Talk:Violence/Archive 3

Historical Violence section
I see the historical violence section as violently POV. It does harm to anyone to see, for example, the elimination of Native American nations portrayed as a series of minor and/or mutual conflicts.

Ritual violence
Hello! I have not read the text on this talk page in great detail or worked on this article, but it strikes me that the anthropological concept of ritual violence is missing here. The article's approach seems to lean towards the concept of violence in Western societies. In some societies, ritual violence is a part of the culture and serves specific purposes which don't fit in with the definition of violence as being primarily perpetrated by deviant people in a manner that is either co-ordinated or random, as the definition here says. I'm just putting this here in case someone wants to pursue it in the future. Mona-Lynn 02:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Seville Statement contentions(knitpicking)
Most would agree that the Seville statement on violence is largely based on a veiwpoint indicitive of the pseudo-intellectual who believes that Nature vs. Nurture is actually a relevant dichotomy. In fact I would argue that they are dependant factors completely un-dichotomous and impossibly inseperable. If this article is to maintian its integrity their needs to be a history section which links to the Seville statement otherwise I can see no reason for its inclusion in this article as such I am deleting it and will continue to do so until sufficient argument is provided for it now or in the future.

Edit: Further I would like to add that external links throughout wikipedia should provide more context to themselves, detailed references as they may be they are pointless without describing/explaining there contexts at the end of an article, this is a glich which I think is widespread throughout wikipedia.

---Are you implying that the Nature vs. Nurture is not a relevant part of this page or that the dichotomy itself isn't relevant? Sadly, I can't read the section that you deleted. Ignatiusvienna 17:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

--I am indeed implying that the dichotomy is irrelevant. The Seville statement was created by politicians wanting things to be a certain way and I am arguing that it is irrelevant except in the history of developing ways to talk about violence. The seville statement is entirely one-sided and prone to conclude that all our problems are fixable with good policy measures and top-down mandates. Surely I am not arguing that sociality and culture play no role, only that there are evolutionary constraints as well which desperately should be considered. The Seville statement alone presents a one-sided POV of those trying to explain why they live in the best societies in the world (certainly the evolutionary literature concerning violence is not much different).

HEY YOU, YEAH YOU
When you edit a page, try and log why you did it either here or in your edit.

Regardless, I edited the first paragraph to include a short qualifier concerning plants and animals. It needs to be there, because there is contention and that's that. Inclusivity and all. I also modified the referenced claim for clarity and succintness.

--talonxpool


 * Yes but don't remove talk page sections in the process. I couldn't find a source that says violence against plants is a significant issue. Graham 87 04:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly many people feel that "violence" includes damage to property and non-human life, so it's appropriate for the definition. If you want to find an instance of someone using the word "violence" in reference to plants, try looking for groups that defend trees or ecosystems. -- Beland 00:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What happened to the mention of animals and plants in the first paragraph? The current definition in the article strikes me as way too narrow (violence only has people as its victims), but there has obviously been a big dispute over this. If someone more familiar with the dispute could edit the article so it mentions these different definitions, that would be great. Trbdavies (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What about the crack cocaine line?
I don't remember crack cocaine mentioned in textbooks as being around during the industrial revolution.

"Since the Industrial Revolution, the lethality of crack cocaine has steadily grown to levels considered universally dangerous." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.169.224.237 (talk) 06:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * That vandalism was fixed several hours ago. Bypass your cache if you are still seeing it. Graham 87 07:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Violence Against Men
So why exactly is it that one is redirected to "Violence" when one does a search for "Violence Against Men" while the same does not apply for "Violence Against Women" which has its own article. Certainly we've gotten beyond the point by now where domestic violence is always viewed as something that men do to women. There is ample research that substantiates the fact that women are also violent toward their partners, that this violence is not always in self-defence, that it can be harmful and destructive to both the victim and society. 69.157.21.106 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Violence against men. It seems like it's because the scope of the article was too narrow - feel free to join in the debate. Graham 87 04:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, why does Violence against Men link to here?. Are there a few feminists that are looking to hide the truth?Trumpy 05:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "violence against women" refers to a society-wide campaign to eliminate men's violence towards women as part of efforts to equalize the status of women. this subtopic discussion and the article itself is a typical example of wikipedia claiming some objectivity but at once doing harm to the topic and giving voice to misleading uninformed would-be opportunists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.164 (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While there can be no doubt that there is a blatant, unapologetic double standard and that this article was either written by an ideologue or someone who has had bad personal experiences in regards to the specific details they prefer to highlight, lets get real for a minute...is this all violence is? Just another avenue for ideologues, whose sincerity need not be questioned...I'm sure they care very deeply for the group they're speaking on behalf of...but is this really the article that comes anywhere near close to being appropriate? Violence is an age old phenomena, some reasons for it's existence are certainly less noble than others but I'm sorry, Fembots, violence overall is Godzilla next to the flea that is violence against  It's like "Stop black on black crime." *WINK*...meaning blacks will attempt solidarity with each other...but those Koreans down the street gotta go. And oh yeah, "Kill whitey." While I'm sure we all have our reasons for wanting to kill each other let's leave the whatever perceived social conditions, especially modern conditions, completely out. Highlighting groups most or least effected or any such confrontational approach that obviously attempts to further an agenda need to be deleted.

Violence is just violence and it goes way deeper than this shallow article could ever allow. We can pat ourselves on the back for being civilized all day long but again, hate to the the bearer of bad news bears but...we're predators. I think we're primates but I'll not insist on being right about that in the interest of not incurring the wrath of god's followers. Even if we are created in an image of some almighty powerful God...we're still predators. There isn't a corner of this Earth where you can't find the misery that is the la of the jungle.


