![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I linked to where the data was moved, but since violence against women has an article, this could potentially also. Until that's made, a disambig makes more sense. I included the template which has a list of other forms of violence. Perhaps Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (3rd nomination) could be consulted if there is information pertaining to non-domestic forms of violence. Ranze ( talk) 21:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with this page, I think it covers some important points, why do we seem to have radical feminists on WP trying to deny male suffering ? I thought be banned those nutters ? -- Westside12345 ( talk) 23:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course it could be improved, everything could be improved. I would do it myself but I'm not enough of an expert on the subject to contribute in a way that would remedy the status. Do I think it should be deleted? Absolutely not, and I'm not exactly clear on why this is up for debate. Anyone singling this page out and pushing for its deletion sounds to me like they support violence against men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andelocks ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This topic if we wish to create a quality article needs to be presented only using citations that are decent. The previous deletions were in part because of failure to show any quality sources discussing violence against men. We should refrain from quoting statistics when they have not been interpreted in a manner covering violence against men by the source. Also Business Insider is a total crap source. I'm deleting anything that falls under WP:SYNTH, and will do my best to abide properly by WP:RS – removing low quality sources. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 21:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
because the chunk used here really does not capture the sense of the article.
alleged rape.
[1]
That Daily Mail stuff probably should go too, but this is my start. Carptrash ( talk) 18:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011). In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.Is the key point. The point you quote equally applies with the genders reversed as the article makes clear
it is just as misleading to equate a woman’s experience of alcohol-addled sex with the experience of a rape victim who is either physically overpowered or attacked when genuinely incapacitated.. We could say the take home is
Should we, then, regard sexual violence as a reciprocal problem? Getting away from the simplistic and adversarial “war against women” model is undoubtedly a positive step, as is admitting that women are human beings with the capacity for aggression and wrongdoing—including sexual assault.
SPACKlick ( talk) 15:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
QUOTE. SPACKlick ( talk) 20:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
In these difs i removed content that is WP:OFFTOPIC - it was not about violence against men because they are men.
In this dif I removed content that violates WP:SYN. The connections being made there, with "this does not explain" are WP:OR.
Happy to discuss. Jytdog ( talk) 19:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The article said the following and I have moved it here for discussion.
In October 2013, the Daily Mail reported than more men are raped than women, if including prison rape. ( source)
This is a great example of why this article shouldn't exist. We have a tabloid report picking the most sensationalistic - and misleading - way to discuss recent findings of two recent government reports, which are discussed seriously in the NY Review of Books source linked to from within the tabloid article (I give them credit for at least having provided that link in their web edition).
The government reports point up the crisis of sexual violence in our prisons. The big picture is that "According to the latest surveys, in 2011 and 2012, 3.2 percent of all people in jail, 4.0 percent of state and federal prisoners, and 9.5 percent of those held in juvenile detention reported having been sexually abused in their current facility during the preceding year".
I don't want to get into a whole bunch of WP:OR here but here is data showing that in December 2014, gender breakdown was as follows:
So yeah - apply the percentages to everyone, and way more men are victims of sexual violence than women, in prison. A crazy, fucked up environment. Not like the world where most of us live.
I'm trying to address the weasel-wording in "Similarly, it has been argued..." - I have access to the source (the Mouthaan article), and the author cites a good number of other scholars who say that "in conflict scenarios, sexual violence against men has been ignored in favour of a focus on sexual violence against women and children" (Lara Stemple, Sandy Sivakumaran, and Wynne Russell, to name a few). I don't recall how to approach this properly (mentioning them all by name would obviously be impractical, but simply saying "by Mouthaan" would make it look like she's the only one); could someone point me in the right direction here?
Random
(?)
02:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Gee, no wonder the page is so empty. My major addition to the page got brutalized of most of its facts. I don't care to deal with editors on this issue, but just look at this and compare that with how the page looks now... Unbelievable. The effacing of male victims of mass killings in the media appears to be as evident here as it is in the media. Blehair ( talk) 03:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that this article might be a good place to look at the role gender in lynchings, particularly black men. There is a well known case of a woman being lynched as a cattle thief, but that should ( opinion) not be classified as "violence against women" any more than the majority of cattle thief lynchings of men should be considered to be "violence against men." However (I believe) many black men WERE killed because they were men. The key to this is in the references. Carptrash ( talk) 18:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive.EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 18:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I desagree. I think your personal feelings and mine for that matter are very relevant here. If we agree that "The topic of this article has nothing to do with a similar article somewhere else." then we need to decide what the topic of the article should be or is going to be and that will arise out of what each of us feels it should be. Violence against men surely predates the Crusades, though I have not started to try and discover where "kill the men, carry off the women and children" begins, I expect it to be well before then. Perhaps in the Old Testament? Carptrash ( talk) 20:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding relevant sources, the concept of gendercide seems to be a good starting point for information about violence against men in wars. Please note that the term "gendercide" was originally coined by Mary Anne Warren who focused on violence against women. This still seems to be a very important aspect of it, though Adam Jones is responsible for reinvigorating the term by adding analysis of violence against males. From what I can tell, there seems to be some very relevant scholarly debate about separating gender-specific violence from sex-specific killing. Here are some examples I found through Google Books:
Peter Isotalo 18:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Copying from article:
Forced castration of men has been widely practiced by societies for several reasons, including payment of debt, cultivated birthright, assimilation, and punishment. Once a man underwent the procedure, he was to be called a eunuch. These individuals were frequently assigned to serve in some domestic capacity. The earliest records for intentional castration to produce eunuchs are from the Sumerian city of Lagash in the 21st century BC. [1] [2] The practice was conducted by various regimes across Europe, Africa, and Asia until the 19th century, when it was largely eradicated. During the 20th century, many nations began using chemical castration to sterilize mentally ill males & as punishment for male sexual offenders. The practice as punishment is still used by developed nations as of 2015. [3] [4] [5]
References
- ^ Maekawa, Kazuya (1980). Animal and human castration in Sumer, Part II: Human castration in the Ur III period. Zinbun [Journal of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies, Kyoto University], pp. 1–56.
