Talk:Violence against men/Archive 1

Changed redirect
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 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)
 * Surely it's poor practice to redirect to a different article? 'Domestic violence against men' is not the same as 'Violence against men'. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2014 (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)

Could Be Better
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)

Using high quality sources
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)


 * We've had an editor repeatedly use this source to back up the following dubious claims: "2013 statistics showed there were a higher number of male sexual assault victims in the U.S. than female victims." and "After accounting for sexual violence in prisons, there are more male victims of sexual assault in the U.S. than women." The source compares estimated rapes inside prisons with reported rapes outside of prison, ignoring the fact that most rapes are not reported. The source is a British tabloid paper and is unreliable. If there was anything remotely true about the claim it would have been repeated in reliable sources. Editors who are confused by this should read Identifying reliable sources carefully. Haminoon (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The Daily Mail is definitely not a reliable source when it comes to crime statistics. I'd recommend not using news articles like this at all, even if they come from more credible newspapers. Stories like this usually focus one a single researcher or some interesting new study and doesn't attempt any overviews of available research.
 * Peter Isotalo 14:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Government statistics are a primary source. A news article about the statistics is an interpretation of the primary source, so a news article is considered RS. If there are any questions about this, we can have them answered at the RS Noticeboard. USchick (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends on the news article. If the stats are actually put into a relevant context and experts are consulted, then no problem. But overall, they should be used with caution. There is no such thing as automatic RS status for newspapers. Mind you, this is a very extraordinary claim. It's not something that should be left to a publication that has suggested that Elizabeth I was a man.
 * From what I can tell, the Mail (doesn't even have named reporter) is drawing its own conclusions about statistics which they are definitely not qualified to do. The article in The New York Review of Books seems well-researched, but it doesn't attempt to make any such comparisons. And keep in mind that the claim is specifically about the US, so it's not from a global perspective.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I just cut this out
because the chunk used here really does not capture the sense of the article.
 * In September 2014, Time magazine, using CDC statistics, said that men have reported that they've been "made to penetrate" at almost the same rate that women have

alleged rape.

That Daily Mail stuff probably should go too, but this is my start. Carptrash (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How does it not capture the sense of the article? What is the sense of the article? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 19:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, this is the heart of the article:
 * "On the other hand, most of us would agree that to equate a victim of violent rape and a man who engages in a drunken sexual act he wouldn’t have chosen when sober is to trivialize a terrible crime. "
 * But then, would most of us agree to that? Would you? I certainly do  Carptrash (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point of the article entirely  @Carptrash:   . 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)
 * SPACKlick, you're assuming that "made to penetrate" means penetrating women. That's a big assumption that's not supported by sources. The rest of your argument is good. USchick (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @USchick: , I'm not assuming that. The article draws that conclusion, as you can tell by the fact that I pretty much exclusively quoted it and didn't summarise at all. SPACKlick (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize that was a quote from the article. This is a difficult topic to process. USchick (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the template QUOTE Returns the coloured quote QUOTE. SPACKlick (talk) 20:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits
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)
 * We need to agree on a definition first -violence against men because they are men - is not referenced. Just because there's a definition of violence against women in a different article, doesn't automatically transfer here. Violence against men in general, is violence that disproportionately affects men. USchick (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with USchick. This not just some counterweight to violence against women. Treat it as a standalone topic. As such, I don't see how forced castration is irrelevant. Might not be under the right heading, but it seems historically relevant.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I restored the content deleted by Jytdog. I regard his edits as politically inspired vandalism. Happy to discuss... --RicardAnufriev (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: Jytdog deleted half of the article's body. Parts which were well written and sufficiently referenced. His style of "discussion" is not constructive, just the typical WP:STFUNOOBS --RicardAnufriev (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Skewing
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:
 * Gender -- # of Inmates -- % of Inmates
 * Female -- 14,063 - 6.7%
 * Male -196,058 93.3%

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.


 * Is the issue of sexual violence in prison - including sexual violence against men there - important?  Hell yes.
 * Is it really the essence of the thing, that more men than women are raped, overall? Hell no.
 * Can gender-warriors go, "but it's in a reliable source!!!! and it is TRUE that more men are raped than women!!!! WE WIN WE WIN!  Fist bump, bro."  Hell yes.  And it is disgusting.
 * Is there some thoughtful, NPOV, non-gender-warrior content that could be generated from the NY Review source? I reckon.  And I reckon there is little chance to have that reflected in this article. Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Need some help with style
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)
 * Never mind - it was right there in the template. Sorry to bother everyone. Random (?) 02:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Mass killings
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)


