculously slanted pro-Bible books with an Orthodox slant... :) Will you cite them then? - CrazyRussian talk/email 12:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia's article on Peter Lang describes them as a major international academic publishing company, and their web site and title list appears to confirm this. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Unwikified article written by a banned sockpuppet who was known to dabble in Jewish issues? Not exactly Prentice Hall, y'know? - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Since this is essentially just a bunch of scripture, how bout we use The Bible as the reference. I mean that's really all you need. No one is disputing that these passages are about rape. - ShadowyCabal 04:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (negative): This appears to be a WP:COPYVIO of the cited page, http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm (which does not meet WP:RS criteria, as well as being very WP:NPOV) ... doesn't that close the argument? —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 01:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Evil Bible does not hold a copywrite on the bible. Those passages are from the public domain Bible. As for the research, I just didn't go through the Bible with a magnifying glass looking for mention of rape. EvilBible did. But anyone could have. If you'd like, I'll erase all this info, and repost it claiming I flipped through my own Bible. - ShadowyCabal 04:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
        • It would be too late at this point; it's clearly a copyvio as well. Jayjg (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Changed vote to Delete See above strikethrough. The issues here seems to be Original Research. A dry list of "Bible Passages Referencing Rape" is scanty on the notability curve. Interpretation is needed to make the passages encyclopedic; however WikiPedia can at BEST report on interpretation as published in reputable sources (those held to standards of editorial review). Shirahadasha has already posted some sources that could be used. To interpret the Bible passages on your own, even to just paraphrase what the Bible passages said in your own words is to engage in Original Research in some form. Also, as it stands, many passages identified as describing "Rape" are possible Original Research simply in the identification of the passage. For one example, the passage that starts with Numbers 31:7 only mentions women as "spoils of war" It does not imply, implicitly or explicitly, forced sexual relations. One could easily make the case that, as their men were killed, the women accepted their status as captors, and willingly went with their new masters. To assume otherwise is to possible assign modern western motives and values on a situation that may not be under that particular interpretation. So even the existance of many of the passages in the article (where rape is not stated, but interpreted as existing through the lens of modern values) could be considered Original Research. Other passages in the article suffering from this sort of problem include Judges 21:10, Deuteronomy 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:23, 2 Samuel 12:11, Deuteronomy 21:10, Judges 5:30, Exodus 21:7. Removal of those passages, which may not even refer to rape (assuming rape requires interpretation), leaves 3 passages. That's far too scanty to have an article built around. This article seems doomed to start with. Eliminate all interpretation, and lose the article on notability grounds; or keep the interpretation, and lose the article on Original Research grounds. Either way, it seems a lose-lose option. If the sources listed above could be incorporated into this article, and all original research removed, it MAY be savable. But I doubt it. --Jayron32 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As User:Jayron32 points out, whether or not some of these passages are really about rape is indeed disputed, and in some passages alternate interpretations are advanced. This isn't undisputed material, and so reliable sourcing is needed here on practical as well as policy grounds. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure original research, copied from an unreliable source. Jayjg (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.