- ^ Maekawa, Kazuya (1980). Female Weavers and Their Children in Lagash – Presargonic and Ur III. Acta Sumerologica 2:81–125.
- ^ "Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0794->Section 0235 : Online Sunshine". state.fl.us.
{{ cite web}}
: line feed character in|title=
at position 25 ( help)- ^ "BBC News - 'Menace' jailed over child rape and abduction attempt". bbc.co.uk.
- ^ "Russia introduces chemical castration for pedophiles". RT. 4 October 2011.
Content above is poor. Sources are way too specific (Sumer? wtf) as opposed to general - something like (Alexandra M. Kokoli "Castration" pp 117-18 in Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, ed Jodi O'Brien. SAGE Publications, Inc. 2009. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412964517/ Print ISBN: 9781412909167 | Online ISBN: 9781412964517.).... they are more like throwing darts at the wall.
More importantly, I don't see the case here for this being related to violence against men:
I am not dead opposed to something about castration as a form of violence against men somewhere in the article. i don't see any case for inclusion in the section on "sexual violence" and nothing above makes that case for castration as any kind of violence against men, in my eyes (self imposed or voluntary as a means to power, or judicial punishment) . Needs to be based on good sources and actually say something. Jytdog ( talk) 03:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (striking opinions that I should not have written that seem to be "shiny things". the point is that the sources and content do not work Jytdog ( talk) 14:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC))
what I am seeing above is a bunch of general discussion in which opinions are asserted. That is not how WP works - not on Talk pages (see WP:NOTFORUM) and not in mainspace (see WP:NOR and WP:SOAPBOX each of which is policy)
My point above was that neither the content itself nor its sources describes castration as violence against men because they are men. (and in general, I believe that the scope of "violence against..." generally does not include judicially imposed punishment; if chemical castration is controversial then it should be discussed as such and for should deal with the fact that it is done to men who have committed sexual violence) As i wrote above, it may be possible for there to be something about castration in the article, with good sourcing and encyclopedic content (not laundry lists) based on the sources, that clearly relates castration to the topic and deals with nuances here. (and btw, please read the eunuch article - it is clear that eunuchs were given a lot of trust, power, and access in royal houses) Please focus on sources for this matter and content that could be based on them that fits the scope of the article.
Comparing to FGM is very wrong-headed - the question is what reliable, secondary sources are there are on castration and what do they say about it as being violence against men because they are men? That is how WP works. Jytdog ( talk) 13:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have recently been researching male genital mutilation, mainly with respect to non-infant rites of passage. One practice that I have read about many years ago, but do not have a reference for is a tribal rite of passage that included hemi-castration. Should anyone have a reference it would be much appreciated. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC).
I'm starting to get a bit worried about the amount of obvious POV language that is being stuffed into the article by IP users. There seems to be valid content in edits like this. Example:
Obvious WP:SYNTH and plenty of POV language. Some of this is relevant, but it clearly smacks of campaigning. Is this enough to request editing restrictions for unregistered users?
Peter Isotalo 21:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
References
I'm failing to see how the reason given of "POV" is accurate. Could you please expand? Arkon ( talk) 22:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted an edit removing this wording from the lead sentence. This is the only thing making the article a notable topic independent from domestic violence and violence in general. All other pages of similar title (e.g., violence against women, violence against LGBT people) have this sort of wording. Without this qualifier, the WP:SCOPE of the article is vague and opens the doors for inclusion of any and all violence, however tangential, that happens to affect men. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 02:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion - How about we just mirror
violence against women and use something along the lines of Violence against men is, collectively, violent acts that are disproportionately or exclusively committed against men.
I chose to replace "primarily" with "disproportionately" because men are primarily the victims of most violence crime, numerically, but also primarily the perpetrators. But if we focus on issues where men are disproportionately represented, especially compared to perpetration, that would narrow the scope. I would take the "exclusively" to mean "nearly exclusively". The issues brought up in the section below this still remain though... this definition is not from an external source. This is the biggest issue really as violence against men is not an internationally recognized issue, men are not a protected category because of oppression, and there's not much academically about the topic specifically. But it would at least reflect how it's treated by sources per
WP:LEAD and can allow us to avoid
WP:SYNTH (which, without a defined scope, is going to be the death of this article). This would preclude the DV stuff though unless we focus on gay men or some other subset. And that's okay as it's covered in the DV article. But this is the best I can come up with at the moment, trying to compromise and all.
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}}
03:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I support this wording for the lede as suggested by EvergreenFir: "Violence against men is, collectively, violent acts that are disproportionately or exclusively committed against men." USchick ( talk) 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure that anything here is going to be workable, but since I am an inclusionist I am not inclined to torpedo anything either. By the way, have you ever been at an article when AWMs show up? Carptrash ( talk) 17:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
So does this not really get us back to the fact that we are, here, inventing the concept of "Violence against men." That there is/was no such thing prior to us. And having decided that we are not a mirror or something to Violence against women we are . . . left . . . ..... with . . . . ........ what? Carptrash ( talk) 22:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
ok, so you are arguing for a scope that is "violence against men is violence that affects men disproportionately compared to other...." what goes there? genders, or sexes? Jytdog ( talk) 03:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The lede reads: "Violence against men is any act of violence that is aimed at men and caused at least in part by their being men." Says who? What source provides for this definition? Violence against women (VAW) is actually defined - by the United Nations, first of all - but also by numerous international conventions. For example, The Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women defines VAW as "any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere". [6] The Maputo Protocol defines VAW as: "all acts perpetrated against women which cause or could cause them physical, sexual, psychological, and economic harm, including the threat to take such acts; or to undertake the imposition of arbitrary restrictions on or deprivation of fundamental freedoms in private or public life in peace time and during situations of armed conflicts or of war". [7]
The term "violence against men" is not defined anywhere (other than by men's rights activists ...). Also, how does this article determine that a specific act is "violence against men"? With VAW, sources support the inclusion of various acts in the category of VAW, because the international conventions actually give examples of acts of VAW, and so does the World Health Organization, and other reliable sources. For example, the UN Declaration on the elimination of VAW, says: [8]
"Violence against women shall be understood to encompass, but not be limited to, the following:
So when we write in an article "
dowry violence is a form of VAW" we actually base this on sources.