 * This article can not simply be a list of violent acts where most or all of the victims happen to be male. We need to focus on the nature of violence against men in general. The content needs to have some sort of connection to studies about violence or at least something that compares the prevalence of violence against men with other groups. If there are examples, they should be taken from those studies or comparisons or whatever. Otherwise, it's simply WP:COATRACKing.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain the difference between "where most or all of the victims happen to be male" and violence against men in general. It seems that if most of them are male, that would make it in general. USchick (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One opinion. I believe that it has to do with intention.  If someone decides "I want to injure some men." then it is violence against men.  If the intention is to injure a bunch of people (as in a war) and most of the injured happen to be men, then it is not violence against men.  Carptrash (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We are looking at statistics of victims over a long period of time in various countries, so it's not possible to determine what the intentions were in each case. The result is that men were disproportionately affected. For example, the victims of lynching in the US were mostly men. And to stop the practice, they launched anti-lynching campaigns, arguing that this practice should be stopped only because (guess why!) some of the victims were women. So at least in this case, violence against men is perfectly acceptable unless it starts to affect women as well. The attitude about war is similar. Systematically annihilating entire populations of men is perfectly fine and approved by society. The subject of this article is not good or bad, it's presented as fact. It happens. USchick (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't list of mass killings of men, though. Content should be based on references that actually refer to violence against men per se. If you look at what was removed recently, there was plenty of WP:SYNTH based on news articles on military action. Here's an example:
 * "Re-classifications are done to justify violent actions taken against male victims, regardless of whether or not they were participating or were going to participate in the conflict."
 * And this was referenced to an article in Salon that discusses targeting of civilians.
 * Peter Isotalo 17:47, 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)
 * How about Pero Gaglo Dagbovie, in African American History Reconsidered?
 * Peter Isotalo 18:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This article (if it survives the AfD) needs to be about violence against men because they are men, not just victims who happen to be men. That is what makes violence against women and gender-based violence notable: that people are targeted for their gender. To quote from violence against women, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The topic of this article has nothing to do with a similar article somewhere else. This is not a comparison. This is a standalone topic. See Comparison Articles and Original Research. USchick (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, USchick, let me get this straight. You feel that this is an article about every violent act against a man since . . . ...... when ever?  Since a long, long time ago?  Carptrash (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * First, my personal feelings are irrelevant, because we're going with what the sources say. And when we look at statistics that span decades, to examine the intentions of individuals is unrealistic. The people who commit homicide don't get together and have a conference about it. Just like people who commit domestic violence don't target women in general, they target their partner, the individual. As a result, over time, a group of people end up having a shared experience. They don't know each other, and they weren't targeted as a group. When it comes to how long ago, according to sources, it dates back to the Crusades, which was a long, long time ago. USchick (talk) 22:50, 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)
 * My personal opinion is that "violence agains men" is any violence that affects men directly and disproportionately. If men have to serve in the military, it's not a choice, they are sent by their government to fight someone else's political battle. There are studies showing that men are not able to fight naturally, they have to be trained to kill and even then, not all men can do it. This is not a comparison to "violence against women" article. The idea that violence has to be directed at men "because they are men" is ridiculous because there are so many double standards in place. Rape only happens to women because "they are women"? No, others get raped, men, children, etc. I can provide references showing that women get raped in a war situation with the purpose of hurting the men in that community. So even rape is not always directed at women. This is a tough subject to begin with, especially if some people approach it with the idea that this topic shouldn't exist. I don't have any strong feelings about it, I just think it needs to be out there. USchick (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Gendercide sources
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)
 * "Gendercide" in Men and Masculinities
 * "Gendercide" in Encyclopedia of International Relations and Global Politics
 * What is Genocide?
 * The SAGE Handbook of Feminist Theory
 * Women Waging War and Peace: International Perspectives of Women's Roles in in Conflict and Post-Conflict Reconstruction
 * Barbaric Civilization: A Critical Sociology of Genocide - includes interesting nuancing of sex and gender and quotes by Adam Jones that refer to "one of the most lethal gender roles in modern times is that of the 'feminized' male"; includes very relevant definitio of non-combatant males as "gender traitors"
 * Sexual Violence and Armed Conflict - has examples of "gendercide" against both males and females in Rwanda, Zagreb, Srebrenica (by international relations scholar Janie Leatherman)
 * ''The Body of War: Media, Ethnicity, and Gender in the Break-up of Yugoslavia By Dubravka Žarkov - Explains the relationship between gender and violence in war. USchick (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

castration
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. 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.

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:
 * in societies with royalty, becoming a eunuch was a way to get "in" and become a power.
 * castrati (singers)... mostly kids, right? I have no idea if this is considered "sexual violence against men" by serious people.
 * religious castration I think is mostly voluntary? pretty sure.  but again not discussed/anchored above.
 * the only example actually given that ~might be~ violence is chemical castration of sex offenders. Men who have committed violent sexual crimes.  It is hard to understand how it is reasonable to call judicially imposed chemical castration of sex offenders "sexual violence against men", with no nuance/discussion.  (as it is, it is bit sickeningly ironic)

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))


