Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Custodial Rape (non-sexual)

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 of the debate was - deleted

Custodial Rape (non-sexual)

Custodial rape is a form of rape, and a serious human-rights problem. "Custodial Rape (non-sexual)", however, is one man's neologism for a parent being deprived of custody or visitation rights. Googling for this neologism gets exactly one hit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep Was entered as case law in WA state Aug. 16, 2004 and won. . Allowed for visitation with argument. Will be good for other fathers to digest and reflect. Note: The origin of rape was not sexual. Before it was considered a sexual act it was "An act or instance of robbing or despoinling or carrying away a person by force," Merriam Webster's Dictonary 10th edition. If you edit or remove this page I will just make it again. I donated the other day so let me have my space. Paul--mrindianajones 06:16, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • A link for this case would help your case here. Insisting you will just make it again isn't helping, however...
• Delete. Neologism. While it's great that you donated, this doesn't give you the right to create whatever you want. Furthermore, threats are bad. If this the community consensus is to delete this, and you continue to recreate it, you'll likely end up being blocked from editing. Ambi 06:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism would be a kind word to use for it - it's unclear it's even reached the status of neologism. Being referred to in arguments in one case does not make it notable - almost anything can be entered into as an argument in a court case. Jongarrettuk 06:52, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Ambi -- thanks for donating, but space here isn't for sale or even for rent. This article addresses serious issues but does so under a heading that's not generally used for the point, so it's confusing and no one will ever read it here. The serious issues are: (1) a custodial parent violating court orders, and (2) a custodial parent deliberately poisoning the children's minds against the other parent. These points merit discussion on Wikipedia. I would merge some of the language from this article into child custody but first I'd like to see whether anyone can suggest a better place for it. Abductions by custodial parents are a significant enough problem that I would've thought we had something addressing it already. JamesMLane 06:59, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, or at least move to a different title and reword. "Rape" may originally have had a different meaning from how its used today, but this is a contemporary encyclopedia if ever there was one. Such a loaded word taken in such a different context is just going for an emotional response through unecessary hyperbole. There already is an article on custodial rape, and a "non-sexual" rape to modern readers sounds non-sensical. Until this becomes a recognized term (which I can't see ever happening) its best addressed as custodial kidnapping or some such more reasonable word. -R. fiend 07:11, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Utter crap. Lexis shows no hits in the court opinions of Washington, btw, for (which doesn't even look like a proper docket #), or "custodial rape". Postdlf 07:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • - Well then you don't know what your looking for. I have the papers right in front of me.
    • Lexis doesn't get every written decision of every court, so it could well be that you're both right. Anyway, mention in one decision wouldn't change the point that the term is not generally in use and that virtually no one would think to look for a discussion of this subject under this title. JamesMLane 08:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Like hysterectomy when it doesn't involve the uterus... Frantic hype. Worthless. Wetman 07:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It's use in one case doesn't make it a widespread term. Wikipedia is here to reflect on notability, not to create it. Average Earthman 08:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not just a neologism, but one that was explicitly created as a propaganda device, and an annoying attempt to use Wikipedia to spread it. However the question is simply, does the term now have sufficient usage to justify an article (or more likely, a redirect to child custody or similar)? My conclusion is, no it doesn't. Andrewa 09:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Somewhat misleading figurative use of such an emotionally freighted word for promotion of a POV is unacceptable. Fire Star 12:55, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete for now, neologism. Reinstate the article if and when the term comes into common use in the legal profession. (Or if you can point to *several* cases that use the term in this sense, that's good too) Kim Bruning 13:27, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Rename and edit into NPOV, if we don't already have an article on the problem. It's a real problem and deserves a page, but this title is unnacceptable (for reasons given above). Noel 13:54, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, POV. — Gwalla | Talk 18:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Neologism. Delete. But there should be an article on Custodial interference. RickK 19:57, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Why not include the info under child custody? It looked like a pretty short article so far. Postdlf 21:31, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as NPOV progaganda neologism. Joyous 23:26, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam, surely - David Gerard 11:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Do you even know what spam is? It's not spam, I have been using and editing here since early 2002. The article has been discussed accross the internet on father and divorce recovery groups on yahoo and msn. They feel it is a very appropriate deffinition. It any of you have ever gone though what this man has with his children you would surely have been on board. It is very appropriate. For a link look at Divorce Care and Support on msn groups and see the discussion on it. All in agreement as well requested to have it added to the groups links. over 2000 people in the group --68.66.238.191 17:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It's the same text being posted over and over under different article names. It's somewhat pink and reconstituted. Why, yes, I do know what spam is. (I also have thoughts on sock puppets.) - David Gerard 17:55, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Interesting. If you are not 'this man' himself, then why didn't you correct Slowking Man when he said you were one and the same? As for whether it has been "discussed across the Internet", while that wouldn't automatically qualify it for Wikipedia status, let's take a quick Google search:
      1. search for "custodial rape (non-sexual)". Gets exactly one hit. Guess which one.