2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A077 (
talk)
09:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please add this in somewhere: "A blogger at 'Karl Rove Said' analyzed FBI statistics on violence and came to the conclusion that when men kill, they kill men at rates far greater than when they kill women. When women kill, they also kill men at rates far greater than they kill women." Source is: [9] I tried putting this in myself, hoping that someone with better editing skills would polish it, but my changes keep getting reverted by the same people who tried to AfD this page. What a surprise. Shakespeare Monkey ( talk) 05:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Male offender/Male victim | 65.3% |
Male offender/Female victim | 22.7% |
Female offender/Male victim | 9.6% |
Female offender/Female victim | 2.4% |
I removed the following content from the article and have put it here for discussion. From my perspective the content doesn't fall within the scope of this article, which is violence against men because they are men. Nothing in the content discusses that.
In the US, crime statistics from the 1976 onwards show that men make up the majority of the homicide perpetrators regardless if the victim is female or male. Men are also over-represented as victims in homicide involving both male and female offenders. [1] According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, women who kill men are most likely to kill acquaintances, spouses or boyfriends while men are more likely to kill strangers. [2] In many cases, women kill men due to being victims of intimate partner violence. [3]
Male offender/Male victim 65.3% Male offender/Female victim 22.7% Female offender/Male victim 9.6% Female offender/Female victim 2.4% References
- ^ "Homicide trends in the United States" (PDF).
- ^ Greenfeld, Lawrence A.; Snell, Tracy L. (December 1999). "Bureau of Justice Statistics - Special Report - Women Offenders" (PDF). Bureau of Justice Statistics. p. 14. Retrieved 6 March 2015.
- ^ Farr, Kathryn Ann (1997). "Aggravating and Differentiating Factors in the Cases of White and Minority Women on Death Row". Crime & Delinquency. 43 (3): 260–278.
They [women] typically kill people they know, primarily men - most often husbands or lovers in domestic encounters (Mann 1996; Campbell 1993; Silverman et al. 1993; Weisheit 1993; Browne 1987; Goetting 1987; Wilbanks 1983). ... Many female murderers have killed husbands or boyfriends who battered them repeatedly (Gillespie 1989; Browne 1987).{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored ( help)
Happy to discuss. Jytdog ( talk) 19:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed the following content from the article and have put it here for discussion. From my perspective the content doesn't fall within the scope of this article, which Is violence against men because they are men. Nothing in the content discusses that.
The 2013 "Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK)", [1] published by the Domestic Violence Research Group (Springer Publishing journal "Partner Abuse" [2]) again reiterated the findings of parity in rates of both perpetration and victimisation for men and women. The "Unprecedented Domestic Violence Study Affirms Need to Recognize Male Victims". [3]
Men who are victims of domestic violence are at times reluctant to report it or to seek help. There is also an established paradigm that only males perpetrate domestic violence and are never victims. [4] This has been linked to the claims that women are only ever domestically violent in retaliation and self-defence, even when global evidence from multiple sources contradicts this idea. [4] As with other forms of violence against men, intimate partner violence is generally less recognized in society when the victims are men. [5] [6] Violence of women against men in relationships is often 'trivialized' [7] [8] [9] due to the supposed weaker physique of women, in such cases the use of dangerous objects and weapons is omitted. [7] Research since the 1990s has identified issues of perceived and actual bias when police are involved, with the male victim being negated even whilst injured. [10]
References
- ^ "PARTNER ABUSE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE PROJECT (PASK)". domesticviolenceresearch.org. Editorial Board of the Peer-Reviewed Journal, Partner Abuse http://www.springerpub.com/pa and the Advisory Board of the Association of Domestic Violence Intervention Programs.
{{ cite web}}
: External link in( help)
|publisher=
- ^ John, Hamel (ed.). Partner Abuse New Directions in Research, Intervention, and Policy. Springer. ISSN 1946-6560 http://www.springerpub.com/journals/partner-abuse.html.
{{ cite journal}}
: Missing or empty|title=
( help)- ^ "Unprecedented Domestic Violence Study Affirms Need to Recognize Male Victims" (Press release). Springer. PRWEB. May 21, 2013.
- ^ a b Woods, Michael (Oct 19, 2007). "1 The Rhetoric And Reality Of Men And Violence". Men's Health Australia. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-03-02.
- ^ Das Dasgupta, Shamita (November 2002). "A Framework for Understanding Women's Use of Nonlethal Violence in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships". Violence Against Women. 8 (11): 1364–1389. doi: 10.1177/107780102237408. Retrieved July 2, 2014. (subscription required)
- ^ This_Way_to_the_Revolution_114: A Memoir. Peter Owen Limited. 1 June 2011. p. 114. ISBN 978-0-7206-1521-0.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
TimeHopeSolo
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ Eva Schlesinger Buzawa; Carl G. Buzawa (2003). Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response. Sage Publications. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-7619-2448-7.
- ^ Donald G. Dutton (1 January 2011). Rethinking Domestic Violence. UBC Press. p. 148. ISBN 978-0-7748-5987-5.
- ^ Buzawa, Eve S.; Austin, Thomas (1993). "Determining police response to domestic violence victims: The role of victim preference". American Behavioral Scientist. 36 (5): 610–623. doi: 10.1177/0002764293036005006.