 * I find this section highly relevant, it could be better written but still. About your points:Lucentcalendar (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Becoming an eunuch was probably seldom by choice, but rather part of being a slave
 * Castrating boys is EXTREME sexual violance, thats right up there with FGM
 * Agree, if someone is grown-up they can do with their body whatever they want
 * Chemical castration of sex offenders is like haking the hand off for theft. It may be related to a crime, but it is not just. Moreover, there are historically cases where this was also enforeced on "crimes" like homosexuality, most prominently Alan Turing who most likly died because of it.
 * Sexual violence is something that's done as a sexual act. Castration as punishment or discipline or whatever isn't sexual.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How is FGM then sexual violence? Castration is an act of violence directed at the sexuality of a person.Lucentcalendar (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the definition used in sexual violence. I recommend using a more descriptive term. No point in using ambuguous language.
 * Also, I think subjugation per se is a more relevant issue. But this should mostly rely on the context given in the sources. Otherwise, it's a WP:SYNTH violation.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point with the definition, but in that article sexual violence later on castration is given as one example of sexual violance. Either we would need to take out all acts which are not directly sexual out of the sexual violance article, or this can stay over here under that definition, else it would be inconsitant. Don't get me wrong, both approaches are fine with me, I am only against inconsistancy.Lucentcalendar (talk) 12:17, 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 am not certain if I understand your last sentence correctly. This article on chemical and surgical castration of male offenders in the USA states that this practice is problematic because it only targets men. Women sex offenders "only" to to prison. Is that the kind of evidence needed? http://www.jaapl.org/content/31/4/502.full.pdf Lucentcalendar (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * the Chemical castration describes how it is mainstream practice, and there are some objections/concerns.   All wikipedia articles aim for the mainstream - neither this article nor any other are a means for advocacy.   So if this article is going to discuss chemical castration as some kind violence against men because they are men, it needs to make it clear that this is a protest position, as the article on chemical castration does.  I will respond to your comment about women sex offenders on your talk page. It is off topic here. Jytdog (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a note: The Sexual violence article currently includes in its lead: "or acts directed against a person's sexuality." Female genital mutilation (FGM) certainly fits that definition, and female genital mutilation is well known to be an act of sexual violence, including among WP:Reliable sources. The Female genital mutilation article is not at all vague about that. That stated, reasons for female genital mutilation vary among cultures, which is something else that the Female genital mutilation article is clear about. Flyer22 (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * that is completely off topic Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was addressing Lucentcalendar's and Peter Isotalo's discussion above; Peter Isotalo seems to be under the impression that female genital mutilation is not sexual violence; I simply wanted to correct him on that notion, and did. Flyer22 (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Flyer22, it seems like a rather specialized definition, then, because the article is very much focused on violent sexual acts of one way or another. I think it all boils down to how systemic violence is defined, especially the idea of monopoly on violence. I think we need to go beyond Wikipedia content and look at what external sources have to say about it, especially research on violence.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Sexual violence and Female genital mutilation articles are going by what the WP:Reliable sources state on the matter. I simply wanted to be clear that female genital mutilation is commonly considered sexual violence. If castration is included in the Violence against men article, it needs to be supported by WP:Reliable sources that tie it to violence against men and it should be given appropriate WP:Due weight. I'm done discussing the female genital mutilation aspect in this section, though, since Jytdog considers it off-topic...and he is correct on that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I find the FGM comparison very relevant, so I don't see any need to close down the thread. I can guarantee you that future contributors will be asking why male circumcision isn't included. Pointing them to a previous discussion might spare us the trouble of repeating the same point over and over.
 * Otherwise, I'm in complete agreement. Any inclusion of things like circumcision, conscription, chemical castration or such should come from sources that actually focus on violence. It's a gray area that should be discussed, but adding all kinds of information about, say, that men are overrepresented when it comes to capital punishment should be considered WP:COATRACKing
 * Peter Isotalo 15:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On my talk page, I did note the matter as an instance of comparison. And you have a good point about people bringing up circumcision. At Talk:Circumcision and Talk:Female genital mutilation, comparisons between circumcision and female genital mutilation happen, despite the fact that the two are seen very differently by medical experts...for various reasons. But I still see what Jytdog means about not having this discussion derailed by such talk. The focus here should be on whether or not to mention castration and how to mention it. Flyer22 (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Castration is a form of war violence. USchick (talk) 19:12, 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).

Campaigning
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:


 * Sexual violence against men has been highlighted as a civil rights and human rights issue in the US since the 1960's. The seminal 1968 work "Sexual assaults in the Philadelphia prison system and Sheriff’s Vans" is of note, as is the work of Prisoners Against Rape (PAR) who were featured in the film "Rape Culture", due to their work addressing rape within and without prison.

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)


 * Personally I'd wait until the AfD plays out before going to WP:RPP.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would strongly support limiting editing rights on this article. In my opinion this could be a valuable, well written article, but it needs to be protected from campaigns.Lucentcalendar (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with EvergreenFir. After the AfD. There are plenty of sharp eyes on the article currently, and anyone pulling anything untoward will get shut down quickly and with alacrity. Also, as evidenced by edits here and on the AfD page, "campaigning" is not limited to IP editors. Marteau (talk) 07:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent RV
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)
 * POV pushing would have been a better edit summary. Here are the reasons for the revert: (1) Farrell is a questionable source, (2) second sentence improperly summarized source (there's plenty of gender data on violence in general, just not on war deaths), (3) third sentence makes no sense to me (likely misuse of dearth), and (4) fourth sentence is again about war, misrepresenting source. All sources appear to be PRIMARY, none seem to be related to violence against men because they are men and they certainly don't belong in WP:LEAD. Same kind of junk we've been trying to keep out of the article that POV pushers keep re-adding.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All that said, I should have been more specific in my edit summary. Thank you for asking for clarification.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Any addition with a reference to Warren Farrell in a topic like this as an uncontroversial source should be looked upon with suspicion.
 * Peter Isotalo 23:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

