Talk:Sex differences in crime/Archive 2

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

Too much domestic violence material

Doe1994, while I appreciate your edits to the Domestic violence and Intimate partner violence articles, since you are sticking to the literature with WP:Due weight and are not pushing a gender symmetry viewpoint in an unbalanced way (which is why, before you even started editing those articles, I thought it would be good if you edited them), you've added too much domestic violence material to the Aggressivity and gender section of this article, starting with this edit. Do review WP:Summary style, and keep in mind that this is the Sex differences in crime article, not the Sex differences in domestic violence article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Flyer22

Gotcha. Will be deleting or reducing some edits.

Doe1994 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)User:doe1994 Doe1994 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Doe1994. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Shootingstar88 (formerly Doe1994), as seen with this edit, I cut some of the domestic violence material and tweaked the way it began, per WP:Due weight; it doesn't need its own section. With this, this, this, this and this edit, I also changed the layout of the article (well, that last edit is a tag removal). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Shootingstar88, unless you can give a valid reason for this edit, I will remain very tempted to revert it. I will also go ahead and note that you should not continue to crowd this article with domestic violence material; if you do, I will take this matter to WP:Third opinion or start a WP:RfC on it. What you are consistently adding to this article on domestic violence is WP:Undue weight; read that policy. All that extra content is not needed for this article. We already point people to the main articles for further detail. Read WP:Summary style. The domestic violence material should not be out of hand. I am likely to cut more of it. Having a Domestic violence section or subsection only makes you and others tempted to expand the section; so I will be removing the "Domestic violence" subheading. The "Aggression and violence in relationships" section should simply have a few paragraphs on aggression and violence in non-romantic relationships and in romantic relationships; with regard to romantic relationships, that commonly falls under the topic of "domestic violence." And that connection is another reason why I don't like you splitting the material into two subheadings. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Flyer22

I added that edit because there are no federal crime statistics about domestic violence on that page. The page after all is called sex difference in crime. I also made two subheadings because those are clearly two different topics. Why merge sex difference in aggression in the same section as sex differences in domestic violence? It's confusing.

Shootingstar88 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)User:shootingstar88 Shootingstar88 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Shootingstar88, like I told you on your talk page, the WP:Ping didn't work; you have link my full username (Flyer22 Reborn) for it to work. That stated, I have this article/talk page on my WP:Watchlist; so there is no need to ping me to this talk page. You should also considering WP:Indenting your posts.

As for the statistics you added, I saw no need for it. Did you read WP:Summary style? This article is not the place to cover any and everything about domestic violence. It should simply include a few paragraphs (three at most) about the sex differences with regard to domestic violence. What was there before your most recent edit was fine. We don't need statistics from the U.S. or another country in that section, especially since they only focus on the U.S. or that other country. ~~But if you stop there and don't expand the section any further, I will leave that material in the section.~~ As for the other material in the section, the section is called "Aggression and violence in relationships"; naturally, such a section can include aggression and violence in non-romantic relationships and in romantic relationships. There is no need for division; readers can clearly see what information pertains to domestic violence and what information does not without subheadings. And, like I noted above, with regard to romantic relationships, aggression in such relationships commonly falls under the topic of "domestic violence." They are related. This is covered in the Domestic violence article. I also reiterate that having a Domestic violence section or subsection only makes you and others tempted to expand the section, when the domestic violence material really should not be expanded any further. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Shootingstar88, if anything, the statistics information you added should be in the Statistics section. And that is where I plan to move the material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That I plan to move it there is why I struck part of my post above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Section break

Shootingstar88, as seen with this edit, you split the material again. And I reverted again (followup note and edit here). While you split the material differently than you did last time, I cannot see why you have such an issue with the section; I reiterate that the section is about aggression and violence in non-romantic and romantic relationships. You seemed to be stuck on the "in relationships" part of the heading, as though it only has to mean "romantic relationships," and on the fact that part of the section concerns domestic violence; that's why I recently changed the heading to "Aggression and violence among peers and in relationships." Is that heading satisfactory to you? I don't see that splitting some of the content to the "Nature, nurture, and life course" section was necessary; you titled the subsection for that section "Sex differences in aggression," but different parts of the "Nature, nurture, and life course" section already address sex differences in aggression. So that content would have fit fine in the "Sociology" or "Sociobiological and evolutionary psychology perspective" section. But I think it also fits fine in the "Aggression and violence among peers and in relationships" section since that section is about how people are behaving with others. Splitting it the way you did still leaves us with a Domestic violence section, except with a different heading, which, as I noted above, I object to having since you seem tempted to add and add to such a section when this is not Domestic violence article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the "Nature, nurture, and life course" and "Aggression and violence among peers and in relationships" sections some more, and how things currently are, I feel that the content I reverted you on fits best in the "Aggression and violence among peers and in relationships" section since that section is directly dealing with aggressive or violent behavior among peers, including relationships with peers (non-romantic and romantic), and with much less of a theory angle. The "Nature, nurture, and life course" section is more so distinct in what it is discussing, though there is some overlap. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

With this and this edit, I moved a little material to the Sociology section. I would move the "Studies by Bettencourt and Miller show" sentence there as well, but it seems to me that a bit on the effects of gender roles should be in the "Aggression and violence among peers and in relationships" section too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sex differences in crime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Globalize tag

Kintetsubuffalo, regarding this, per Template:Globalize, why the tag was placed should ideally be explained on the article talk page. If you mean the "Statistics" section, the U.S.-centric and Canada material can be downsized. The section also has a "Worldwide homicide statistics by gender" subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Skeptic of studies

I am skeptical of some of these studies, feeling that men are more likely to be accused of a crime and in court for a crime than women, assuming everything else is actually equal, so that some of these stats may be skewed- those that quote who is accused or those who are in court, rather than those convicted. Furthermore, I am sure that men are more likely to be sent to jail for the same crime than women, so studies/stats that show those who go to jail, such as the data at the end of the Canada section, are also skewed. Sorry I don't know how to back up my observations- just thoughts- grateful if anyone else can look into it. Thanks.

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)