Happy to discuss. Jytdog ( talk) 19:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
So are we then back to listing every war, every catastrophe, every calamity in which violence happens to men? I'll start with the 6,000 slaves crucified in 71 BCE following the Third Servile War. Had to be mostly men. Carptrash ( talk) 17:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not a big by-the-rules editor, rather I believe in the Form follows function dictum. The function of articles ( opinion) is to accurately present the views of the reliable sources and references on the topic. When this function comes to fruition then the form or scope will emerge. My concern, because I have seen it at other gender based articles is that editors show up which a particular POV on the subject and then try to milk the references to produce the article that they want. I am inclined to take a Show me the money attitude here, in this case the "money" being some nice intelligent informed sources. Carptrash ( talk) 17:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion here is by no almost entirely focused on opinion. It has been suggested that the concept of "violence against men" has to be narrowed somehow, but there is no consensus that this is actually a valid complaint. I and several users have pointed out that the article is about a straightforward "X of Y"-topic. And still content is being removed because the narrow scope, which relevance of which we don't agree on, isn't being fulfilled. In effect, we are being asked to prove pure opinions wrong. There is not a single valid complaint about any specific sources or specific content. No actual policies have been invoked.
For example, why would gender-specific homicide statistics from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics not belong here? Why can't there be even a brief summary of domestic violence against men? What's wrong with sources like American Behavioral Scientist, Partner Abuse New Directions in Research, Intervention, and Policy or Crime & Delinquency?
No complaints have been elaborated in regards to POV, original research or synthesis. There is no sign that angry white males or men's rights activists are being allowed to dictate content. The out of scope argument did not hold up for scrutiny in the AfD discussion nor does it enjoy support here. It looks like there is a concerted attempt to dismantle the article because of purely personal doubts.
Peter Isotalo 18:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
There are people here saying that when men are disproportionately killed by both men AND women it doesn't show that "men are being victimized because they are men". The problem with this argument is that the entire "domestic violence" section in "Violence against women" article would have to be removed because it doesn't show that women are being "victimized because they are women". Because there is domestic violence in lesbian relationships (in fact, lesbian couples are more likely to be violent than heterosexual couples), where by definition there is no man involved. Also there is violence in gay relationships, where by definition there is no woman involved. Including "domestic violence against women" would be like including a section called "Robbery against women". Should there be a wikipedia article called "Violence against weak people", because weak people are killed because they are weak? If someone bothered to do the research, they would no doubt find that weak people are killed at greater rates than strong people. Shakespeare Monkey ( talk) 11:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I decided to start looking at some of the sources. The first one is :
Golden, Tom. "Male Bashing in Mental Health Research". Men Are Good. Archived from the original on 2015-03-02.
It begins with Most of us are familiar with the male bashing we see on television. "We?" “Us?” Clearly, (another word for “ my
opinion ) this is not a scholarly article if those words are used. Then I find Over the years the media and academia have offered a steady stream of information that indicates that women are the only victims of domestic violence and men the only perpetrators. “Only”. This is not true. If nothing else, research into same-sex domestic violence shows both men as victims and women as perps. To me this source is trash and I am inclined to begin trashing the article when and where I find stuff like this. I won’t, not yet, but if we are serious about making a go of this article it is up to us to get it right, if not the first time, then on subsequent times.
Carptrash (
talk)
01:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC).
98% of people on death row are men. Secondary sources: p 409 [11], [12] [13] [14] Primary sources: "There were 57 women on death row as of Oct. 1, 2014. This constitutes less than 2% of the total death row population. (NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Oct. 1, 2014). 15 women have been executed since 1976." [15] in 1992, [16] in 2004, 98% is consistent. What do we want to say about that? USchick ( talk) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Now that we have a working definition, would anyone like to suggest a "school of thought" for discussion? With sources, of course. USchick ( talk) 17:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
the sort of thing that we want to add?
before that is " 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males."
seems pretty much to the point.
Carptrash (
talk)
20:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding this passage. What is your beef with primary sources, people? Have you understood the intent behind "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"? Of course we can use and cite primary sources, if we do it right. Stating that something is written in the bible is not an interpretation. -- RicardAnufriev ( talk) 16:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There has been intense discussion on both the AfD page and this talk page about the scope of the article. (Does the source say the violence was committed against the men specifically because they are men vs. more a inclusive scope that allows for sources discussing violence against men disproportionally). As it stands now chunks of text are being deleted that do not conform to the former even though (as it appears to me) that goes against consensus.
This is a standalone article. In attempts to define the scope I see discussions of other articles and how they define scope. Some of these examples are hard for me to relate as it relates to improving this article (fish, hurricanes). I look at it from a perspective of a more modern viewpoint - how is racism and racial discrimination, for example defined as it relates to events today? From the DoJ report on Ferguson, it's clear that the declaration that the black residents experience systematic racial discrimination was not based on police officers stopping black motorists neccessarily because they were black. Or that the court system fined and jailed black residents because they were black. Rather the residents collectively, were, in conjunction with statistics, said be discriminated against on the theory of "disparate impact".
So how might this help this article? This viewpoint (common in other gender articles) might allow for more consideration of sources and viewpoints that discuss violence against men in a "disproportionate" manner. The most recognized and accepted viewpoints don't say that racism in Ferguson is only racism if it's intended to be racist and done for that purpose. A more nuanced argument is taken (though I recognize arguments against disparate impact).
I think some of the content deleted from the article should be restored (Though I'm loath to be bold for fear of retribution and in wanting to establish a clear consensus.) Thank you in advance for your consideration and civility.
2600:1008:B125:9CFB:0:7:3D8A:8301 ( talk) 18:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Carptrash,
That's a reasonable request, given the suspicion that IP accounts are viewed with under gender topics (rightly or wrongly). Accordingly, I have registered. Thank you for your reply.