"caused at least in part by their being men"
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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a standalone topic, not a comparison to other articles. In reality, violence that affects men directly and in disproportionate numbers is "violence against men." If we want to say that it has to be "because they are men," I think we need a source for that. I can provide sources to discredit "because they are women" if we want to have a discussion about that, but that's not the topic of this article. USchick (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Evergreen, the topic is evidently just violence against men overall. The scope of the article, though, is clearly about explaining the nature of violence against men. That's why it's not called "list of acts of violence against men" or whatever. We don't need push any specific "definition" of a simple "X of/for/against Y"-formula topic.
 * I believe we ought to start by simply rewriting the lead to avoid the " is "-formula. Making sure the article doesn't get WP:COATRACKed and filled with nonsense and trivia has to be done through normal editing. We're not going to keep bad content away by "deciding" on some definition that doesn't actually exist.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not an independently notable topic though. See the section below. If we discuss the "nature of violence against men", then it's gonna be mostly SYNTH. This page really should have been deleted.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See below. You're basing this entirely on your own assumptions and ideas about the topic. I can't stress enough that the AfD is over. It did not result in any kind of consensus about how to define the topic or special conditions on which it is allowed to be remain an article.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is true that "Violence against women" contains a symmetrical caveat. True, but unfortunate.  Because with that caveat it is at least difficult to justify covering domestic violence in either article.  Certainly it would be difficult to justify covering domestic violence in same sex relationships.  (Which I hope we do, though I haven't looked.)  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC).


 * This argument amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFF, pure and simple. We go by what verifiable info we have, not some randomly chosen precedent based on an very different aspect of human violence.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:34, 6 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.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see that this is accordance with any policy. As pointed out before, we have plenty of "x of y"-style topics that are sub-article of top-level topics. None of those require strict, air-tight definitions to be viable. No arguments have been presented why this article is different form any other type of sub-article. I've seen concerns about having the article go down the toilet by allowing to be crammed by politically biased content about "war against men" and what not. But that will not be helped by making up a definition that isn't based on editors' opinions.
 * I don't see why this definition is even necessary in violence against women or violence against LGBT people. Those are also clearly about violence against these groups in a general sense. Over-representation in levels of violence is of course the focus, but under-representation could also be entirely relevant. As long as it's taken from reliable, serious sources (ie not "What Karl Rove"-said blogs), I don't see a problem. And as long as we stick to reliable, serious sources without editorializing, there won't be synthesis.
 * Peter Isotalo 13:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Instead of comparing this article to a highly political article like Violence against women, let's look at how other, less charged, subject matters are treated on Wikipedia. Let's look at another subject matter where something happens and the individual didn't go asking for it, and now has to deal with it. There's a general article on Disease, a more specific article on Fish diseases and parasites, and an even more specific article on Disease in ornamental fish. No one claims that disease happens "because they are fish." In our case, sources do claim that violence against women happens "because they are women." No such claim is being made for men. For us to claim that, it would be SYNTH and OR. USchick (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine. You're correct that most sources don't say it's "because they are men". But I see the other part is being discussed below and I'm okay with that.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:03, 6 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)
 * The article Fish diseases and parasites begins with "Like humans and other animals, fish suffer from diseases and parasites."  To me this is pretty much the same as saying  "because they are fish."  So how are we going to justify 'Violence against men" if the violence is not because they are men?  If someone drops a bomb on some people and 50% of those killed are men, then this does not concern the article but if 75% are men then it does?  Is that where we are Carptrash (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The same disease can affect other sea creatures, not just fish. If someone drops a random bomb, where is it dropped? In a military camp occupied by men? Or on a school? One bomb doesn't qualify as anything because it's too random. We would need to look at a number of bombs and what sources say about it. If it's not "primarily" or "disproportionately" then it doesn't qualify as "violence against men." Disease in ornamental fish, interestingly enough, says: "the cost of testing and treating diseases is often seen as more trouble than the value of the fish." This is very similar to how men are treated and that's why the two topics are a good comparison. Again, this is not good or bad, just stating facts. USchick (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Carptrash, we're not going to include any "90% of victims in recent workplace shooting were men"-type statements for the same reason we don't include "90% of victims in recent shooting were women/gay men/lesbians/transgender/black/Chinese/Episcopalians/whatever"-type statements elsewhere.
 * If we have sources that explain how that some forms of violence are not disproportionately aimed at men, according to this fairly arbitrary definition suggested here, we couldn't include it. It doesn't seem workable.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:25, 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)
 * The proposed wording is: "Violence against men is, collectively, violent acts that are disproportionately or exclusively committed against men." Can we get support for it? USchick (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * After seeing the discussion here, I'm opposed to any wording that is along the lines of "violence against men is ". Going by posts here (and similar opinions at the recent AfD-discussion), it will apparently be interpreted as a valid reason to label anything not in line with  as WP:SYNTH. I propose something similar to disease in ornamental fish or maybe along the lines of 1850 Atlantic hurricane season. To some degree, I consider it necessary as a matter of style since "violence against men" is a basic sum-of-parts title. Peter Isotalo 19:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are confusing SYNTH with WP:LEAD. We are supposed to summarize the article and set its scope in the lead. That summary should be based on why the topic is notable. We aren't listing diseases in ornamental fish. We don't want a random collection of loosely related facts. We want a coherent article and to do so, we must set a scope.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Try working on actually building up an article first, then you can aim for the perfect lead. Implementing your suggestions isn't the only thing standing between a "coherent article" and WP:COATRACK chaos.
 * Peter Isotalo 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Working on it. But it would be nice to have an idea of where we're going.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We're going on an adventure. As trailblazers, we have a general direction and we'll see what we encounter along the way and where we end up. :-) A working definition would be most helpful to determine what should be included in the article. The proposed definition is much better than the one in the article now. I recommend we go with that for now and adjust it later if necessary. For the content of the article in its current state, the proposed definition works well. Agree? Disagree? USchick (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the wording you propose.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * building the article, requires deciding what topic the article covers. Right now the topic is defined in the first sentence or so, as it is.  The topic of any given article, and the boundaries of the topic, is decided via consensus of the editors working on it. As far as I know, there is no policy or guideline that governs this.  If anybody else is aware of one, I would be interested to hear. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, can we talk? If we use the phrase, " "Violence against men is, collectively, violent acts that are disproportionately or exclusively committed against men."" as the subject of the article, are we in fact inventing this as a topic.  I have no problem doing this, feeling perhaps less restricted than some others, but, is this what we are doing?  Carptrash (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * with that topic, i am not sure what content could go in the article.  what violence fits that profile?  i am not asking this tortuously at all, it is real question.  I have been thinking about the question of this scope of this article a lot, and asking people what they would expect to find in an article called "violence against men".    Almost everybody says "domestic violence" and then everybody goes lost.   As to unauthorized violence. we already have Sex differences in crime; as to violence against self we already have Gender differences in suicide.  I started to think about state-sanctioned violence (prompted by the discussion about chemical castration) and Stop-and-frisk in New York City came to mind.. which i think could ~maybe~  be reasonably discussed as violence against men (?)... albeit men of color.  which adds a whole additional layer of complexity when we start to globalize away from white men.  difficult.  just wanted to put some thoughts down. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 8 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)
 * What are we to do? The AfD failed because of "lack of consensus". We are left with nothing but inventing the topic.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * there is WP:NODEADLINE - we can hear what others have to say and keep thinking ourselves. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not inventing anything if we simply go with what the sources say. Many good sources have been provided. This article has nothing to do with discrimination or comparison to other groups. If reliable sources say that something is different for men than for any other group, we simply present the information and we don't need to explain "why" it's like that, unless the sources say why. USchick (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * you seem to contradict yourself..."This article has nothing to do with discrimination or comparison to other groups." and... "If reliable sources say that something is different for men than for any other group, we simply present the information"...Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Men have their own issues that may or may not be the same compared to other groups. The cause for disproportionate statistics is speculation (or synth) unless the sources identify "why" something is happening, and it may or may not be "because they are men" but simply, "just because." In some cases, sources claim something exists, and they don't explain why. USchick (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * you cannot say "X is different for men" without "comparing how X affects other groups. that is where the contradiction is, in that you said "This article has nothing to do with discrimination or comparison to other groups".  do you see?  Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying and I agree with you. There are two separate issues here. First, some things affect men disproportionately. This is a fact. For example, facial hair affects men disproportionately. The second issue is why it happens. This is not always clear (genetics, hormones, heredity, lots of reasons). So when you start looking at certain groups of men, compared to certain groups of women, it may not always hold up. For example, comparing a group of Native American men who genetically sometimes have very little facial hair to a group of women with Hypertrichosis is not a good comparison. So what I'm saying, is that the scope of the article addresses how violence affects men disproportionately (compared to all other groups in general). Then when we start talking about "why" it's happening, that's a separate discussion, and we need to be careful when we draw conclusions. This is when we really need to examine what the sources say very closely. USchick (talk) 02:48, 10 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)
 * 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." Making any comparison in the definition is problematic, because you can argue "what is the definition of men"? Is it based on sex? Gender? Just go with the standard word "men" and no comparison in the definition. Later, when we look at sub-groups, the comparison will be made to all others in that sub-group. Depending on what's being discussed, the comparison could be made to women, children, LGBT, women and girls, etc. In each instance, there's a regulating body that already established how things are compared, and reliable sources talk about it in those terms. If a discussion is about "inmates" men would be compared to other inmates or to men who are in the general population (and not inmates). So first, we look at sources, and then use good judgement and consensus to determine what it actually means. USchick (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * this seems to be the consensus. Jytdog (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We have consensus? Yay, progress! So we can remove from the lede "and caused at least in part by their being men" right? So we're all ok with the working definition: "Violence against men is, collectively, violent acts that are disproportionately or exclusively committed against men." USchick (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Definitions and scope of article
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". 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".

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:

"Violence against women shall be understood to encompass, but not be limited to, the following:


 * (a) Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family, including battering, sexual abuse of female children in the household, dowry-related violence, marital rape, female genital mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women, non-spousal violence and violence related to exploitation;
 * (b) Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring within the general community, including rape, sexual abuse, sexual harassment and intimidation at work, in educational institutions and elsewhere, trafficking in women and forced prostitution;
 * (c) Physical, sexual and psychological violence perpetrated or condoned by the State, wherever it occurs. "

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)
 * you do realize, that you are discussing what is being discussed above, right? Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

War on men
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: 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)
 * Not WP:RS.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 05:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The real surprise is that someone would consider that "a blogger at 'Karl Rove Said' " would pass as an acceptable source. Carptrash (talk) 05:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this better? "FBI statistics on violence show 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." Shakespeare Monkey (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * 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 rewrote it to make it more neutral and focused. Several links to sources about violence against men have been posted on this talkpage. If you want to expand the article, I strongly recommend using some of those.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Added context (with refs) to addition, especially since it appears the Hellznrg intends the take-away to be that women kill men because they are men, which is not supported by any RS.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for polishing that further and catching the typo.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I rewrote it to make it more neutral and focused. Several links to sources about violence against men have been posted on this talkpage. If you want to expand the article, I strongly recommend using some of those.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Added context (with refs) to addition, especially since it appears the Hellznrg intends the take-away to be that women kill men because they are men, which is not supported by any RS.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for polishing that further and catching the typo.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

homicide section
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. 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. In many cases, women kill men due to being victims of intimate partner violence.

Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and it does once again raise the question, "What exactly is the scope of this article, ?" Carptrash (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If we go with the definition/scope proposed by USchick above, this would fit. It seems we're moving away from the "because they're men" part.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * if the scope changes, maybe this can come in. but it is not in-scope with the article as it stands, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If violence affects men disproportionately, it means it's "Violence against men because they are men". Just like how if company boards aren't 50% women, then it means there's discrimination against women. Shakespeare Monkey (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In response to Shakespeare Monkey, to say if something is X, "it means" Y is pure SYNTH. See Correlation does not imply causation. USchick (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

domestic violence section
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)", published by the Domestic Violence Research Group (Springer Publishing journal "Partner Abuse" ) 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".

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. 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. As with other forms of violence against men, intimate partner violence is generally less recognized in society when the victims are men. Violence of women against men in relationships is often 'trivialized' due to the supposed weaker physique of women, in such cases the use of dangerous objects and weapons is omitted. 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.

Happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, (deja vu) and it does once again raise the question, "What exactly is the scope of this article, ?" Carptrash (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * These passages deal with the perceptions, beliefs and realities pertaining to violence against men. That men are reluctant to report it, that some believe that only women are or can be victims of domestic violence, that it is often trivialized, and that it is less recognized are important issues and are directly pertinent to and eminently includable in an article about violence against men. Marteau (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * you are not responding to the point I raised. you don't have to, of course. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The standard you and other propose, because it precludes including anything such as beliefs and perceptions is, I believe, inappropriate, unduly restrictive, and inadequate for the article. Basically, I don't subscribe to the logic of excluding pertinent information regarding real world impacts, perceptions and beliefs, and the actions and inactions surrounding those beliefs and perceptions based on what I consider an unsound standard. These beliefs and perceptions, when they are unfounded, can have a real-world negative effect on the lives of victims and can influnece public debate and policy, and inclusion in the article is absolutely appropriate. Marteau (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You are still not responding to my point. You are going on about something else.  The scope is what it is, right now.  It is being discussed above. Jytdog (talk)
 * The scope, as should be eminently clear from the title of the article is "Violence against men"... what part of that don't you understand? Notice it doesn't say "Violence against men because they are men". Shakespeare Monkey (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Neither does violence against women. This article cannot be a smattering of anything tangentially related to men and violence.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm flabbergasted. A brief paragraph on domestic violence is only "tangentially related to men and violence"? Are you aware that violence against women includes content on breast ironing and witchcraft? How would you react if someone tried to remove those "smatterings" with the same arguments you're using here.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:38, 10 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 saying that. I am saying that including information about beliefs, misbeliefs, and perceptions surrounding the issue, and the consequences of such things in society and with victims is absolutely pertinent and should be included.  Violence has impacts beyond the actual act... it often leaves a mental devastation which can be every bit as damaging as the initial act, and the initial motives for those acts is, in many instances, completely irrelevant. The mere fact that a man may be beaten by a woman can result in impacts to his psyche and to his circumstances which are not related to why the woman beat him, but are related to the fact that he is a man and his attacker was a woman. Marteau (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So you want the article to actually be Misconceptions about violence against men? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I want the article to cover weighty and pertinent social issues pertaining to the topic "Violence against men". As with women, there are unique issues males may encouter by being vicims of violence and those issues deserve inclusion in this article. Any sociologist can tell you that what society believes about the issue affets how victims are treated and affects how they view themselves. These are important issues affecting victims of violence.  Marteau (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What "weighty and pertinent social issues "? per what sources? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And please, please please, please (to quote James Brown) get these "weighty and pertinent social issues" from decent sources.  No blogs or FOX News or the like. Carptrash (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This debate is about scope, not sources. Jytdog removed two paragraphs of stuff saying it was out of scope; it's above. Marteau (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * scope is determined by sources. We can discuss which sources most accurately represent a school of thought, but the school of thought has to be first identified by the sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've been looking for any basis in PAG for determining the scope of a given article, and have never found it. As far as I can tell the scope of a given article is a matter of first the creator's judgement, and then may change based on consensus.  There is a little bit in WP:PAGEDECIDE about whether there is really space for a given topic in WP, and yes, per OR and VERIFY there must be reliable sources discussing it, but outside of that, I have seen no guidance on determining scope.  Can you please point out where in OR this is discussed?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:09, 9 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)
 * I'm sorry, but sources have been provided. What's missing here is a clear motivation why gender-specific statistics relating to homicide (a well-known form of violence) from the Bureau of Justice Statistics isn't "the money" here. I see talk of "a school of thought", and whatnot, but this article is not more focused on academic terminology than violence against women. Or French cuisine. Or Koreans in Japan. Or any other sum-of-parts sub-topic article.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss content, not opinions
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)
 * People have been asked repeatedly to provide sources for why "why gender-specific homicide statistics from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics" would belong here other than Wikipedians deciding they do, WP:OR / WP:COATRACK . You cannot use material even of the highest quality in a context that it was not published in. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * TRPoD is correct. Just reporting stuff is WP:SYNTH.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Evergreen, "just reporting" is done in tons of articles. It is the exact opposite of WP:SYNTH. Noting straight facts without drawing conclusions from them is not considered a problem unless there are specific concerns about a POV. Except no POV has been identified. It can become a violation of WP:COATRACK (like much of cleavage (breasts)). But the complaint about coatracking is still completely dependent on the issue about scope, and that hinges on getting personal permission from you and others who have argued for a narrow scope. Which is exactly the kind of personal opinion that I believe is commanding too much of the debate here.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the discussion about scope is the baseline discussion, and is ongoing above. Please join there. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I think the burden falls on you to explain why statistics from reputable sources on gender-specific violence against men doesn't belong in a wikipedia article entitled "Violence against men". Shakespeare Monkey (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It's policy, not optional.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the problem is. WP:OR says "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." 1. BJS is a reliable source. 2. The homicide stats are pure facts, with no analysis or synthesis. The statement "when men kill, they kill men at far greater rates than when they kill women. And when women kill, they also kill men at far greater rates than when they kill women" isn't an analysis or synth of BJS data. It's stating a fact, direct from BJS data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellznrg (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * right, you are assuming that the scope of this article is something like "comparing violence against men to violence against women". at this point in time, that is not how the scope is defined.  the scope is "violence that is aimed at men and caused at least in part by their being men."  your including that content in this article is SYN, as the source says nothing about that. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This can be reworded, "men commit most acts of homicide, and they disproportionately kill other men" and sourced to BJS. USchick (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:SYNTH is completely irrelevant here since there has been no attempt to draw conclusions from any sources. The complaint is that the scope itself would be some form of synthesis. User:Jytdog, your argument is obviously circular. You're demanding that we have to motivate why content is within the scope of the article, but the scope of the article can't be defined because you are questioning it.
 * RedPen, you're doing pretty much the same kind of dance even while specifying sources. Homicide statistics are deemed irrelevant because it is out of context. Except homicide is obviously is a form of violence and the statistics are focused on gender. You need to explain what the appropriate context is besides referring to personal doubts about the scope.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OR: " Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below." The demographic break downs are NOT in the context of a discussion that "this is violence against men" .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So you mean that homicide isn't a form of violence? Or do you mean that "violence against men" can only be described as an academic theory?
 * Peter Isotalo 17:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean that we cannot an article that says "a man was shot" and say "that belongs here as evidence of violence against men." the context of the article about the man being shot would need to be talking about the shooting in the context of violence against men otherwise we are inappropriately placing content out of context of the original author in violation of WP:OR / WP:COATRACK. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But we're talking about gender-specific homicide statistics here. From a trusted source, even. That's a pretty good example of macrodata. It's the antithesis of "man killed in shooting"-statements. How is this in any way out of context?
 * Peter Isotalo 19:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Plucking macrodata out to say "this is violence against men" when the sources are not analyzing it in that context is just the same issue. The context of the source (every source) must be under the rubric of "violence against men" otherwise we would be using it inappropriately. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But there really is no doubt whatsoever that homicide is a form of violence. Your posts are by now purely argumentative. There obviously isn't a guideline that says "sources that don't discuss statements under a topic identical to the article title can't be used". If we applied the same standard to violence against women, content from the following sections would have to be removed (refs that don't discuss "violence against women" as a "rubric":
 * "Impact on society"
 * under "Type", almost no sources that discuss rape mention "violence against women", including references to Bible and the Hadith
 * most of "Human trafficking and forced prostitution"
 * "Mistreatment of widows"; no mention in most refs
 * "Accused of witchcraft"; no mention in most refs
 * "Sport-related violence by male college athletes"; no mention
 * "Response to violence by male college athletes"; no mention
 * "Relation with marriage laws"; no mention in half the refst
 * "Sexual harrassment"; this
 * And my point is not that this should be removed as well, because that would be absurdly myopic. The problem is that demands applied to this article keep descending into pure cherry-picking combined with finicky semantics. Referring to a statistical report, with commentary, from a government agency specialized in statistics as "plucking" borders on the obstructive.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:29, 16 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)
 * sources please? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Since sources and references are being talked about,
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).
 * That doesn't appear to be RS and should be removed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 01:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Capital punishment
98% of people on death row are men. Secondary sources: p 409 , 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." in 1992, in 2004, 98% is consistent. What do we want to say about that? USchick (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * right, you are assuming that the scope of this article is something like "comparing violence against men to violence against women". at this point in time, that is not how the scope is defined. the scope is "violence that is aimed at men and caused at least in part by their being men." your including that content in this article is SYN, as the source says nothing about that. this is the same thing i wrote above. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming anything, I'm asking how this information should be treated. Reliable sources discuss capital punishment as "violence" . This particular source talks about international capital punishment, and there are many other sources. In the US, 98% is directed at men. In China 93% . I'm asking how we want to treat this topic? USchick (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * how it should be treated is : not here. none of that is being presented in the context of "violence against men" and we cannot pluck it out of its original context and twerk it to fit this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  06:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no appropriate context for a statement about the percentage of men on death row (in the US). At least not right now.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a study about a gender bias in death penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/studies-gender-bias-death-sentencing). However, I am not sure if that should be part of this article because it is sanctioned by governments, therefore, I am not sure if is "violance". The death penalty (which I strongly opose) is an ethical and moral problem on its own rights.Lucentcalendar (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * States, and state agencies, often deal in and sometimes specialize in violence. Whether an act is legal or illegal has no bearing on whether it is violent or not, as opposed to other words such as "kidnapping" which is the illegal movement of a person against their will... we would not typically say the police "kidnapped" someone by hauling them off kicking and screaming to jail, but we could say they legally used "violence" in capturing them to begin with, and later perhaps, used violence (physical force intened to kill or harm someone) to execute them. Marteau (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

School of thought
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)
 * If we discuss crime and gender, feminist criminology has a lot to say. Main authors on the theory stuff include Raewyn Connell, James Messerschmidt, Meda Chesney-Lind, Nicki Jones, and others. Michael Kimmel's work straddles crime and gender as well, especially his rebuttals on the interpersonal violence stuff.  We'd probably also need to talk about Murray Straus and the conflict tactics scale. Interpretations of his work and that scale are controversial and would need to be added with caution. Other "schools of thought" that come to mind are power control theory and self-control theory of crime, but those typically address why men perpetrate more than they their victims. I got some citations on boys as child sexual abuse victims too.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 19:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How exactly have you managed to define that this article is about a "school of thought" if you can't cite sourced that describe it as such?
 * Peter Isotalo 17:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I took USchick's question to be more about what theories address this topic.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 18:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this
the sort of thing that we want to add?
 * Numbers 31:17-18 ( King James Version)    17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.  18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

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)
 * we have enough to deal with, with real world stuff, without bringing mythology into it. Also, that is a primary source is there ever was one; let's stick to secondary sources that discuss data about things that have definitely happened.Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is probably a source that has been read by and thus influenced more people than almost any other. It reveals, if nothing else, that singling out the males for destruction is not a new idea.Carptrash (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Still, very much primary and not appropriate without a third party commentator specifically linking it to violence against men. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * holy. fucking. shit. i am out of here. what part of "it is a primary source" do you not understand? shall we also add content from National Enquirer since millions of people read it? and on what fucking planet do you think it makes sense to drop religion into this already loaded topic, much less fucking cite the fucking bible itself, from one of its most spectacularly mythological passages, so that we can also get into the Huge Fucking Waste of Time Discussion about Whether The Bible is Literally True.  Fucking. Insane.  This article is completely fucked if this is going to be the level of scholarship here and the basement-of-the-outhouse level of sourcing that will be brought and even fucking argued for. Unwatching and will not come back here.  Ever. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC) (strike, too hot. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC))
 * Yeah okay. So it's not peer reviewed.  God wrote it.  He has no peers.Carptrash (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * uh, yeah. Can we be serious now? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Religion (or as you put it, "mythology") is very much "real world stuff" when people act on it. Whether or not this passage had it's origin in truth or as fiction is irrelevant... what matters is, have people acted on those writings. But as said by others, as only a primary source has been forwarded, inclusion at this time is not indicated. Marteau (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Need secondary sources that talk about it. Can't SYNTH it on our own.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 03:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * While it's definitely interesting it can't be included in the article without a secondary source analysis. That said there are the same problems in Violence against women, but my view is that we try to amend that as well. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 08:27, 14 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)
 * Why not? WP:RS is one of Wikipedias central policies, thats why not. The interpretation is not saying it is in the bible, but rather that it is relevant to the subject at hand. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 21:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Stating that something is stated in a source does not need a secondary source.
 * If you link to WP:TLDR and call it a "central policy", please make sure that you have read and understood it.(Everything else would be utter bullshit)
 * Regarding the topic, read at least this part.
 * "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they (Primary Sources) must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."
 * Stating that the bible has a passage in it which states "Now therefore kill every male..." does not need a secondary source.
 * Putting it into an article which talks about "violence against men" does not need a secondary source, except if you think that "male" is not equal to "men" or "kill" is not a subset of "violence".
 * So. Why not?
 * p.s.: Like really! People! Think about it! There are a bunch of editors like you, who don't get the point of this rule and revert/block content because of this FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding. I assume most of you come from a natural sciences field (e.g. physics, biology), which does not have proofs (just evidence) and need peer review and/or reproduction of data, but the existence of a passage in a book can be PROVEN by the book itself. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Scope and "Disparate Impact"
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)
 * I will back your returning bits of sourced material ("bits" meaning a little at a time, since large scale changes in an article such as this are rarely constructive) IF you register. I am tired of dealing with fly-by-night one-topic crusaders. Carptrash (talk) 18:50, 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.

PottedGold (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)