Talk:Rape chant

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Should the article include examples of chants?[edit]

Most of the sources include examples. Should the article include these? Sleuthman (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Examples are good to include. Adding more detail about them is also good. CT55555(talk) 01:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Another poster said they were a bit sensational or inappropriate for inclusion. At least that was the implication. Sleuthman (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDICTIONARY is useful reading, I think, I'm saying that based on memory. Someone once told me we cannot have article that just define things, that is Wiktionary's job (see my comment on your talk page about that). Wikipedia needs notable examples, analysis etc. This isn't the perfect answer to your question, hopefully someone with more experience than me will give a better answer soon. CT55555(talk) 01:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update, we don't censor, but we don't need to quote the graphic details either unless they add something to the article. I disfavour the edits that add the words said. CT55555(talk) 01:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the examples in the article history did (unfortunately) give me a better sense of the precise form of hate these chants embody, though I could just as well have done without that enlightenment. I think the reason to exclude is fundamentally censorial - why else would an article not provide an example of what it is talking about? - but I don't object to their exclusion in this case.--Trystan (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GRATUITOUS says "A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines."

So if you think this helped your understanding, that is a compelling reason to keep. If I said it didn't add much, that would be reason to exclude on the basis of WP:NOT.

I think there is a valid discussion to have here and if you really think this improved the article, I won't object. My first impression was that it didn't. CT55555(talk) 15:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French language sources[edit]

As requested. Unless indicated, sources are RS. search term=chants de viol; note that chant=song

France:

[1]
[2] - assess for RS (Moroccan, seems mainstream)
[3] - popular music, looks RS
[4] - popular music (rap)
[5] - social perceptions of sexual violence over time (Ph.D thesis}

Canada:

[6]-Statistics Canada on sexual violence

UBC: [7]

Burundi:

[8]
[9]

United States: University of Miami:

[10]

__ English:

University of Nottingham: [11] - RS?

Spain:

[12] (domestic violence)

Canada:

[13] - book review but very pertinent

St Mary's University:

[14]

[15] -explainer

Elinruby (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very interested (ing) [sic] . I'd love if you could expand this article Sleuthman (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Female participation[edit]

Women participated in the chant at Saint Mary's. This is verified by images online and in the CBC article/video if I am not mistaken. Women also participated at UBC. However, the sources do not clearly state this. Finally, the Agenda video that is referenced in the history section makes it clear that females participate and that they likely do this because they want to be seen as fun and hip.--Sleuthman (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That point is made in the article and cited to the video where it is discussed. It is entirely undue to repeat the same point three times in a very short article. The job of the article is to neutrally summarize the sources, not to make novel observations that the sources themselves do not emphasize.--Trystan (talk) 03:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is rap music a form of rape chant?[edit]

Maybe this needs to be explored and looked into Sleuthman (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear[edit]

In my opinion, this article is unclear about what a rape chant is. I left a clarify tag in the lead a week or two ago. I'd encourage someone who knows what a rape chant is to expand the lead to be clearer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]