 * Violence is violence, whether it's a mother lion killing some poor little baby zebra or Tyrone pimp slapping Shaniqua for not having his skrilla"...it's all the same f-king thing! This whole thing needs to be redone or redirected to war, violent crime or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.253.78 (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Violence is Universal
I suggested a site that was compatible with the "Violence" page, but it was in conflicts of interest. I wanted to say that violence is universal because...well... it doesn't really require and explanation but just using your eyes. There are shootings, murders, and just things running rampant. But the one that i feel is more relevant to the violence and/or domestic violence subject is in Domestic violence: Violence against women/men. Violence is a four-letter word that really could use some correcting. It is recognizable in all languages and cultures, and in violence, someone loses and someone wins. there must be a good result, especially if the opposition is dead wrong for what they're doing. Violence is universal (this could be added somewhere on the Violence/Domestic Violence page.

J.S. http://sjenterprises.blogspot.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jshephard (talk • contribs) 12:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC). No way because men are more highly in violence than female. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.7.97 (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My Question
What is the difference between violence and violent?--  PNiddy  Go!  0 00:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Violence" is a noun - for example "this movie contains strong violence". "Violent" is an adjective - for example "that person was very violent". It is also possible to add "ly" to violent to make the adverb "violently" - for example "the shark attacked violently". Graham 87 00:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Violence against men
I'm here to solicit more opinions at Talk:Violence against men. This article has been a redirect to this page since late February (and before that, it was a redirect as well). The current article is simply a single sentence and a list of links. The single sentence is a questionable definition (why does violence against men have to be perpetrated by women?) and isn't supported by the source, which is about domestic violence. This article has no useful content, and the violence and domestic violence articles are sufficient to serve the same purpose.

I believe part of the reason why some users want to create this article is because there is a violence against women article. However, we shouldn't necessarily cite "other crap" that exists on wikipedia for precedent. I also believe that the term "Violence against women" is much more notable than the term "violence against men". There is a UN resolution titled Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, the WHO has a fact sheet on "Violence against women", the US DoJ has an "Office on Violence against women". Can the same be said about "violence against men"? I guess the logic is that "men and women should be equal so if there is an article about women, there has to be a corresponding article about men". I believe this logic is faulty when this would cause us to give undue weight to a minority view.

So, I would like to restore the redirect, but would appreciate more input. Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c 14:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Be aware however that violence against men is downplayed, which is made quite obvious by the fact it is completely ignored in this article.-GregoryEv — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregoryEv (talk • contribs) 21:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Massive reorganization of introduction and moved parts of intro to more relevant areas
Ok so the intro was a bit chaotic and all over the place. It was also fraught with grammatical errors. I moved parts of it into the law sectio and war section and refocused the attention to intentionality being an important issue in acts of violence. -talonx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.1.147 (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * These changes by a non-registered user who only changed this page are VERY POV in that they try to diminish the commonly accepted idea that using force against objects is violence and inferring that only intention makes force violent. (Some proponents of violence argue that if you blow up a building and happen to kill someone it's NOT violent because you did not INTEND to kill them!) I re-wrote the intro per below, in case anyone wants to comment before I change it. The rest of article still needs work, of course.

"Violence is the use of physical force to injure or kill a person or living thing or cause damage to an object or property. Reference will be: Oxford Pocket Dictionary 2007 Definition While intentional acts are more frequently defined as violent, acts of force that accidentally result in injury, damage or death often are as well. In many cases, the definition of violence is widened to include threats of physical force and substantially abusive language and harassing actions." "Societies regulate the use of violence through social mores, customary law and codified legal systems governing individuals and political authorities. Most societies recognize a right to violent defense of self and others."

Carol Moore 17:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
 * I don't see why It should matter if I am registered or not, I am not trolling or being evasive. However, I would like to note that my point of view is not POV as much as it is incomplete.  I think it would be much more useful to say something along the lines of


 * "Violence is the !!!intentional!!! use of physical force to injure or kill a person or living thing and in some cases to cause damage to an object or property. Reference will be: Oxford Pocket Dictionary 2007 Definition !!!While intentional acts are most often defined as violent to the exclusion of unintentional acts, it can be argued that violence also results from ignorance!!!. In many cases, the definition of violence is widened to include threats of physical force and substantially abusive language and harassing actions."


 * "Societies regulate the use of violence through social mores, customary law !!!and/or!!! codified legal systems governing individuals !!!and/or!!! political authorities. Most societies recognize a right to violent defense of self and others."


 * The exclamation marks mark my modification, however I would be more comfortable with finding a reference citing this idea I know of a few (W.E.B. Dubois, E. Goldman, et al). I think you will agree that my modification is both more general(in allowance)as well as more specific(in domain).  Can you think of any others backing this idea?  Additionally, I checked and the pocket dictionary still uses intention in their def. -Talonx  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.64.182 (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you came back and were not just trolling, we can discuss some more. Let's face it Pocket Dictionaries isn't greatest reference, even if I used it. Neither is Emma Goldman -- who of course thought it was fine to take a bull whip to an opponent who disagreed with her support for an attempted assassination. See carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2007/07/ann-coulter-is-no-emma-goldman-thank.html Specific DuBois quote would be useful. But enough is being done in philosophy and peace studies now a days we surely could come up with something more credible. Saw a couple things worth investigating in first few entries of an internet search. So let's throw up some REAL sources here over the next few days.

