Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:30, 2 March 2015

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Rename, 8 March 2013, see discussion. Delete, 15 October 2011, see discussion. Delete, 14 September 2006, see discussion.

This page was nominated at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion on 14 May 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 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.

1. Young, Cathy (September 17, 2014). "The CDC's Rape Numbers Are Misleading". Time. Retrieved March 1, 2015.

That Daily Mail stuff probably should go too, but this is my start. Carptrash (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Carptrash: 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)

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 07:46, 2 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)

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.

References

1. Maekawa, Kazuya (1980). Animal and human castration in Sumer, Part II: Human castration in the Ur III period. Zinbun , pp. 1–56.
2. Maekawa, Kazuya (1980). Female Weavers and Their Children in Lagash – Presargonic and Ur III. Acta Sumerologica 2:81–125.
3. "Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes  :->2006->Ch0794->Section 0235  : Online Sunshine". state.fl.us. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 25 (help)
4. "BBC News - 'Menace' jailed over child rape and abduction attempt". bbc.co.uk.
5. "Russia introduces chemical castration for pedophiles". RT. 4 October 2011.

Content above is poor. Sources are way too specific (Sumer? wtf) as opposed to general - something like (Alexandra M. Kokoli "Castration" pp 117-18 in Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, ed Jodi O'Brien. SAGE Publications, Inc. 2009. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412964517/ Print ISBN: 9781412909167 | Online ISBN: 9781412964517.).... they are more like throwing darts at the wall.

More importantly, I don't see the case here for this being related to violence against men:

• 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)

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 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 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)