      2. search for "non-sexual custodial rape". Gets no hits.
      3. search for "NSCR", on pages where it occurs with the words "custodial" and "rape". Four hits, but in all of them, NCSR refers to the Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement.
      4. search for "Custodial Rape NS".
      • I never had tried say I was not that man. So I am not sure what you mean by correcting slowkingman. The case just ended so I suppose it would not be listed much anywhere as if it has been added to others references google may not have indexed them yet. We won being able to argue the case this way though the other side was rejecting the verbage. Nonetheless those that are in the same boat approve of the verbage and it's use as such. As far as the other NS or NSCR earlier a couple users above suggested I posted it under another name, so I tried several but the same thing happened to them. So how else do you suggest I revise it. I did exactly as they asked. And the same notice appeard on those pages. So I tried changing the name to suit as asked. I think one finally kept. How about Non-Custodial Parental Rape or any other ideas. Regardless rape of the non-custodial parents rights to the children in the circls I am in is very acceptable because of how strong and emotionally charged it is. It fits very well with the websters dictionary as well. And compared to some of the other items I have seen on Wikipedia, I don't see why it would be out of place. You let alot more get away with alot less. Is it because it's too political for you? Moral? Or do you just object to somthing you don't understand or really care about. When the rest of the system catches up to the shame and seriousness of the situation as this word will place on it, then it might not be so nice for people to run off with children for no other reason than discontentment. So I will try submitting it under other names, nonetheless the verbage and use is still the same no matter what you want to call it and the seriousness of the case's just as relevant. To water it down is to not call the problem however by it's true name. It's a rape. And it does just as much damage and hurt to a non-custodial parent to be raped of their children as it does a person to be raped by the more accepted criminal law definition. Again however, the origin of the words fits very respectably.--68.66.238.191 02:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • No, do not "try submitting it under other names". They will all be listed here and quite obviously they will all be deleted. So, what should you do? It's clear if you read the comments here. Drop the idea of using the term "rape" for this situation. Whether you think the term is justified is immaterial. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. We describe the way things are. The way things are is that almost no one uses "rape" to describe parents absconding with their children or telling them that the other parent is horrible. Therefore, we're not going to endorse your POV here. I and others have suggested that a suitably neutral description of the problem could find a home at child custody; others have suggested a new article with a more commonly recognized title. Pick one of those sensible alternatives and stop wasting your time trying to post an editorial disguised as an article. JamesMLane 02:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The author even says on his user page that this is "what I consider Custodial Rape (non-sexual)" (emphasis mine). His own personal considerations do not warrant a encyclopedia article any more than an article on what I might consider the 2004 Beer Hall Putsch. Ånd while this in itself may not qualify as spam, 3 or 4 other identical articles certainly could be considered so by some.-R. fiend 19:44, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Susvolans 15:54, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete neologism; welcome article on Marshall vs. Worsdale if it can be demostrated to be in any sense a much-referred-to case. -- Jmabel 01:13, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Another similar article at Child Custody Rape. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 02:31, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the catch, I'm listing it for deletion. I started out being tolerant of this guy but I'm rapidly coming to agree with the people who've called for a ban. JamesMLane 02:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Jayjg 02:44, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • You told me to list it under another name so I did, so I don't understand what the problem is.--68.66.238.191 02:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Please read the comments. The main problem is that everyone thinks it's inappropriate to have an article on this subject with any title that uses the term "rape" (or any derivative, like "NSCR"). JamesMLane 02:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • well you must have writen that comment why I was changing the name, because it was not there when I tried creating the new name again.