After all in Georgetown DC the other night someone intentionally threw a rock in a store window which hit a woman causing a bloody gash shown all over FOX NEWS. And people got on Indymedia and kept saying it was her fault for being in the store!! Not the fault of the person who intentionally threw the rock and probably wasn't paying attention to/didn't care who he hit. Someone there rather obnoxiously opined that that was like blaming Jews who didn't leave Germany of getting killed in their stores on Krystallnacht in 1933. And yet maybe you can see the "blaming the victim" similarities of not being careful of our definitions. (Hmm, sounds like a good blog entry.) Therefore we editing wikipedia should be a little more careful in our definitions and have solid sources. Carol Moore 01:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * Here is what I will replace the main def with Violence is an intentional and/or ignorant act of force attempting to cause or resulting in injury or death of a living thing. Referencing Jan Volavka's Neurobiology of Violence and Vittorio Bufacchi's Two Concepts of Violence. -talonx

Those are pretty questionable references. Is there a publisher and date of publication?? An internet link? No mention of force against objects. Not to mention storms are call violent and they are hardly intentional. And if a person who is fed bad drugs goes nuts and uses harmful force against people, it's not intentional, but it's certainly violent. Busy today but will look for something more credible tomorrow. Carol Moore 20:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Wider Definition of Violence Needed or POV
For years I have see people who excuse violence (especially reckless anti-capitalist street violence) try to narrow the definition of violence to something emphasizing intention and denying that force against property is violence. The previous definition of violence in this article was:


 * Violence is the use of physical force against persons that potentially causes fear, injury or death. Damage, in some contexts, is also considered a form of violence. The definition of violence is often widened to include threats of physical force and substantially abusive language and harassing actions.

While not perfect, it at least reflected the diversity of definitions that I quote from several dictionaries below. (With slight formatting changes to fit into Wiki html.)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

violence Function: noun http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=88367&dict=CALD
 * 1a. exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)
 * 1b. an instance of violent treatment or procedure
 * 2. injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
 * 3 a. intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force 
 * 3b. vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c: a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
 * 4. undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

violence It seems that the attack was a gratuitous/random/mindless act of violence. The recent outbreak/eruption of racial violence in the area is very troubling. The report documents the staggering amount of domestic violence against women.
 * 1 actions or words which are intended to hurt people:

We were all surprised at the violence of his anger/rage. The storm turned out to be one of unexpected violence.
 * 2 extreme force:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence (from several dictionaries)

violence
 * 1.	swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
 * 2.	rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.
 * 3.	an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence.
 * 4.	a violent act or proceeding.
 * 5.	rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred.
 * 6.	damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration: to do editorial violence to a text.

American Heritage Dictionary violence


 * 1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
 * 2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
 * 3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
 * 4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
 * 5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
 * 6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

Online Etymology Dictionary violence

c.1290, "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-Fr. and O.Fr. violence, from L. violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violate). Weakened sense of "improper treatment" is attested from 1596. Violent is attested from c.1340. In M.E. the word also was applied in ref. to heat, sunlight, smoke, etc., with the sense "having some quality so strongly as to produce a powerful effect."

WordNet violence

Carol Moore 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
 * 1. 	an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); "he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one"
 * 2. 	the property of being wild or turbulent; "the storm's violence" [syn: ferocity]
 * 3. 	a turbulent state resulting in injuries and destruction etc.


 * Violence in the case of storms is not the same as in the case of violent people. The violence of a storm is metaphorical, perhaps a section is in order to explain the use of the term when used as metaphore (in this case force is the reason for use, ie a forceful storm is violent).  The other position to take here would be that saying a person is violent is metaphorical whereas a storm can actually be violent.


 * Additionally, there is nothing wrong with my sources other than I hadn't taken the proper time to cite all of their information. Using a dictionary or encyclopedia to cite an article on wikipedia seems slightly tautological or redundant to me.  I used a book by a neurobiologist, because, neurobiology, as a sector of the neurosciences, tends to be pretty holistic as does most of the neurosciences (add to this the fact that neuroscientists have a pretty good consensus on what they consider to be violence).  The other article I used was one of a discussion the likes of which we seem to be having here 'violence as a violation v. violence as a forceful act causing harm commited by one agent against another'.  I think these two sources are more than appropriate.


 * Violence as a violation encompasses less action than violence as a a forceful act. This is primarily because violent acts labled as violations are subject to law or more alone in their defining.  It is certainly plausible to propose that wars are violent even thought they are perfectly legitimate, as such they are not viewed as violation by all involved, though any general will tell you 'war is violent'.  The problem here is that one must use subjective or uncertain judgement to say whether an act was a violation or not and while this is no problem tfor legal institutions (indeed it can't be if they are to work) it remains a rather large problem for the pragmatic holistic understanding of violence.  As such, viewing violence as a forceful act commited with aggression or ignorance in order to or resulting in causing harm to an agent, is something like the only all-encompassing definition that can be used.


 * This means that throwing a brick through a window in ignorance and accidentally hitting someone or not hitting someone is still an act of violence. However throwing a brick through a window in full knowledge that nobody will be hit is not.  That being said, intendíng to cause fear could still make it an act of violence, though intending to advertise a political position would not in and of itself make it a violent act.  I would like to add that one may be aggresive towards or damage property but one can simply not injur a thing with no will or agency.  The phrase 'violent property damage' would then either mean it was forceful or wantonly executed with disregard for living agents.


 * This is a fairly complex issue and your attempts to simplify it are admirable but impossible. - talonx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.34.139 (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are trying to promote ONE narrow viewpoint on violence, using abstruse references. That's called POV. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV


 * I am trying to reflect the fact that there is a wide definition of violence in established, widely used dictionaries, reflecting the word's use throughout society. That's called Neutral WIKI-editing.