Note to all parties: I am familiar with most of the basic guidelines from lurking and making minor edits and suggestions over the years. I have no other account(s) to my knowledge, and most certainly am not a sock/meat puppet. I hope this is the last time I feel the need to state that.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I linked to where the data was moved, but since violence against women has an article, this could potentially also. Until that's made, a disambig makes more sense. I included the template which has a list of other forms of violence. Perhaps Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (3rd nomination) could be consulted if there is information pertaining to non-domestic forms of violence. Ranze ( talk) 21:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I have no problem with this page, I think it covers some important points, why do we seem to have radical feminists on WP trying to deny male suffering ? I thought be banned those nutters ? -- Westside12345 ( talk) 23:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course it could be improved, everything could be improved. I would do it myself but I'm not enough of an expert on the subject to contribute in a way that would remedy the status. Do I think it should be deleted? Absolutely not, and I'm not exactly clear on why this is up for debate. Anyone singling this page out and pushing for its deletion sounds to me like they support violence against men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andelocks ( talk • contribs) 06:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This topic if we wish to create a quality article needs to be presented only using citations that are decent. The previous deletions were in part because of failure to show any quality sources discussing violence against men. We should refrain from quoting statistics when they have not been interpreted in a manner covering violence against men by the source. Also Business Insider is a total crap source. I'm deleting anything that falls under WP:SYNTH, and will do my best to abide properly by WP:RS – removing low quality sources. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 21:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
because the chunk used here really does not capture the sense of the article.
alleged rape.
[1]
That Daily Mail stuff probably should go too, but this is my start. Carptrash ( talk) 18:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate”—either by physical force or due to intoxication—at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011). In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape—and why shouldn’t it be?—then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.Is the key point. The point you quote equally applies with the genders reversed as the article makes clear
it is just as misleading to equate a woman’s experience of alcohol-addled sex with the experience of a rape victim who is either physically overpowered or attacked when genuinely incapacitated.. We could say the take home is
Should we, then, regard sexual violence as a reciprocal problem? Getting away from the simplistic and adversarial “war against women” model is undoubtedly a positive step, as is admitting that women are human beings with the capacity for aggression and wrongdoing—including sexual assault.
SPACKlick ( talk) 15:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
QUOTE. SPACKlick ( talk) 20:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
In these difs i removed content that is WP:OFFTOPIC - it was not about violence against men because they are men.
In this dif I removed content that violates WP:SYN. The connections being made there, with "this does not explain" are WP:OR.
Happy to discuss. Jytdog ( talk) 19:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
The article said the following and I have moved it here for discussion.
In October 2013, the Daily Mail reported than more men are raped than women, if including prison rape. ( source)
This is a great example of why this article shouldn't exist. We have a tabloid report picking the most sensationalistic - and misleading - way to discuss recent findings of two recent government reports, which are discussed seriously in the NY Review of Books source linked to from within the tabloid article (I give them credit for at least having provided that link in their web edition).
The government reports point up the crisis of sexual violence in our prisons. The big picture is that "According to the latest surveys, in 2011 and 2012, 3.2 percent of all people in jail, 4.0 percent of state and federal prisoners, and 9.5 percent of those held in juvenile detention reported having been sexually abused in their current facility during the preceding year".
I don't want to get into a whole bunch of WP:OR here but here is data showing that in December 2014, gender breakdown was as follows:
So yeah - apply the percentages to everyone, and way more men are victims of sexual violence than women, in prison. A crazy, fucked up environment. Not like the world where most of us live.
I'm trying to address the weasel-wording in "Similarly, it has been argued..." - I have access to the source (the Mouthaan article), and the author cites a good number of other scholars who say that "in conflict scenarios, sexual violence against men has been ignored in favour of a focus on sexual violence against women and children" (Lara Stemple, Sandy Sivakumaran, and Wynne Russell, to name a few). I don't recall how to approach this properly (mentioning them all by name would obviously be impractical, but simply saying "by Mouthaan" would make it look like she's the only one); could someone point me in the right direction here?
Random
(?)
02:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Gee, no wonder the page is so empty. My major addition to the page got brutalized of most of its facts. I don't care to deal with editors on this issue, but just look at this and compare that with how the page looks now... Unbelievable. The effacing of male victims of mass killings in the media appears to be as evident here as it is in the media. Blehair ( talk) 03:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I think that this article might be a good place to look at the role gender in lynchings, particularly black men. There is a well known case of a woman being lynched as a cattle thief, but that should ( opinion) not be classified as "violence against women" any more than the majority of cattle thief lynchings of men should be considered to be "violence against men." However (I believe) many black men WERE killed because they were men. The key to this is in the references. Carptrash ( talk) 18:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive.EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 18:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I desagree. I think your personal feelings and mine for that matter are very relevant here. If we agree that "The topic of this article has nothing to do with a similar article somewhere else." then we need to decide what the topic of the article should be or is going to be and that will arise out of what each of us feels it should be. Violence against men surely predates the Crusades, though I have not started to try and discover where "kill the men, carry off the women and children" begins, I expect it to be well before then. Perhaps in the Old Testament? Carptrash ( talk) 20:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding relevant sources, the concept of gendercide seems to be a good starting point for information about violence against men in wars. Please note that the term "gendercide" was originally coined by Mary Anne Warren who focused on violence against women. This still seems to be a very important aspect of it, though Adam Jones is responsible for reinvigorating the term by adding analysis of violence against males. From what I can tell, there seems to be some very relevant scholarly debate about separating gender-specific violence from sex-specific killing. Here are some examples I found through Google Books:
Peter Isotalo 18:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Copying from article:
Forced castration of men has been widely practiced by societies for several reasons, including payment of debt, cultivated birthright, assimilation, and punishment. Once a man underwent the procedure, he was to be called a eunuch. These individuals were frequently assigned to serve in some domestic capacity. The earliest records for intentional castration to produce eunuchs are from the Sumerian city of Lagash in the 21st century BC. [1] [2] The practice was conducted by various regimes across Europe, Africa, and Asia until the 19th century, when it was largely eradicated. During the 20th century, many nations began using chemical castration to sterilize mentally ill males & as punishment for male sexual offenders. The practice as punishment is still used by developed nations as of 2015. [3] [4] [5]
References
- ^ Maekawa, Kazuya (1980). Animal and human castration in Sumer, Part II: Human castration in the Ur III period. Zinbun [Journal of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies, Kyoto University], pp. 1–56.
