Talk:Violence against men/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Implementing RFC closure

Following S Marshall's closure of the RfC above (for which, many thanks), we should probably figure out how to modify the article based on the closure. As far as I understood (please correct me if I'm misinterpreting, S Marshall), the closure 1) does not find consensus for a removal of all circumcision content (this discussion doesn't quite reach a consensus) 2) finds that forced circumcision of adults especially in Sub-Saharan Africa is reasonable to discuss in the article, and 3) circumcision of infants should not be described as violence against men.

Based on this closure, I propose we keep the current first para of § Forced circumcision as-is:

Forced circumcision is the circumcision of men and children against their will. Forced circumcisions have occurred in a wide range of situations, most notably in the compulsory conversion of non-Muslims to Islam and more recently especially in Kenya. In South Africa, custom allows uncircumcised Xhosa-speaking men past the age of circumcision (i.e., 25 years or older) to be overpowered by other men and forcibly circumcised. While some scholars view forced adult male circumcision as (gendered) sexual violence, the International Criminal Court ruled in 2011 that such acts were not "sexual violence," but rather fell under the label of "other inhumane acts".

References

As for the second paragraph I'd propose cutting it down to something like the following, which could be appended to the end of the first para if it seems too short to stand alone:

While non-religious routine circumcision has been made illegal in some countries, religious circumcision of minors is legal in every polity. These practices are a subject of ethical debate.

References

The goal here would be to briefly cover both the existence of the ethical debate identified in the closure, while noting that religious circumcision of minors indeed remains legal everywhere.

As for the location of this text, I'd prefer to keep it as a distinct section: while it certainly touches on sexuality, some of the RS explicitly state it's not "sexual violence". Similarly, it appears to not be universally war-related. If a section on religious violence was to be written, there's probably an argument to be made to include it there, but having this as the only content of such a section seems not quite right. If kept as a separate section, I trust there's not objection to the {{main}}.

How does this strike others as a first step? Ljleppan (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't rigorously dug through the history, but I believe the circumcision content was added within the past few months and has been under debate ever since. Per WP:NOCON, shouldn't it be removed? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I was under the opposite impression, but I haven't done a great survey of the history either. I'll take a look. Ljleppan (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

A quick check shows it being added in 2016 with this edit. As far as I can determine, the timeline is 1) added in 2016 2) removed a month or two ago, 3) removal discussed on talk 4) no clear consensus for removal, reinstated 5) the RFC above to more formally gauge consensus 6) the present. Ljleppan (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like it was removed in August 2022 and that removal has been disputed ever since. I agree the content should stay per WP:NOCON. Hopefully we can refocus the content on wartime forced circumcision per the closer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• It is widely believed, but not necessarily always true, that WP:NOCON crystallizes disputed content in its current form. NOCON is policy, but so is verifiability, which says here that the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. In other words, where there isn't consensus, policies conflict. In this case I would suggest a fudge. The disputed information could be presented more briefly and given less prominence, as for example a paragraph without its own heading.—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  I have no problem moving the content to another section in principle, but none of the other sections really seem like great fits. Certainly, that is an artifact of the article writing process at large: after all, if one of them was a great fit, someone would presumably have already moved it a long time ago. I wouldn't object to a larger restructuring of the content or if someone has a good idea of what that better structure would be, but in the interim I hope we can rather quickly do some initial edits to the prose itself (potentially along the lines I suggested above). Ljleppan (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  S Marshall, I think you've gotten it massively wrong here. A total absence of verifiability runs in absolute contradiction of the most fundamental and basic requirement for material to be included in Wikipedia. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• This is all original research we are discussing here. You all ignore the fact that there are no reliable sources backing the claim and thus no grounds for inclusion. If unverified claims and original research are the order of the day, then Wikipedia is pretty much worthless. No reliable sources have been provided, but we're just going to include a whole heap of original research. And you guys probably wonder why Wikipedia struggles to attract editors these days. All this original research and opinion being included here has really made me question the value of contributing to Wikipedia. Best of luck with the article, no doubt it will be a load of unverifiable opinion at this rate - a list of violent acts involving men, things that Wikipedia editors have decided are gendered violence in their opinions, to hell with what reliable sources actually say - that is a farce. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• This proposal is excellent; trims away the cruft, but keeps relevant stuff. I'd propose rewording the first sentence to:

Forced circumcision is the circumcision of men against their will, and of children without parental consent.