 * Feel free to START a section called DIFFERENT THEORIES OF VIOLENCE and put your stuff in there. Probably half the stuff in the article actually could go in such a section.  So I'll give it another day for other comments, but otherwise I'm going to change it back to a broader definition that reflects the word "violence"'s many meanings.
 * 16:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * The references I am using are not abstruse, in fact, Neurobiology of Violence (in which thousands of articles and books are cited with primarily identical definitions of violence) is the penultimate volume detailing most recent works in the cultural and neuoscientific study of violence (not to mention that it is one of the most heavily cited volumes on the study of violence of recent date). Additionally the Two Concepts of Violence article (in addition to also being heavily cited) provides the exact dialogue of the debate we are having here.


 * Pushing all this aside, my one sentence is far more inclusive and realistic than anything that has previously existed on this page where violence is concerened. I am sorry you feel the need to develop an attitude(your strategically placed caps) to get your point across, but your attitude(your strategically placed caps).  Your one argument against my entry with even the slightest bit of signifigance is that my sources are abstruse, read them or explore them for yourself before making that judgement, do some research, but please do not level POV claims at me when non are due.  If you would like to expand on this primary definition that I have put forward by adding secoundary definitions, go right ahead, as of yet all you have revealed is that you don't like researchers accepted definitions of violence or me.


 * I would also like it known that I understand your point concerning the metaphorical use of the word violence, but I do not think that we should define actual violence by its metaphorical use as you seem to be suggesting. If you wish to claim that violence can be done to inanimate objects you have placed yourself on quite a slippery slope, one could say with your definition that government sponsered demolitions are violent because they seek to damage property, one could say that violence occurs where a person tramples the sidewalk daily effectively wearing away the ground they walk on, and etc.  All I am saying is that violence can only be understood properly in an epistemilogical and ontological sense as something that is perpetrated by an agent who desires to force another agent with disregard to causing injury.  Violence is about control and force not about what happens to someones window (though sometimes the two can be linked).  If you disagree I would like to know how and why concerning each of the points I have addressed above. -talonx 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

- -
 * First, if your source is so widely know you could prove it with some URL link.s Second, being wide known is NOT the only criteria. Karl Marx and Adolph Hitler are widely known people who doubtless have their own definitions of violence, but these probably would also be considered POV and too narrow.  The issue is POV non-mainstream and possibly original research definitions, all of which are a NO NO.


 * Second, I used CAPS to encourage you to START a section.


 * Third, I'll come back with better NON-POV definition in near future.

Carol MooreUser:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc —Preceding comment was added at 17:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say the source was widely known (though this is certainly true), I said that my source has been heavily cited.  Google counts roughly 190 or so odd documented citations of NoSc, science direct, I believe, shows even more citings.  Build no strawmen here (making the false claim that I said a reference is 'sufficient when well known', then pointing out the fallacy of such logic).  It is also quite deplorable to passively link my reference with adolf hitler and karl marx simply to make it less attractive (or to link marx with hitler).  Also The def provided by my two citations is not a problem in either of the two fields you have proposed("The issue is POV non-mainstream and possibly original research definitions, all of which are a NO NO.").  Neurobiology of Violence is a mainstream textbook on violence.  Two Concepts of Violence is a theoretical analyses of two positions people commonly take on violence (very very appropriate given our current conversation). Talonx19:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

At http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1478-9299.2005.00023.x there is a summary of "Two Concepts of Violence" by Vittorio Bufacchi: ''The aim of this review article is to explore some theoretical issues regarding the nature and scope of violence. There are two ways of thinking about violence: in terms of an act of force, or in terms of a violation. Those who define violence as an intentional act of excessive or destructive force endorse a narrow conception of violence (the Minimalist Conception of Violence or MCV), while those who see violence in terms of a violation of rights champion a broader conception of violence (the Comprehensive Conception of Violence or CCV). The strengths and weaknesses of both approaches will be assessed.''

Bufacchi himself admits that the definition you use is just ONE, that there is at least ONE other more. I don't know if he recognizes any other. The point is that stressing only ONE theory in the intro is POV. I guess I'll have to take care of this tonight, both process and content wise. Carol Moore 01:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * As stated before, it is really hard to make up a definition of violence by way of violence as a violation of rights. This would be a legalistic or moralistic perspective (making them POV). Bufacchi's MCV is minimalist in the sense that it doesn't attempt to make universal claims beyo´nd reality as to the nature of violence.  If you would like you are surely welcome to attempt to try and create a universal legalistic/moralistic definition of violence, but it cannot encompass only our societies def it must include all of them. talonx07:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.2.167 (talk)

Introduction
I was asked here as a volunteer in the editor assistance program, by User:Carolmooredc.

In reading over the edit history of the article, and in reading the dispute above, a few things come to mind. First:


 * "Wikipedia's three principal content policies are neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Since they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three."

We shouldn't get so attached to NPOV that we start writing unverified original thought. I'm not saying either of you are, but do I think it would not be difficult to accidentally slide towards that slippery slope.

Now to look at each introduction.

As it was before the changes:


 * Violence is the use of physical force against persons that potentially causes fear, injury or death. Damage, in some contexts, is also considered a form of violence. The definition of violence is often widened to include threats of physical force and substantially abusive language and harassing actions.

And immediately after (before being refactored with references):
 * Violence is an intentional and/or ignorant act of force attempting to cause or resulting in injury or death of a living thing. The definition of violence is often applied to include threats of physical force and substantially abusive language and harassing actions.