- ^ Maekawa, Kazuya (1980). Female Weavers and Their Children in Lagash – Presargonic and Ur III. Acta Sumerologica 2:81–125.
- ^ "Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2006->Ch0794->Section 0235 : Online Sunshine". state.fl.us.
{{ cite web}}
: line feed character in|title=
at position 25 ( help)- ^ "BBC News - 'Menace' jailed over child rape and abduction attempt". bbc.co.uk.
- ^ "Russia introduces chemical castration for pedophiles". RT. 4 October 2011.
Content above is poor. Sources are way too specific (Sumer? wtf) as opposed to general - something like (Alexandra M. Kokoli "Castration" pp 117-18 in Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, ed Jodi O'Brien. SAGE Publications, Inc. 2009. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412964517/ Print ISBN: 9781412909167 | Online ISBN: 9781412964517.).... they are more like throwing darts at the wall.
More importantly, I don't see the case here for this being related to violence against men:
I am not dead opposed to something about castration as a form of violence against men somewhere in the article. i don't see any case for inclusion in the section on "sexual violence" and nothing above makes that case for castration as any kind of violence against men, in my eyes (self imposed or voluntary as a means to power, or judicial punishment) . Needs to be based on good sources and actually say something. Jytdog ( talk) 03:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (striking opinions that I should not have written that seem to be "shiny things". the point is that the sources and content do not work Jytdog ( talk) 14:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC))
what I am seeing above is a bunch of general discussion in which opinions are asserted. That is not how WP works - not on Talk pages (see WP:NOTFORUM) and not in mainspace (see WP:NOR and WP:SOAPBOX each of which is policy)
My point above was that neither the content itself nor its sources describes castration as violence against men because they are men. (and in general, I believe that the scope of "violence against..." generally does not include judicially imposed punishment; if chemical castration is controversial then it should be discussed as such and for should deal with the fact that it is done to men who have committed sexual violence) As i wrote above, it may be possible for there to be something about castration in the article, with good sourcing and encyclopedic content (not laundry lists) based on the sources, that clearly relates castration to the topic and deals with nuances here. (and btw, please read the eunuch article - it is clear that eunuchs were given a lot of trust, power, and access in royal houses) Please focus on sources for this matter and content that could be based on them that fits the scope of the article.
Comparing to FGM is very wrong-headed - the question is what reliable, secondary sources are there are on castration and what do they say about it as being violence against men because they are men? That is how WP works. Jytdog ( talk) 13:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I have recently been researching male genital mutilation, mainly with respect to non-infant rites of passage. One practice that I have read about many years ago, but do not have a reference for is a tribal rite of passage that included hemi-castration. Should anyone have a reference it would be much appreciated. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC).
I'm starting to get a bit worried about the amount of obvious POV language that is being stuffed into the article by IP users. There seems to be valid content in edits like this. Example:
Obvious WP:SYNTH and plenty of POV language. Some of this is relevant, but it clearly smacks of campaigning. Is this enough to request editing restrictions for unregistered users?
Peter Isotalo 21:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
References
I'm failing to see how the reason given of "POV" is accurate. Could you please expand? Arkon ( talk) 22:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted an edit removing this wording from the lead sentence. This is the only thing making the article a notable topic independent from domestic violence and violence in general. All other pages of similar title (e.g., violence against women, violence against LGBT people) have this sort of wording. Without this qualifier, the WP:SCOPE of the article is vague and opens the doors for inclusion of any and all violence, however tangential, that happens to affect men. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 02:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion - How about we just mirror
violence against women and use something along the lines of Violence against men is, collectively, violent acts that are disproportionately or exclusively committed against men.
I chose to replace "primarily" with "disproportionately" because men are primarily the victims of most violence crime, numerically, but also primarily the perpetrators. But if we focus on issues where men are disproportionately represented, especially compared to perpetration, that would narrow the scope. I would take the "exclusively" to mean "nearly exclusively". The issues brought up in the section below this still remain though... this definition is not from an external source. This is the biggest issue really as violence against men is not an internationally recognized issue, men are not a protected category because of oppression, and there's not much academically about the topic specifically. But it would at least reflect how it's treated by sources per
WP:LEAD and can allow us to avoid
WP:SYNTH (which, without a defined scope, is going to be the death of this article). This would preclude the DV stuff though unless we focus on gay men or some other subset. And that's okay as it's covered in the DV article. But this is the best I can come up with at the moment, trying to compromise and all.
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}}
03:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I support this wording for the lede as suggested by EvergreenFir: "Violence against men is, collectively, violent acts that are disproportionately or exclusively committed against men." USchick ( talk) 15:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure that anything here is going to be workable, but since I am an inclusionist I am not inclined to torpedo anything either. By the way, have you ever been at an article when AWMs show up? Carptrash ( talk) 17:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
So does this not really get us back to the fact that we are, here, inventing the concept of "Violence against men." That there is/was no such thing prior to us. And having decided that we are not a mirror or something to Violence against women we are . . . left . . . ..... with . . . . ........ what? Carptrash ( talk) 22:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
ok, so you are arguing for a scope that is "violence against men is violence that affects men disproportionately compared to other...." what goes there? genders, or sexes? Jytdog ( talk) 03:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
The lede reads: "Violence against men is any act of violence that is aimed at men and caused at least in part by their being men." Says who? What source provides for this definition? Violence against women (VAW) is actually defined - by the United Nations, first of all - but also by numerous international conventions. For example, The Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women defines VAW as "any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere". [6] The Maputo Protocol defines VAW as: "all acts perpetrated against women which cause or could cause them physical, sexual, psychological, and economic harm, including the threat to take such acts; or to undertake the imposition of arbitrary restrictions on or deprivation of fundamental freedoms in private or public life in peace time and during situations of armed conflicts or of war". [7]
The term "violence against men" is not defined anywhere (other than by men's rights activists ...). Also, how does this article determine that a specific act is "violence against men"? With VAW, sources support the inclusion of various acts in the category of VAW, because the international conventions actually give examples of acts of VAW, and so does the World Health Organization, and other reliable sources. For example, the UN Declaration on the elimination of VAW, says: [8]
"Violence against women shall be understood to encompass, but not be limited to, the following:
So when we write in an article "
dowry violence is a form of VAW" we actually base this on sources.