Or something along those lines. As an uninvolved editor, who never edited this page nor participated in the RfC above, but just came across it as a reader, I found this sentence confusing. I strongly oppose removal of the section, obviously, given the lack of consensus and the fact that comprehensive coverage of the topic IMO necessitates inclusion.

I also support the cut-down second paragraph as-proposed; quite a lot of readers likely expect the article to include routine circumcision as gender-based violence, and your proposal makes it clear most medical organizations do not include it. Here again, the article wouldn't be comprehensive without this. Going deeper into the specifics of the debate would be undue. DFlhb (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Ethical questions about circumcision ≠ circumcision as mutilation

A few editors have attempted to state that it's a mainstream view within the medical community that circumcised penises are "mutilated" — a term that implies sexual dysfunction. This seems WP: Undue. It's true that there's substantive ethical controversy over circumcision. But that's different than stating that circumcised penises are mutilated. The vast majority of reliable sources term the notion an example of WP: Fringe. Users can view the ethics of circumcision and circumcision articles for controversies specifically related to the topic. KlayCax (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. I think a heading of some type is still required, since the forced circumcisions being discussed are not necessarily (at least always) sexual violence, as evidenced by the RS cited. Perhaps a subhead? That would also give us a place to tack on a {{main}} and {{see also}}.

The post-RfC discussion above also seemed to broadly support including a short blurb on other circumcision to explain to the reader that those types of acts are not included in what is discussed here. See the second (two-sentence) block-quote under § Implementing RFC closure. Optimally, we'd end that blurb with something like ... but are not considered forced circumcision by most medical practitioners, but I'm not sure what to cite that to. If you have any suggestions, or a good citation for that last bit, that would be great. Ljleppan (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see this until now @Ljleppan:.

"but are not considered forced circumcision by most medical practitioners" Do we have a quote to cite on this? What would the definition of "forced circumcision" in this be? Usually parents are referred as assenting to routine circumcision rather than consenting to circumcision. Thus, while not necessarily forced, the sentence is semi-problematic.

It's just that other factors than consent are believed to outweigh this loss of autonomy. KlayCax (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

More unverifiable claims about circumcision

Hi, another editor is trying to insert unverifiable claims that circumcision is "violence against men". I went through the entire citation, nowhere does it describe circumcision as violence against me, it is therefor an unverified claim. I've asked them to bring to talk, one can only hope. Here's the cite provided that does not verify the claim if anyone else wants to check: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22114254/ Tambor de Tocino (talk) 07:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I used that citation as a way of specifically explaining and verifying how involuntary circumcision in children and infants can manifest emotional and psychological issues in men who did not want it performed on them and whom were not able to consent to it themselves; which was a part of the paragraph I was attempting to add. My updated citation in support of that is a medical journal from a .gov site as well.

I reverted things because another user (Dr vulpes) gave me the go-ahead on the IP user 50.50.253.201 when I wasnt logged in, so long as I found a better source, which I believed I did. I was using it to cite my point regarding psychological harm as stated above.

In the edit history I explained my reasoning behind adding the paragraph I wrote and why I thought it would make sense here as an example of violence against men with the fact that there is a page on the side bar here specifically linking to the page Forced Circumcision, a page which mentions routine infant circumcision as an example of nonconsensual forced circumcision. Forced circumcision is listed on the sidebar here as an example of violence against men. RadioHobbyist (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That cite does not describe circumcision as violence against men. The current claims are unverified, and that’s bad enough. 114.198.98.163 (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It still describes what I was citing it for, I was citing it in order to backup what I was talking about regarding the emotional harms of something that in other contexts here had been described as an act of violence against men. It's incredibly hard too to find something on this matter that actively describes it as being Violence Against Men when RIC is so incredibly normalized. RadioHobbyist (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This source, a journal of medical ethics from Yale (One of the best universities in the US for context), doesnt call it "violence against men" specifically but it still calls RIC violence on multiple occasions as well as going as far as to call it a violation of human rights; and in this context it's something that entirely affects people that're born male. It cites it's own sources as well. I don't think I'm educated enough on some of the topics it brings up that I think I disagree with but it still seems like it could be a valid source for the point I was making. And with that, yes there was a circumcision talk in here before but that doesnt mean we should barely mention it at all if we want to improve this page and make it truly informative on all the matters that affect men. May I add this as a citation and restore my edit? I'm not trying to cause an edit war. As I said the only reason I reverted things a third time was because I found a new source after Dr. Vulpes' go ahead as I said before. RadioHobbyist (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