It seems to me that the main point of contention is about "intent". I think what's being missed in this discussion (such as the example of a violent storm), is intent can be in the eyes of the beholders, not necessarily just the actors. Hence a violent storm is named as such because those who see it, consider it "violent".

So in other words: As far as I can see, you're both right, and you're both wrong. This dispute seems to be merely a confusion in the interpretation of references.

And by the way, several of those dictionary reference may be useful for citation as well.

It would seem to me that the neuroscience reference for/to violence would be better placed under the psycology section? (Which could probably use some cleanup, as well.)

The introduction should be as succinct and NPOV as possible, while being accurate and inclusive. While I'm not going to make a "decision" of which one is "better" or "preferrable", perhaps you both could start with the original, and find a way to rewite it to the satisfaction of you both?

And finally, I resisted the urge to use a myriad of links to associated polocies and guidelines, since I think in this case, they could distract from the discussion underway. However, feel free to ask for clarification on anything above, and I'll be happy to attempt to provide links.

Who knows, maybe we may see a featured article come from this : ) - jc37 12:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your useful response. I don't have a problem with including intent, just don't want to leave out some of the other commonly understood definitions per those dictionary definitions. Tomorrow I'll suggest something.
 * Carol Moore 02:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * I refactored with references because I didn't know how to reference initially (if you will note the seperate timestamps my referencing follows soon after). I developed this def using both references.


 * if the main point was intent I would not have included ignorance


 * Except that the reference used provides a holistic analysis going beyond simply the neurosciences, citing anthropological sociological and psychological studies.


 * I would not like to see my original definition remain(as per the moderators suggestion) I believe it to explicitly puts to the fore ideas about property damage. I like my revised and referenced def much better because it leaves this up for discussion, perhaps a discussion and formulation of violence as a violation can follow. What are your thoughts?  talonx07:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I don't think we're supposed to respond WITHIN another's posting as you did within jc37's above. This makes things confusing to future readers and can destroy the original meaning. So please refrain from doing that.


 * Second, the original definition is NOT your recent change but the more inclusive one that preceded it. I'm not saying that was perfect, but it was more inclusive, as in when jc37 wrote: "The introduction should be as succinct and NPOV as possible, while being accurate and inclusive." and when jc37 wrote: "several of those dictionary reference may be useful for citation as well." I've been putting off doing it to see if others will pipe in, and cause busy trying to pay rent, but will get around to re-writing it per the above shortly.  Any useful restructuring only can come out of a proper NPOV definition.
 * User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc —Preceding comment was added at 19:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To your first point, I removed/moved the comments to be after mine for clarity.


 * To respond to talonx: I copied the version of your edit that didn't have the references for easier reading, since the text itself hadn't changed, just the formatting. As to your other point, all of those are social sciences. - jc37 05:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The supposed more inclusive definition that preceded my recent change was also mine, I thought I stated that clearly. Also, whats wrong with the social sciences being used as resources, at least they take context into account (unlike dictionary definitions which rarely explain such things). talonx09:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.52.129 (talk)

Reorganization
I have a dream, well a good idea anyway. I think you might back me up on this Carol. I think we can all agree that the state of organization of the violence page is, for lack of a better word, quite shit. I would like to see this page perhaps organized into primary sections based on popularly concieved of definitions of violence (something to the affect of e.g. violence as force {with subcats on intentional vs nonintentional}, violence as violation {subcats on universal forms of violence}, violence as law {subcats on war and law} etc.). Each of these sections would subsume, in some cases split, those that already exist and perhaps help to organize them into something approaching coherence. I think something like this is doable and would greatly benefit this particular entry's ease-of-reading. Doing this I think would also adress, hopefully resolve, the argument occuring above. talonx19:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed New Definition
I researched which were the most widely used dictionary definitions and found that Merriam-Webster and American Heritage Dictionary were most widely quoted by academic and other credible sites. So I used the basic definition and then listed the various issues that arise, including between those two dictionary definitions, among dictionary definitions listed above, and obviously among editors who have worked on this wikipedia article over the last couple years.

These issues provide a structure for a sub-section(s) exploring how different groups/tendencies/etc. define violence. I think it would be acceptable to reword and/or add any issues that I have missed, but I think the first sentence is NPOV and should be left that way.


 * SUGGESTED: Violence is the exertion of physical force to injure, damage or abuse. Definitions of violence may or may not include issues like whether violence is committed by natural forces or persons; is intentional or unintentional; is done to persons or physical objects; includes verbal statements or other actions that do not threaten or involve physical force.



FYI: Merriam-Webster
 * 1a. exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)
 * 1b. an instance of violent treatment or procedure
 * 2. injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage
 * 3 a. intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force 
 * 3b. vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c: a clashing or jarring quality : discordance
 * 4. undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text)

FYI: American Heritage Dictionary Carol Moore 20:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc
 * 1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
 * 2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
 * 3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
 * 4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
 * 5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
 * 6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.


 * POV! def 1 and 2 of both dictionaries talk about intentionality. Dictionary definitions are generally ordered by use and importance and both of these sources list for their first two defs violence as intentional.  M-W uses the phrasing exertion...so as to this is an intentive action. AHD uses the phrasing for the purpose of also clearly calling on intent.  Intention should be included in the first sentence.  I still see nothing absolutely nothing wrong with my primary def, I like what you have for other parts of the def and see no reason why they could not be included but you seem to be leaving out that primary defs of violence call on intention.  Additionally, I see no reason to erase my two sources, also you have completely erased violence performed out of ignorance. I think you are onto something but as it stands this definition is no better than my original.  We need a succint statement that can be perhaps cited by all four of our references, followed by a brief discussion on violence as a simple force or violation. talonx09:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.52.129 (talk)

- -


 * I think you've still left "preceived intent" out of the intro.
 * While I think that everyone may agree that one person punching another could be considered violence of some type, it still requires perception. ("If a tree falls in a forest...") If someone pucnhes someone else, but no one perceived it (including the actor and the target), was there an act of violence?