2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:A077 (
talk)
09:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Could someone please add this in somewhere: "A blogger at 'Karl Rove Said' analyzed FBI statistics on violence and came to the conclusion that when men kill, they kill men at rates far greater than when they kill women. When women kill, they also kill men at rates far greater than they kill women." Source is: [9] I tried putting this in myself, hoping that someone with better editing skills would polish it, but my changes keep getting reverted by the same people who tried to AfD this page. What a surprise. Shakespeare Monkey ( talk) 05:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Male offender/Male victim | 65.3% |
Male offender/Female victim | 22.7% |
Female offender/Male victim | 9.6% |
Female offender/Female victim | 2.4% |
I removed the following content from the article and have put it here for discussion. From my perspective the content doesn't fall within the scope of this article, which is violence against men because they are men. Nothing in the content discusses that.
In the US, crime statistics from the 1976 onwards show that men make up the majority of the homicide perpetrators regardless if the victim is female or male. Men are also over-represented as victims in homicide involving both male and female offenders. [1] According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, women who kill men are most likely to kill acquaintances, spouses or boyfriends while men are more likely to kill strangers. [2] In many cases, women kill men due to being victims of intimate partner violence. [3]
Male offender/Male victim 65.3% Male offender/Female victim 22.7% Female offender/Male victim 9.6% Female offender/Female victim 2.4% References
- ^ "Homicide trends in the United States" (PDF).
- ^ Greenfeld, Lawrence A.; Snell, Tracy L. (December 1999). "Bureau of Justice Statistics - Special Report - Women Offenders" (PDF). Bureau of Justice Statistics. p. 14. Retrieved 6 March 2015.
- ^ Farr, Kathryn Ann (1997). "Aggravating and Differentiating Factors in the Cases of White and Minority Women on Death Row". Crime & Delinquency. 43 (3): 260–278.
They [women] typically kill people they know, primarily men - most often husbands or lovers in domestic encounters (Mann 1996; Campbell 1993; Silverman et al. 1993; Weisheit 1993; Browne 1987; Goetting 1987; Wilbanks 1983). ... Many female murderers have killed husbands or boyfriends who battered them repeatedly (Gillespie 1989; Browne 1987).{{ cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored ( help)
Happy to discuss. Jytdog ( talk) 19:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I removed the following content from the article and have put it here for discussion. From my perspective the content doesn't fall within the scope of this article, which Is violence against men because they are men. Nothing in the content discusses that.
The 2013 "Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK)", [1] published by the Domestic Violence Research Group (Springer Publishing journal "Partner Abuse" [2]) again reiterated the findings of parity in rates of both perpetration and victimisation for men and women. The "Unprecedented Domestic Violence Study Affirms Need to Recognize Male Victims". [3]
Men who are victims of domestic violence are at times reluctant to report it or to seek help. There is also an established paradigm that only males perpetrate domestic violence and are never victims. [4] This has been linked to the claims that women are only ever domestically violent in retaliation and self-defence, even when global evidence from multiple sources contradicts this idea. [4] As with other forms of violence against men, intimate partner violence is generally less recognized in society when the victims are men. [5] [6] Violence of women against men in relationships is often 'trivialized' [7] [8] [9] due to the supposed weaker physique of women, in such cases the use of dangerous objects and weapons is omitted. [7] Research since the 1990s has identified issues of perceived and actual bias when police are involved, with the male victim being negated even whilst injured. [10]
References
- ^ "PARTNER ABUSE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE PROJECT (PASK)". domesticviolenceresearch.org. Editorial Board of the Peer-Reviewed Journal, Partner Abuse http://www.springerpub.com/pa and the Advisory Board of the Association of Domestic Violence Intervention Programs.
{{ cite web}}
: External link in( help)
|publisher=
- ^ John, Hamel (ed.). Partner Abuse New Directions in Research, Intervention, and Policy. Springer. ISSN 1946-6560 http://www.springerpub.com/journals/partner-abuse.html.
{{ cite journal}}
: Missing or empty|title=
( help)- ^ "Unprecedented Domestic Violence Study Affirms Need to Recognize Male Victims" (Press release). Springer. PRWEB. May 21, 2013.
- ^ a b Woods, Michael (Oct 19, 2007). "1 The Rhetoric And Reality Of Men And Violence". Men's Health Australia. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-03-02.
- ^ Das Dasgupta, Shamita (November 2002). "A Framework for Understanding Women's Use of Nonlethal Violence in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships". Violence Against Women. 8 (11): 1364–1389. doi: 10.1177/107780102237408. Retrieved July 2, 2014. (subscription required)
- ^ This_Way_to_the_Revolution_114: A Memoir. Peter Owen Limited. 1 June 2011. p. 114. ISBN 978-0-7206-1521-0.
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
TimeHopeSolo
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).- ^ Eva Schlesinger Buzawa; Carl G. Buzawa (2003). Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response. Sage Publications. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-7619-2448-7.
- ^ Donald G. Dutton (1 January 2011). Rethinking Domestic Violence. UBC Press. p. 148. ISBN 978-0-7748-5987-5.
- ^ Buzawa, Eve S.; Austin, Thomas (1993). "Determining police response to domestic violence victims: The role of victim preference". American Behavioral Scientist. 36 (5): 610–623. doi: 10.1177/0002764293036005006.
Happy to discuss. Jytdog ( talk) 19:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
So are we then back to listing every war, every catastrophe, every calamity in which violence happens to men? I'll start with the 6,000 slaves crucified in 71 BCE following the Third Servile War. Had to be mostly men. Carptrash ( talk) 17:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I am not a big by-the-rules editor, rather I believe in the Form follows function dictum. The function of articles ( opinion) is to accurately present the views of the reliable sources and references on the topic. When this function comes to fruition then the form or scope will emerge. My concern, because I have seen it at other gender based articles is that editors show up which a particular POV on the subject and then try to milk the references to produce the article that they want. I am inclined to take a Show me the money attitude here, in this case the "money" being some nice intelligent informed sources. Carptrash ( talk) 17:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion here is by no almost entirely focused on opinion. It has been suggested that the concept of "violence against men" has to be narrowed somehow, but there is no consensus that this is actually a valid complaint. I and several users have pointed out that the article is about a straightforward "X of Y"-topic. And still content is being removed because the narrow scope, which relevance of which we don't agree on, isn't being fulfilled. In effect, we are being asked to prove pure opinions wrong. There is not a single valid complaint about any specific sources or specific content. No actual policies have been invoked.
For example, why would gender-specific homicide statistics from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics not belong here? Why can't there be even a brief summary of domestic violence against men? What's wrong with sources like American Behavioral Scientist, Partner Abuse New Directions in Research, Intervention, and Policy or Crime & Delinquency?
No complaints have been elaborated in regards to POV, original research or synthesis. There is no sign that angry white males or men's rights activists are being allowed to dictate content. The out of scope argument did not hold up for scrutiny in the AfD discussion nor does it enjoy support here. It looks like there is a concerted attempt to dismantle the article because of purely personal doubts.
Peter Isotalo 18:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
There are people here saying that when men are disproportionately killed by both men AND women it doesn't show that "men are being victimized because they are men". The problem with this argument is that the entire "domestic violence" section in "Violence against women" article would have to be removed because it doesn't show that women are being "victimized because they are women". Because there is domestic violence in lesbian relationships (in fact, lesbian couples are more likely to be violent than heterosexual couples), where by definition there is no man involved. Also there is violence in gay relationships, where by definition there is no woman involved. Including "domestic violence against women" would be like including a section called "Robbery against women". Should there be a wikipedia article called "Violence against weak people", because weak people are killed because they are weak? If someone bothered to do the research, they would no doubt find that weak people are killed at greater rates than strong people. Shakespeare Monkey ( talk) 11:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I decided to start looking at some of the sources. The first one is :
Golden, Tom. "Male Bashing in Mental Health Research". Men Are Good. Archived from the original on 2015-03-02.
It begins with Most of us are familiar with the male bashing we see on television. "We?" “Us?” Clearly, (another word for “ my
opinion ) this is not a scholarly article if those words are used. Then I find Over the years the media and academia have offered a steady stream of information that indicates that women are the only victims of domestic violence and men the only perpetrators. “Only”. This is not true. If nothing else, research into same-sex domestic violence shows both men as victims and women as perps. To me this source is trash and I am inclined to begin trashing the article when and where I find stuff like this. I won’t, not yet, but if we are serious about making a go of this article it is up to us to get it right, if not the first time, then on subsequent times.
Carptrash (
talk)
01:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC).
98% of people on death row are men. Secondary sources: p 409 [11], [12] [13] [14] Primary sources: "There were 57 women on death row as of Oct. 1, 2014. This constitutes less than 2% of the total death row population. (NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Oct. 1, 2014). 15 women have been executed since 1976." [15] in 1992, [16] in 2004, 98% is consistent. What do we want to say about that? USchick ( talk) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Now that we have a working definition, would anyone like to suggest a "school of thought" for discussion? With sources, of course. USchick ( talk) 17:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
the sort of thing that we want to add?
before that is " 31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males."
seems pretty much to the point.
Carptrash (
talk)
20:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding this passage. What is your beef with primary sources, people? Have you understood the intent behind "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"? Of course we can use and cite primary sources, if we do it right. Stating that something is written in the bible is not an interpretation. -- RicardAnufriev ( talk) 16:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
There has been intense discussion on both the AfD page and this talk page about the scope of the article. (Does the source say the violence was committed against the men specifically because they are men vs. more a inclusive scope that allows for sources discussing violence against men disproportionally). As it stands now chunks of text are being deleted that do not conform to the former even though (as it appears to me) that goes against consensus.
This is a standalone article. In attempts to define the scope I see discussions of other articles and how they define scope. Some of these examples are hard for me to relate as it relates to improving this article (fish, hurricanes). I look at it from a perspective of a more modern viewpoint - how is racism and racial discrimination, for example defined as it relates to events today? From the DoJ report on Ferguson, it's clear that the declaration that the black residents experience systematic racial discrimination was not based on police officers stopping black motorists neccessarily because they were black. Or that the court system fined and jailed black residents because they were black. Rather the residents collectively, were, in conjunction with statistics, said be discriminated against on the theory of "disparate impact".
So how might this help this article? This viewpoint (common in other gender articles) might allow for more consideration of sources and viewpoints that discuss violence against men in a "disproportionate" manner. The most recognized and accepted viewpoints don't say that racism in Ferguson is only racism if it's intended to be racist and done for that purpose. A more nuanced argument is taken (though I recognize arguments against disparate impact).
I think some of the content deleted from the article should be restored (Though I'm loath to be bold for fear of retribution and in wanting to establish a clear consensus.) Thank you in advance for your consideration and civility.
2600:1008:B125:9CFB:0:7:3D8A:8301 ( talk) 18:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Carptrash,
That's a reasonable request, given the suspicion that IP accounts are viewed with under gender topics (rightly or wrongly). Accordingly, I have registered. Thank you for your reply.
Note to all parties: I am familiar with most of the basic guidelines from lurking and making minor edits and suggestions over the years. I have no other account(s) to my knowledge, and most certainly am not a sock/meat puppet. I hope this is the last time I feel the need to state that.