"doesnt call it "violence against men"" - then it doesn't verify the claim. end of story. Please see WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE for relevant guidelines. There's already far too many claims in this article that are not backed by any reliable sources, I'll fight any further additions of unverifiable claims tooth and nail (in a polite and civil manner, of course) Ideally you should read academic papers on the subject and reflect those, not form an opinion and then scour the internet hoping to find a single source to back your opinion. This is the way Wikipedia is meant to work. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

If there are so many problems in this article cant you go and edit them to try and find better sources then? We're both trying to improve it and you clearly have some grievances with the structure of this article, it's always a good thing to go back and find better sources for previous things. I can understand what you are saying after reading those links but as I said it's fairly hard finding articles that specifically say "Violence Against Men" especially in regards to this specific topic, when that to some degree is a bit of a taboo phrase it feels like. I wasnt just forming an opinion and scouring the internet hoping to verify it though, honestly. I was posting something I'd seen mentioned in other parts of the page, and related pages, in an effort to constructively add to the article and added a citation for such, before attempting to improve my citation regarding psychological harm at the request of another user. This will be my last message on this talk thread. Pardon if my tone has come off in a rude way at any point, that was not my intention. RadioHobbyist (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is, circumcision is not violence against men, that's why no citations support the claim. Circumcision is not described as violence against men in mainstream academia, not even a single source exists oto back that claim and thus it doesn't belong in the article, end of story. My advice would be to read some studies by subject matter experts and reflect what you read, rather than come to a conclusion and try to find sources that back your opinion. You've clearly come to a conclusion before reading about the subject. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The added content did not state it was violence against men in wikivoice, just that some opponents of circumcision have been attempting to get it recognised as violence against boys. I do not see anything wrong with the edit.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

And so it is has nothing to do with the topic of this article. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Or do we just completely ignore WP:OR, WP:VERIFY and WP:RELIABLE. I thought these were fundamentals of Wikipedia, but perhaps I was wrong? Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Let me clarify the not a single source has been produced to date that describes circumcision as violence against men, not one. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

"we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." WP:REPUTABLE A significant number of claims in this article are clearly and completely failing this measure. If editors and admins completely ignore the basic tenants of Wikipedia then it seems rather pointless trying to contribute. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about violence against men, anything being claimed as such in the article must be backed by reliable sources. Forming an opinion that something is violence against men then drawing on a heap of sources, none of which make the specific claim and then drawing your own conclusion is called "original research" you'd get a fail for it at uni, and it is not permitted on Wikipedia either, see WP:OR for more detail. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Biased interpretation

"sexual violence against men has been ignored in favor of a focus on sexual violence against women and children. One explanation for this difference in focus is the physical power that men hold over women, making people more likely to condemn violence with this gender configuration"

Calling this an explanation is biased and open to interpretation as "a justification". I'd suggest rephrasing as "One influence on this difference in focus is the physical power advantage that most men hold over most women, making people more likely to expect violence with this gender configuration". 31.20.106.40 (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@31.20.106.40 Yeah, that study is strange, too.

In the abstract it says that the difference in attention is likely to be a matter of "gender knowledge" rather than a "stereotype" despite pushing on the stereotype that men are stronger than women. Panamitsu (talk) 07:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentational phrasing of research

"In many cases, women kill men due to being victims of intimate partner violence, however this research was conducted on women on death row, a sample size of approximately 97 during the last 100 years."

"In many cases, women kill men due to being victims of intimate partner violence" is phrased as if certain creating the impression that there's more than one study to back it up, then the next sentence adds that it's only based on one study with a very small sample size. 31.20.106.40 (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't have much issue with delaying contextualization about research size by 12 words. If anything I think the "however" as editorialization. Perhaps it's the best research we've got... who is to say. I do disagree with "being victims of" and potentially the "due" (unless the paper demostrates causality). I'd almost prefer "women who kill men have experienced IPV from the people they kill". Also maybe the language should be murder if this is talking about death row... Talpedia 10:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, the study also doesn't mention if the IPV was bidirectional which is quite odd Panamitsu (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Biased opinion.

"Men are over-represented as both victims and perpetrators of violence."

Men are not over-represented as victims. This comes across as quite demeaning, not to mention undermining towards male victims of violence. MysteryMan94 (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@MysteryMan94 It is not an opinion. It is a sourced fact. Wikipedia uses references; it is not Wikipedia's place to create information based on the feelings of its editors. Panamitsu (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah sourced from a biased sourced which itself is an opinion. It's misinformation as men are not over represented in society as victims. MysteryMan94 (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The source in question uses reliable statistics. I've added another source made by the US government which states that men are over-represented as victims of violent crimes.

Please don't use emotion on Wikipedia. You're spreading misinformation yourself as there are no sources which support your claim. If there are, please cite them. Panamitsu (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I am rather bemused as to why such an obviously correct statement is being misunderstood. Of course, men are both the main perpetrators and victims of violence. Men make up a large majority of the military in all countries. When wars happen everybody suffers but most of the people doing the shooting, and most of the people being shot at, are men. This is also true for other violent organisations and also individual violent acts. Who gets in fights in bars? It's not always men but its mostly men fighting other men. We all know this. Why are we arguing about something this obvious? DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

It's the way thats it's phrased though. Using the term "over-represented" next to the word "victims". I know it's an obvious fact that men make up most of the satistic in terms of victims, but saying the term "over-represented" next to "victims" sounds a little demeaning. MysteryMan94 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand what "over-represented" means? It just means that men are a greater proportion of the victims of violence than they are in the general population. That's all. There is absolutely nothing demeaning about it. It is a simple statement about the statistics expressed in an entirely neutral way. I don't understand why you think there is any implicit judgement in this simple statement. That said, I also don't understand why you keep on trying to delete answers to the questions that you yourself have asked here. DanielRigal (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, it's just I've seen the term being used in a negative way over Social Media. MysteryMan94 (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

This is why we reflect reliable secondary sources, not personal opinions. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe your assertion that you've seen the term used in any other way. Uchiha Itachi 25 (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Stanford magazine about women having physical advantages over men

I.e. "Women excel in several measures of verbal ability — pretty much all of them, except for verbal analogies. Women’s reading comprehension and writing ability consistently exceed that of men, on average. They out­perform men in tests of [...] perceptual speed. They’re more adept at retrieving information from long-term memory." from https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different/

The conclusion of the above article is "The role of culture is not zero. The role of biology is not zero."

There's many topics on this page that seem like they would be influenced by these biological differences in brain ability, namely forms of violence targeting a person's brain (i.e. psychological violence).

A person with bad intentions that can think quicker, remember what happened more easily and has a verbal advantage in "pretty much all" ways will have an easier time in fabricating and then maintaining manipulation than a person with bad intentions but without these advantages would have as the latter's manipulation would more like be incongruent and more clearly fabricated.

This wikipedia page mentions "A possible influence for this difference in focus is the physical power that men hold over women, making people more likely to condemn violence with this gender configuration.".

This phrasing is incompatible with the above Stanford article in the sense that "physical power" is too ambiguous. Men have a muscular advantage over women if I understand correctly, but doesn't the Stanford article claim that women have a brain advantage over men?

Both violence in which muscles are the weapon and the target and violence in which brains are the weapon and the target are physical violence in every way that can be physically debilitating and can even physically break normal functioning (such as psychosis after torture that is breaking normal chemical functioning). 31.20.106.40 (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not a forum to conduct original research. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't Stanford medicine magazine a reliable source? 31.20.106.40 (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers academic papers (though you can probably find the corresponding paper given that this a scientific journal). Wikipedia tends to prefer very short, or preferrably non existent chains of logic from a paper / fact to the article. E.g. if you found an article saying "women are better at using weapons than men on average" then that would be useful, rather than the chain "women can perceive things faster" "therefore they are better with weapons" "therefore they are better at fighting". This is what people sometimes mean by original research. It is often the case that a chain of logic will also appear in papers with experiments, so such chains of thoughts can be very useful in understanding literature and finding relevant material.

...is a term...

I really don't like when articles which are about actual issues starts from definition "is a term...". The article can be started from such definition if the article is about the term. But the whole article is not about the term "violence against men" but about violence against men.--Reprarina (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. To me, "is a term" suggests that the article would be a bit like a dictionary discussing the etymology and usage of a word. —Panamitsu (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Relative prevalence of domestic violence against men compared to women

My change of the text: "While females do assault males, males are far more frequently perpetrators and are significantly more likely to injure, harm or kill their partners." to "The relative prevalence of domestic violence against men compared to women is disputed, with some research indicating that more men than women are victims and some research indicating the opposite." and the addition of a citation with a finding that men are more likely to be victims was reverted.

The lone citation that remains after the revert is not sufficient to support such a strong conclusion as it's in reference to a single survey and is contradicted by other similar surveys. The sentence should either be removed or reworded to incorporate research with opposing findings, or additional citations should at least be added. 81.234.111.171 (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I will remove the sentence for now. It arguably doesn't add much to the article, and I think it's misleading to leave it in its current form. 81.234.111.171 (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)