 * So violence isn't the force, it's the perceived force. The cause of the force itself may be neutral (as a force of nature, or the unintended result of cause and effect); or the cause may be someone intending to perform an act of violence, or whatever other causes there may be. And there is also the possibility that there is an intention to perform an act of violence, without actual violence taking place. Remember that attempted murder is still a criminal act in at least some places. (No violence may have occurred, but yet such violence may have been intended.)


 * So the article should talk about the one exerting the "phyical force", which may be perceived as violence.
 * It should talk about the physical force. (Though there are examples of mental cruelty which may define as violence as well.)
 * It should talk about the personal/psycological perception of violence.
 * It should talk about the historical perception of violence.
 * It should talk pabout the sociological perception of violence.
 * It should talk about the intended target of the violence.
 * And quite a few other things : )


 * So look for things relating to Cause and effect, catalysts, and motivations, as well as the results, both physical and mental.


 * One thing that should probably be avoided in this article is attempting to list all "types" of violence. That's probably better located in an associated article per Summary style.


 * I hope this helps. - jc37 05:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no backing for your claim about perception at this point. I know what you are saying, and in they literature they call this victimization among other things to a certain extent.  However, violence is an act not a state of mind (the state of mind would be, being violent, or being victimized).  If you stick by your claim that violence itself is completely a matter of perception you should look for a source. talonx09:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.52.129 (talk)

Talon X writes directly above: "violence is an act not a state of mind." That's the basic proposed definition above: "Violence is the exertion of physical force to injure, damage or abuse." Intentionality is just one of many debateable issues. Frankly, I don't know what the debate is about at this point. Carol Moore 19:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * My concern is more to see the article improved than to worry about debating an issue. (And honestly I think we're getting wrapped up in a cloak of semantics.) I was just offering some suggestions to help, but talonx is absolutely right that it

would be preferrable to have a source to back up a statement. - jc37 02:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The debate it seems is about reverting to older def or to carol's new one. I think we should leave the first sentence and elaborate with other succint sentences that sum up the alternative definitions from the dictionaries and encyclopedias carol has brought forward.  I don't want to get rid of the first two citations because they link violence, to some extent, with ignorance, which is not something you will see many dict. or enc. talking about. Maybe, just two more sentences that state something about, violence as noncognizant force (storms and such) and as a violation (link to rights and writing and what not).  I think these would plant us firmly in the realm of solid and then maybe logic out these three ideas in a seperate paragraph or make them overarching themes of the article under which everything else can be subsumed. talonx21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of semantics at this point! I'm confused by what jc37 means by a source to back up a statement. I'm assuming that dictionary meanings (which I did put down as references) are more credible WikiWise than the theories promoted by a couple of not very well known theorists like Jan Volavka and Vittorio Bufacchi. However, if you think having a person's name connected to a definition makes it more credible I know I can come up with much more prominent and credible names to back up what I consider a less POV definition. If that's what you mean, I'll do it :-) Carol Moore 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * I agree that violence should be stated as intentional. WinterSpw 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By saying intention MUST be part of the main definition, you are saying that ONLY acts of force that are intentional are violent, something that 99.9% of people would dispute. If an epileptic is playing with kittens and suddenly has a seizure, thrashes around and crushes a couple kittens to death, it is NOT intentional. But isn't it violent? If someone loses control and smashes a car into a wall and baby in a carriage is crushed to death, it is NOT intentional. But isn't it violent? And we hear all the time about "violent storms" but they surely are not intentional.  Shall we picket the national weather association until they stop using the phrase "violent storm"??  Well, I'm just going to find some highly credible sources for a good definition and stop arguing about it :-)
 * Carol Moore 04:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * You are quite mistaken, concerning a number of my claims, and you seem to be continually building strawmen around me to tear down. your current first paragraph is extremely tautological
 * Violence is an act of force likely causing harm to a person, property or wild animal. The definition of violence is often applied to include threats of physical force and substantially abusive language and harassing actions. The term can also properly be used to describe 'extreme force' or 'intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force.


 * I would like to point out that the last sentence is merely an explication of the first with no new information. That being said I think the last sentence extremely appropriate, but not appropriate as a primary definition of violence. As I stated before, dict. and enc. definitions are ordered heirarchically for a reason, the first definition is generally the most widely used.  This being said even your dictionary defs support my claim of intention.  To answer your question, I truly do not think that you could say a seizure is a form of violence, however a seizure my be violent, it is not an act of violence.  Additionally, I would like to point out that I never once stated that references need a name to be legit.  I would also like to point out that just because you don't know someones name does not mean they are irrelevant.  For instance, Neurobiology of Violence is the penultimate psychological text on violence because it includes in its analysis not only thousands of cited references but because it incorporates all relevant studies done in the psychological fields pertaining to violence.  I choose the other reference because it cites the debate you and I have been having.  Let me also just point out that a researchers popularity or fame has nothing to do with the quality of their summaries, research, or textbooks.  The purpose of a citation is to let people decide for themselves, so I encourage you to peruse both my citations before making judgements.  That being said I am reverting the entry to my previous definition. Talonx17:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make changes you refer to above (i.e., the ones I just put in italics to be clear). As for dictionary meanings above, some refer to purpose and intention, others only to force, as their intitial defintions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=88367&dict=CALD
 * 1a. exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house)
 * 1 actions or words which are intended to hurt people:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence
 * 1.	swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.