--68.66.238.191 03:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • very well then suggest a name without the word rape in it. the rest of the diffinition besides that one word should be the same because that is how we defined it when we used it and how the world of father's rights sees it, though maybe not so verbos, none the less we needed a websters form of the word that was sent to copyright. Then just include the origin source to my page and then my own view of calling it rape will be respected there.--68.66.238.191 03:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Several other terms have been suggested but you have steadfastly refused to use a word other than rape. And continuing to write these redundant and POV articles may cause you to be "raped" from wikipedia (non-sexually of course). As for your feigning "I don't see what the problem is, I changed the name", don't play dumb and pretend you don't know what word we take objection to. I suppose we'll see Custodial Anal Fisting Rape next and we'll be expected to OK it because its a different name, and you can scratch your head and wonder why we didn't. Try using "abduction" if you want a serious, non-archaic word that actually applies to the situation. -R. fiend 03:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Well, he can't use "abduction", unless it's something like "court-ordered abduction" or something like that. He just doesn't get that, regardless of whether it is "politically correct" or "politically incorrect" to compare his feelings on not getting custody of his kids to rape (in the sense that an English-speaker of this century understands it) -- it is not encyclopedic knowledge! "Will be good for other fathers to digest and reflect." Well, great! Let them read it on your own webpage, digest it and reflect it! But it's not encyclopedic knowledge! Even if it got a handful of Google hits -- one page's worth, rather than one hit -- that wouldn't indicate that it was widely used enough yet to be encyclopedic knowledge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Sir this is serious to me, not a joke as you have made it. I don't see any other name suggested. I don't play dumb, the debate was because of how close it was to the Custodial Prison Rape as far as I was concerened and the political correctness of using it as I have. And further more the abreviations I used did not have the word rape in them, I believed that was part of the major issue as well.
            • I've merged the NPOV portion into child custody (diff here). I even included an external link to your site, which was a borderline call (and one that I'm sure some people here would dispute). If you stop creating these articles, stop trying to use Wikipedia to apply the word "rape" to the situation, and generally stop trying to editorialize here for your POV, there's some chance that the external link will survive. (In response to R. fiend, I don't think "abduction" works because it doesn't pick up the less drastic but more widespread problem of alienation of children's affections. At some point, a genuinely NPOV article could be created about parental abduction, but for now I think the merge is better.) JamesMLane 03:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all versions. Possibly redir some variations if someone thinks it's necessary and might actually be searched for. Ban or block after warning if process/policy continues to be violated. Niteowlneils 03:49, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, along with all other incarnations. • Benc • 08:17, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RFD

• Custodial Rape (non-sexual) -> Custodial rape. Custodial rape is a form of rape that is perpetrated or encouraged by a state power that is keeping the victim in custody. This can be confirmed by doing a quick Google search, which shows it to be a serious human rights problem around the world. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's article on it was written by a non-custodial father who wished to publicize his own private (re-)definition of it, as a metaphor for not being allowed contact with his kids; he created the original article of Custodial rape to publicize this definition, and, as he admits at his webpage, coined the legal-sounding phrase "Custodial rape (non-sexual)". The main article has been rewritten to address the actual phenomenon of custodial rape; the redirect should be deleted, since it is his own private neologism. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:22, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• What a ridiculous mess. Sure enough, Custodial Rape (non-sexual) no longer belongs on this page -- because after the Custodial rape article it re-directed to got revised, the author of the material went back to the redirect, which was where he had written the article originally, and turned it back into the original article. sigh. Needless to say, if you still have any opinions about the material, the page Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Custodial Rape (non-sexual) is there. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:33, 4 Oct 2004 (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.