American Heritage Dictionary American Heritage Dictionary
 * 1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.

Online Etymology Dictionary c.1290, "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-Fr. and O.Fr. violence, from L. violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violate).

WordNet
 * 1. 	an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); "he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one"

Carol Moore 21:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Jan Volavka Neurobiology of Violence admits own definition of violence is narrow. In The Neurobiology of Violence: An Update under "DEFINITION AND SUBTYPES OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR" Volavka writes: "For the purpose of this review, violent behavior is defined as overt and intentional physically aggressive behavior against another person." Obviously he is saying as a neurobiologist talking about that narrower topic, he isn't going to waste time going into dictionary meanings of the world that reflect various common uses like trees violently smashing cars, etc. he isn't going to go into all the sociological, legal, spiritual/religious, ideological, etc. definitions and uses. What is not clear is why you are so opposed to a definition like the below that recognizes that most people will describe great force by nature or unintentional force by humans that smashes things or people commonly are referred to as violent. Do you think changing that common understanding in a wiki article is going to change that reality or that use of the word? Are people going to go around and say, "No, that door didn't slam violently, it only slammed loudly and with force, but NO it wasn't violent force?" That's just silly. Carol Moore 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * Sorry I attributed the edit to you, but with those definitions you have posted, can I just point out that all but one of them point to the intentional acting of an agent as a key factor for their primary definitions of violence? As for Neurobiology of Violence, given that the dictionaries and encyclopedias back up intentionality, I think it nice to have a more thought out statement, as in the one Jan gives. Additionally, when you say sociological considerations, are you talking classical (as in the kind that looks at westernized industrialized cultures and says everyone works like this) or modern, because if modern then yes jan does cover this in his textbook.


 * I don't think great forces by nature are innapropriately labled violent, I think that they are tertiary or secoundary to the primary definitions given by most of your sources(all but one) as well as my own sources. Please please stop puting words into my mouth.  If anything, it seems that you want to supplant the primary definition given by most of your sources(all but one) and all of my sources.  I would also ask that you look at the article itself, if we are to use your proposed definition we need to spend equal amounts of space taking abou the violence of a storm, but we probably wont do that because it is simply a tertiary definition and not as important as talking about violent acts of people.  May I also so that in all the literature I have ever come across concerning violence and people (psych, soc, anth, polisci, econ, frankly the only places you tend to find such lit) violence is always painted as an intentional and or ignorant act.  Less commonly is violence done by humans to property even called violence, most will call this aggresive behavior but then point out that violence against an object is conceptually different (especially to the human mind) then violence against another living acting agent. Talonx10:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a newer version gives intentionality its important focus, while not ignoring common usage and the broader definition of force per se, going from the GENERAL CONCEPT (any force that harms) to the PARTICULAR (human force that harms). A common logical progression. (As for importance, there are many years in which violent natural tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, landslides, wild fires, etc. in total kill more people and damage more property worldwide than the sum total of human actions, intentional or non-intentional. So saying human violence is MORE important could be viewed as anthropocentric and even POV.)


 * Violence is the exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse. The word is used broadly to describe the destructive action of natural phenomena like storms damaging physical things. More frequently it describes forceful human destruction of property or injury to persons, usually intentional, and forceful verbal and emotional abuse that harms others. REF: Merriam-Webster and American Heritage Dictionary


 * I searched ignorance and violence and the only link I found that had anything to do with a definition was Emma Goldman saying "Ignorance is violence." Ignorance is a CAUSE of violence, but there are LOTS of causes of violence including rage, jealously, bigotry, greed, envy, poverty, etc.  Why point out only one of many in a definition?  I also mention prominently both authors you have quoted since both do have intelligent things to say that I found and can reference online.
 * Carol Moore 12:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Real Restructuring of Article to Explicate POVs
Re-reading the article itself, looking through pages of Search results on violence, jc37’s comments on perceptions,  and looking at how the Terrorism article dealt with similar POV problems, I realize the whole article needs restructuring per the below and will do so in next few days after comments. Honest dealing with POVs is all I am interested in :-) Will proceed during weekend.

OUTLINE:

''Violence is the exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse. The word is used broadly and may describe the destructive action of natural phenomena like storms and landslides damaging physical things, accidental or intentional human destruction of property or injury to persons, or intentional psychological harm to those living under constant threat of physical abuse and/or verbal and emotional abuse. Ref:Merriam-Webster and American Heritage Dictionary Governments, humanitarian and political organizations often will create more narrow definitions that serve their own agendas.''

''Societies regulate the use of violence through socio-cultural customs and mores and through codified legal systems defining violent crime. Most societies recognize a right to violent defense of self and others.''

Section: Theories of Violence Clarify POVs, citing how various interest groups, from humanitarian to pro- to anti-government, define violence differently. Includes various definitions already in the article, like World Health Organization, CDC, plus other humanitarian groups; as well as recently mentioned Volavka, and Buffacchi, and Emma Goldman; various violent groups and governments that redefine violence to criminalize opponents violence while excusing their own.

Section: Psychology and Sociology, includes the section on Endemic and mock violence For sociological overview since this article IS part of the sociology project.

Section: Law How governments define and deal with it.

Section: War How governments extend and change that definition for war

Section: Health and prevention Related to sociological factors above.

Section: Violence in the media Including media, games, sports, etc. Carol Moore 14:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * Cool. I like it. smooth as the weavings from a yoghurt loom. Benny the wayfarer 15:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your ideas on reorganization entirely. I will cross check and create sub fields that you are free to check over and approve.  However see above new comments concerning your rework of the def. Talonx17:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

'''Restructuring/Rewrite DONE! :-)''' Per above I re-ordered the sections, replacing proposed Theories of Violence with a “Religious and Political Ideology” section which covers several issues.

Also I took out a lot of unsourced and also POV (and possibly original research) statements. Source them and put them back if you like. Left unsourced ones with wikilinks that are pretty self evident. Added some good informational sourced material. Added wiki links. Some miscellaneous punctuation cleanups from previous version may remain to be done later.

Therefore I removed and (cleanup tag)

Carol Moore 14:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * fantastic job I am really happy with what you have done with the place and I find your citation of one my previous sources extremely relevant. However, do you really think damage to property should be portrayed as equally violent as damage to a human being?  I just don't see it, perhaps its my social science bias, comprehending violence from a perspective of 'actors and acted upon' but I just don't see it. additionally I am thinking about fitting emma into the psychosocial section, she was a social theorist after all, perhaps some marx as well as hobbes.  Maybe I'll just start work on historical conceptions or something.  talonx21:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.1.145 (talk)

Thanks. That's all the pay I get for my work :-)

I think there are already at least two references to property damage generally being seen as less important. I think the initial definition retains its neutrality on what is most important in this regard also. But if it was YOUR bike that someone smashed for fun, you might have a momentary feeling that the guillotine wasn't good enough :-)

Feel free to put Goldman in and other sources, though keep it short or people might start yelling Synthesis and original research - which I heard for first time today! And of course I might have to find some more propertarians to quote if goes too far.

Also, I was going to mention that the relevance of some of those SEE ALSOs is questionable. Even Gene Sharp who writes on nonviolence. Everybody has something to say about violence but unless the article linked itself has at least a good paragraph or section on violence itself, it really shouldn't be linked. But I'll give it a few days rest before messing with. Carol Moore 01:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * All well noted, I am satisfied and will get to work trying to find some historical perspectives (equally weighted of course) -talonx21:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.12.112 (talk)

Recent Edits
Point one, concerning the cited claim, //A majority of twentieth century wars and democides were fought in part by ideologues of national socialist Nazi and communist regimes against those they identified as religious, economic and political enemies.[17]//, I think anyone with a brain knows this isn't true, whatever the source you are using it must be shit. I don't understand how it is at all possible to make this claim let alone let on that in some way national socialists and communists are in any way similar. First off, a majority of democides and wars have been fought or fueled by a majority of modern nations generally along faith-based-unsubstantiated-ideological lines (aboriginal pops in australia, new zealand and the pacific; Indian populations in north and south america; african populations during colonial settlement and continuing today; etc etc). Additionally the only war any nazis have ever started anywhere were with the russians and communism (and that is a simplification at best), additionally I can't rightly think of a single communist nation that has ever started a proper war (I assume we are talking about a war between nation-states or otherwise centralized authorities, not civil war or regional-warfare), I challenge you to think of a majority of these two examples that have started wars as popularly defined (let us here differentiate between conquest, revolution and war)? Also, NaZi is a partial acronym meaning national socialist in German, it is redundant to say both.

Point two, allegedly and other hedges can be removed were the veiws of others are put forth in a representative manner, e.g. "an anarchist believes capitalism is allegedly bad" vs. "an anarchist believes capitalism is bad" the former makes no sense. talonx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.11.174 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I agree we need to clearly differentiate in different sentences about deaths from wars for ideological/religious reasons versus deaths where states (native or colonialist) kill their own people democide for ideological/religious reasons - including for separatist/secessionist activity which may or may not be ideological/religious.


 * Re: First quoted statement I agree I missed a couple categories. Probably the best thing to do is list the various categories and then put number of deaths after them.  This could be done using the wiki Democide article numbers and/or using the numbers of Professor R. J. Rummel linked there (which I somehow failed to link last time in this article) http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM.
 * Carol Moore 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc


 * I propose to mention the attribution of a majority of acts of violence to radical political ideologies in an analytical context, specifically comes to mind an article I read long ago talking of the communists in russia (as well as China as I remember the historical analysis) and their propensity to use the cult of the monarch to rally believers around them. It would also be interesting to get more in depth on the debate about religion or belief in the supernatural as primary causes of violence, there is alot of research to back such a discussion in this article.  Something of the Nazi's faith (in eugenics as well as christianity and theism/deism) driven assertations about the moral imperative to fight might be worth mentioning in such a context as an extreme example compared alongside say various jihads, manifest destinies, and of course the crusades.


 * It may even be pertinent then to rename the religion and politics section into a section entitled Idiology and then list them as sub cats. What think you carol? talonx16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we have to avoid WP:SYN, which above analysis by un-named author seems very much to me to be. It's fine if you can find that article, and if it is by a reliable source, to include a couple sentences, though it sounds like it would go more in the Sociology and Psychology section.  Whereas just saying that there are Ideological and Religious reasons and listing some is less controversial in WIKI terms.


 * Assume you mean you want to call section Ideology, not Idiology?? If the deleted material is replaced and expanded per above, and other information added per your suggestion, it might expand to size it could use subcategories. Which ones did you have in mind? Busy today so can't think about but I'll see what you say and comment tomorrow.
 * Carol Moore 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc