Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination)

Violence against men

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Violence against men
• Articles for deletion/Violence against men (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Violence against men (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Violence against men (5th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Violence against men and women

Violence against men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been deleted twice already and renamed once, so I think it's worth discussing whether or not we want to keep this latest incarnation. My personal opinion is that the article is merely synthesis of various statistics, and does not reflect a coherent topic of coverage sufficiently distinct from violence. In theory, you could create any number of articles of the type "Violence against X", for example, Violence against 20–30 year olds, but in most cases, the scope is not going to be sufficiently distinct from violence. The reason we have a Violence against women article is because there is a large body of theory and research devoted to this as a distinct phenomenon. Same with Child abuse. In other words, there are many reliable sources devoted exclusively to those subjects and the subjects are distinct encyclopedic topics. As the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by and against men, there is no need for a separate article devoted to that (just as there is no need for articles devoted to Violence against adults or Violence during war). Kaldari (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

*Comment The article that was previously redirected is here [1]. That article was mostly about domestic violence and it was redirected to Domestic violence against men. We have articles like Violence against women in Guatemala and Domestic violence in Peru with many more for each individual country. But not for Men? Really? The article that was redirected was not the same article. Please look at content. The article is sourced with research articles published in peer reviewed journals, so this is clearly a topic of interest for research scientists.USchick (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Before this article was recreated, it was discussed at Talk:Domestic violence against men#Violence against men. A WP:Permalink for that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Educational and encyclopedic. Good introduction to sub articles referenced in links in the article. Nice use of structure and organization to frame key topic points. Could use expansion with additional secondary sources, particularly with an emphasis on scholarly and academic source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons given by Kaldari, & for the same reasons given in the first two deletion debates. Just because an article is encyclopedic & has lots of citations doesn't make it notable (plus, the last section in the article has nothing to do with violence against men). I'm not quite sure why the third debate had so many more comments than the first two — reeks a bit of canvassing to me. Domestic violence against men already exists, no need to have this second page — and the fact that the talk page on that article has become a forum for weird misogyny makes me quite suspicious of the motives behind creating this one. Not sure why we need to have this same conversation repeatedly. CircleAdrian (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Could you please cite the "weird misogyny" you're referring to? I'm not seeing it on that talk page, and most of the discussion appears to be many years old anyway. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per Cirt. NRVE says that a topic should not be deleted on grounds of notability if it is likely that adequate coverage exists. I am under the impression that there is so much literature on violence that the no one could read all of it. In view of volume of literature on violence, the breadth of the sub topic, and the fact that the distinction between men and women is an obvious one, I infer that it is likely further coverage exists. The expression "violence against men" itself seems to appear in quite a lot of sources in GBooks, GScholar and so forth. In any event, I am inclined to view the topic as inherently notable. I don't think that the analogy with an article on violence against persons aged 20 to 30 is valid, because dividing a topic into men and women, or into adults and children, is obvious, whereas the age range suggested appears arbitrary, there being, as far as I am aware, not much difference, in terms of biology or social position, between persons aged 29 and 31. I am not convinced by the "vast majority" argument either. I am not convinced, for example, that a vast majority of 78% of homicide victims is vast enough (I don't know if this figure is applicable to other forms of violence). If that number was 99%, I might think differently. In any event, I can think of sub topics that are clearly distinct from their parent topics despite forming the vast majority of their parent topics, such as the distinction between civil and criminal law. Without prejudice to the questions of notability and forking, I think this is a plausible redirect to Violence, of which it is a sub-topic. Since neither original synthesis, nor non-notability, nor unnecessary forking are, as far as I am aware, grounds for revision deletion, they are not grounds for the deletion of a plausible redirect either, so the page is not eligible for deletion on those grounds (WP:R). I think I should also point out that the correct procedure for original research is to transwiki it to Wikiversity using the import process, followed, where appropriate, by deletion under CSD A5, rather than sending it to AfD. I think that Violence against adults, mentioned in the nomination, should be redirected to Violence (without prejudice to future expansion). I don't think it is an obviously implausible topic, as there is, for example, an offence of allowing or causing the death of a vulnerable adult in England. Even the topic of violence during war isn't obviously out of the question since I am under the impression that it is quite possible to have a war without violence. In fact, at one point, it was extremely common for armies, instead of fighting each other, to engage in manouveres that I think have been described as a form of "shadow boxing" designed to bankrupt the other sides treasury. I also take the view that topics should normally be redirected to their parent topic rather than a sub-topic. A redirect to an article on domestic violence seems to imply that is the only or primary form of violence against men. James500 (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep I try to base my decisions on what minimizes harm to the encyclopedia, while maximizing benefit. In this instance, I see very little, if any, harm in letting this article remain. On the other hand, removal of the "Violence Against Men" while retaining "Violence Against Women" could be percieved (rightly or wrongly) as discriminatory and agenda-driven to an outside observer. It is not enough to act with integrity and without bias... one must also APPEAR to act with integrity. Particularly with a project which depends on outside voluntary funding, appearances matter, and there is alredy plenty of fodder for the "Wikipedia is biased" crowd, in the media and elsewhere, without dishing more up to them on a silver platter... that this AfD was initiated by the creator of Wikiproject Feminism would be icing on the cake we'd be serving up to some critics of the encyclopedia. In sum, the potential downsides in this instance (potential damage to the reputation of the encylopedia), outweigh the minmial upsides and benefit of removing a perhaps borderline article. Marteau (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you please explain how the Feminism Wikiproject is relevent to this? Because I can't follow your argument at all. Haminoon (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed my statement, believe it was perfectly clear, and that it conveyed what I wanted to convey. I am sorry you are having an issue with it. Marteau (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I think what's obvious here is that in order to remain a standalone article, Violence against men needs to have a body of information that is both distinct from the Domestic article, and the violence in general article, and WP:N on its own. I don't think that's currently met. Simply put, and anecdotally, I don't think there's enough independent incidents of violence against men /because/ they are men. At least not yet, or not recorded with data and news coverage. Maybe that's because of the way gender differences exist in our society, and such violence DOES occur. But Wikipedia articles need sources, and they need independent notability, I don't think that's met here. It doesn't have enough standalone info to be worthy of its own page. I would be in support of a subsection of Domestic Violence against men, though I know that seems strange/badly categorized. It's the best solution I can come up with. --Shibbolethink (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am not convinced either article has to be confined to violence done to men or women because they are respectively male or female. The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women defines violence against women as including both violence that affects women because they are women and violence that affects women disproportionately (emphasis added). So, by that logic, presumably violence against men includes violence that affects men disproportionately, whether or not it is done because they are men. Moreover, I am not convinced that either article should not respectively include all violence that affects persons of the respective gender, since that is the respective literal meaning of both expressions. James500 (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - I think this is an excellent article that highlights several important topics which I have been unable to find elsewhere. It also uses excellent and verified links to prove the points it makes. I don't understand why we keep getting radical feminists trying to remove pages about male suffering ?? Is it because they can't handle them not being identified as the victims 24/7 ? It's a little weird, I thought we banned all the raving loony feminists ? --Westside12345 (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Is this your only account? It is strange for a user to say "we banned those nutters" in their first post. Who exactly is "we"? Haminoon (talk) 10:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is my only account but it was made public (just for the record that doesn't require an account on here to hear about it) that a lot of radical feminists were going around trying to add biased and inaccurate and often sexist material to articles. They were then banned from wikipedia. Again to clarify that information was made available on other websites. I assume you are aware there are other websites other than this one ? --Westside12345 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep To delete the Violence against men article while maintaining the Violence against women article would be fundamentally sexist, and such an action has no place in the Wikipedia project. Misandry and misogyny are two sides of the same coin. 70.109.187.181 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep- In my opinion, the sources in the article demonstrate that violence against men, because of their gender, is a thing that is studied in acedemic literature. The very well sourced section on wartime sexual abuse of men make this article more than just a "domestic violence against men" fork. The article would be improved if it omitted the last section, which is off-topic, and included more material on civilian men being murdered during war time, but I see the article's only a few days old and clearly has a lot of potential to improve. Reyk _YO! 19:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • And I found a potentially useful describing both mandatory conscription and sex-selective murder of civilians as violence against men: [2]. Reyk _YO! 14:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Is this supposed to be a joke, the assertion that violence against men is not sufficiently distinct from violence in general? Jay Vogler (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2015
• Keep UNLESS you are planning on deleting the violence against women page as well. The only reason to delete this page would be pure bigotry.

(UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calum Henderson (talk • contribs)

• '"Keep'" extreme feminism will end .... it will take the form of implosion as all neo nazi movements do ... there is no such thing as domestic violence as domestic is an adjective. ... adjectives cannot be laws ... there is either violence or no violence present ... the term domestic is political and used by politicians to get elected and also used by corporate conglomerates to advertise to women who account for spending over 70% disposable household income ...if Wikipedia is complicit in this then it must expect the same outcome as the extremists it would be supporting ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeescouser (talk • contribs) 21:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Umm, you're really losing me with that train of thought. The question here isn't what you think about feminism, the question is whether this topic is encyclopedic and notable under GNG. Carrite (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Coming from the same editor who closed the discussion on the previous AfD for this article, and who coincidentally is also the creator of Wikiproject Feminism, this smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. If the genders were reversed, would any of this discussion be happening? Seems to me like it would be a snowball keep with people reporting the filer to ANI. Which I wouldn't agree with either way, but. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Many of those advocating for deletion here seem to be claiming that the article is WP:SYNTH. Exactly what conclusions are stated in the article that are not directly supported by the citations? Also, this page serves a vital organizational role, as it's the main page for a significant . The number of articles in that category, alone, along with the variety of subject matter, ought to establish the notability of the subject. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• @Haminoon: It is hypocritical on your part to complain about the personal attacks of others, while liberally applying SPA tags. The only real purpose of such tagging is to discredit the opinions of others. Per WP:SPATG, my edits "within a broad topic" do not make me an SPA; and anyway as I am editing from an IP and do not have a Wikipedia account I am clearly not an SPA, or indeed any A at all. As for your edit summary, I see nothing in the policy which requires making mainspace edits to avoid the charge, anyway. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Note: The page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/violenceagainstwomen has been created by User:Calum Henderson, who has also put an AFD notice at the top of the article Violence against women. This strikes me as a more than a bit WP:POINTy, but I'm bringing it to folks' attention because it doesn't seem to be showing up on the AFD log for today (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 27). EastTN (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Note to closer - It looks like someone has posted this to an MRA board, which I guess was inevitable. Most of the previous 8 comments appear to be from anons or SPAs and should probably either be removed or ignored. Kaldari (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the above an ad-hominem attack? 208.53.116.168 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose which comments to ignore based on your own personal bias. We're all users of Wikipedia and all have an equal say, regardless of our backgrounds. None of these comments should be removed or ignored. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, is it really your argument here that, when considering the status of an article about hardships experienced by men, the opinions of activists who specifically advocate for the rights of men should be ignored, because of their advocacy? But feminist points of view should not be subject to the same treatment? I am not an MRA and have no idea what "board" you have in mind, but I don't understand why anyone would call for those views to be summarily dismissed. If you suspect WP:CANVASsing, that's another matter, but one that could do with some evidence.

Per the template header on the edit form: All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements. It is explicitly not policy to "remove or ignore" comments here, although the closer should indeed be aware that this is not a vote. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Note to Kaldari - I'm an infrequent chemistry editor who recently decided it was worth an account, not a men's-rights (or anyone's-rights) editor. I've responded to this proposal in the same way as I would respond to someone attempting to delete the Violence against women article because it's no different from violence in general. This is a joke. Jay Vogler (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if we assume that to be true, I fail to see why comments by some editors should be deemed worthless just because they subscribe to a movement opposing your ideology. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. --386-DX (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this has also been posted on 8chan's Gamergate board. This just went from bad to worse. --Bikemaster9 (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

And looking at the post timers, it's quite likely that it was posted over there by you. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Citing "a large body of theory and research devoted to this as a distinct phenomenon." doesn't mean that any other subject should be dismissed. Further "As the vast majority of violence is perpetrated by and against men," would seem to be an argument for keeping it rather than dismissing it as irrelevant. Obviously, if it's the most likely form of violence, it makes sense to keep and expand on the article. Moreover, as opposed to Violence Against Women, the lack of theory and research devoted to the most prevalent form of violence appears to be a gross oversight. I'm sure there are plenty of resources to pull from, in reality. The notion that violence against women is a "phenomenon" indicates that it isn't a very specific type of violence and that violence against men is not, as if violence towards women was unnatural but violence towards men is natural. I have to disagree with this mischaracterization and agree with the other proponents that this would be a form of discrimination and will appear incredibly biased. Yhufir (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - The fact that a topic is encyclopedic and has lots of references does indeed mean that it is notable in WP terms, per GNG. I suggest that Domestic violence against women/Violence against women and Domestic violence against men/Violence against men be brought into some sort of structural symmetry. But as for deletion, the only possible grounds here is that the topic is a fork and I feel that it is not — domestic violence being a subset of violence, which also includes such things as castration and prison rape. Carrite (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Since it is clear to me by the WP:Single purpose accounts weighing in on this discussion that editors (very likely men's rights editors, who, if they are IPs, also very likely have registered Wikipedia accounts) have been WP:Canvassed to this discussion, I have alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force to this debate. I am also tempted to alert WP:Feminism, but enough WP:Feminism editors watch the WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force talk page. Besides, someone else might alert WP:Feminism anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Update: An IP alerted WP:Feminism. Given the obvious inappropriate WP:Canvassing that has gone on regarding this deletion debate (despite my hope that this deletion debate would close quietly without such disruption), it is tainted, and editors might want to alert Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation of this matter, which I might very well do, if no one beats me to it first. I have also alerted WP:Med of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• If you are worried about WP:CANVASsing here and consider it a bad thing, why is your response to "alert" two other WikiProjects about it? (And why do you imagine that the Gamergate discretionary sanctions are relevant?) 76.64.13.4 (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It is fruitless arguing with me about this, unless you take me to be stupid. Any experienced Wikipedia editor who can recognize inappropriate WP:Canvassing knows that inappropriate WP:Canvassing has gone on in this case. For example, the inappropriate WP:Canvassing noted in this discussion, where men's rights editors tried to get me sanctioned. And in cases like these, it is common sense to notify the relevant WikiProjects or pages (or specific editors like Sonicyouth86 and Binksternet) that can, or will try to, do something about it. You know, balance things out. Much like SarekOfVulcan helped to balance things out when he closed this silly retaliation WP:AfD. And anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions knows what it has to do with men's rights topics, especially when editors involved with the Gamergate controversy article are voting "Keep" in this discussion. So, yes, at WP:Med, I noted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions. Do find an editor who is not stupid if you want to debate. Flyer22 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and editors should not overlook this WP:Canvassing admission. Flyer22 (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Single Purpose Accounts here are obvious, and any good closer would notice that and weigh what they have to say appropriately. You did more than "alert" the Gender Gap Task Force to it, you invited them here to "weigh in". That was more than "balance things out" as you phrase it. Presumably, your action will result in established editors taking you up on your invitation. Inviting participation is fine, but when the invitation is selective, as yours was, it becomes canvassing which is what you have engaged in. Two wrongs do not "balance" anything out, and combatting canvassing by canvassing is completely inappropriate and a violation of the guidelines. Combat canvassing by exposing it, not by engaging in it. Marteau (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The inappropriate WP:Canvassing goes deeper in this case, since it's not just a matter of obvious WP:Single purpose accounts weighing in. And there was nothing inappropriate about my WP:Canvassing; I notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, which is watched by feminists, men's rights editors, pro and anti-Gamergate editors (among other types of editors), and I notified WP:Med. Completely appropriate WP:Canvassing, as is clear by the WP:Canvassing guideline; it's a common misconception that all WP:Canvassing is disallowed. Stating "Surely, everyone (or almost everyone) here will be interested in weighing in on this fourth Violence against men deletion discussion.", as I did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, is not inappropriate WP:Canvassing. Neither is noting WP:Canvassing, as I did at WP:Med. Save your lessons on Wikipedia ways for someone who does not understand them. Flyer22 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not appreciate the snark, and I do not intend to "debate" you, but to call your behaviour into question. I don't understand why you apparently think your canvassing is appropriate, but that of others is not. I also don't understand how you figure that men's rights editors tried to get [you] sanctioned - I see a single editor complaining about harassment on your part, and then someone else jumping in with a link to off-site discussion of the incident report. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it's common for Redditors to observe Wikipedia drama from a distance; and if anyone expresses displeasure at how things are going, there is no real reason to believe there is any deliberate canvassing going on - it's just people speaking their minds. Reddit is, after all, fundamentally a discussion forum.

As for Gamergate, no, I do not know "what it has to do with men's rights topics" because it does not have anything to do with men's rights topics. Trying to Google for any evidence of Gamergate being a men's rights topic does not uncover MRAs claiming that it is. It does, however, uncover pundits trying to compare the representation of MRAs in popular media to that of gamers, as well as feminists trying to associate Gamergate with the MRM on very specious evidence. It is unsurprising that there would be some overlap in these audiences, due to feminist-critical (or even outright anti-feminist) sentiment; but the MRM is not simply anti-feminism. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't care what you appreciate. And except for the fact that Redditors watch Wikipedia and that there is overlap between Redditors and men's rights editors, your rebuttal is silliness. For example, my WP:Canvassing is appropriate for reasons outlined at the WP:Canvassing guideline. It outlines what is appropriate and inappropriate WP:Canvassing. Mine does not at all fall within the inappropriate WP:Canvassing context. Like I stated, "Do find an editor who is not stupid if you want to debate." Flyer22 (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You might also want to change up your editing style when editing as an IP; non-changes easily give away which registered Wikipedia editors IPs are. Flyer22 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit pointing to a WP:Canvassing thread, which further shows how some Gamergate editors are concerned with men's rights topics, and vice versa, one of them states, "WP:CANVAS, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and a big WP:BOOMERANG if they find this thread. They can claim that everyone disagreeing with them is a Gamergater from 8chan and use that as an excuse to ban them like they did with Toku. If you're going to go to war in a controversial section, don't start by giving the other side a plate of ammo." LOL!! Anyone with decent Google skills can find the other WP:Canvassed threads as well. Someone should go ahead and close this joke of a WP:AfD, and only because of the mass tainting. As usual, men's rights editors and some pro-Gamergaters (hmm, "Gamergaters"?) cannot win arguments without mass WP:Canvassing, and are obvious as the sky with their WP:Canvassing. But then again, I suppose they have to WP:Canvass because of how supposedly gynocentric Wikipedia is. Flyer22 (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to use an obvious false flag by whoever made that thread post in an attempt to silence and ignore users like me and many others who are here, within this discussion, from genuine reasons? For the record, I arrived here following your post at WP:MED, which I have on my watchlist. Many long-term Wikipedians here likely arrived from similar noticeboards (e.g. AfD noticeboard, WP countering systemic bias), and probably don't appreciate what you're writing right now. We don't close a thread because it's tainted by SPAs, we simply ignore the SPAs and weigh the discussion based on arguments rather than numbers, like how it's always been. Just so you know, anyone can make an anonymous post on the internet, and unless you have access to the IP logs, you can't determine that simply who is writing what. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Boo! I stand by my "06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)" post because, among other things, it addresses the obvious inappropriate WP:Canvassing, whether we consider that so-called bait thread or not. Now...I'm going to go back to eating my popcorn while I watch this mess unfold. Flyer22 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're going to backpedal away from an obviously outrageous proposal to close the discussion, at least retract it. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, look at the "many long-term Wikipedians[']" edit histories; the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are... Well, let's just state you are incorrect to believe that most of editors in this deletion debate landed here via appropriate means. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You're being unconstructive here. Why not use a simple mechanism to determine who should and shouldn't be here? If they have <50 edits OR made their account within the past 72 hours, their opinion is given less weight, and if they don't meet this criteria, it's business as usual? Why are you so intent on being deceptive about who's participating in this discussion? It's a very cheap ploy, and it's an unconstuctive attitude to have on a collaborative encyclopedia project. Turn on WP:POPUPS, and notice that there are plenty of genuine Wikipedians here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your defense of this mess is unconstructive. And that you cannot recognize barely-there editors, including WP:Dormant accounts suddenly popping up for this deletion debate, is something I chalk up to your inexperience with these matters. And minutes ago, I just noticed your "backpedal away" post; I'm not backpedaling away from anything; stating "I stand by my '06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)' post" is the exact opposite of backpedaling. If you want to defend the poor rationales to keep the Violence against men article, and the obvious barely-there editors, it would be better for you to find a different editor to preach to. Flyer22 (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Since you're too lazy to back up your claims with proof, let me do it for you.

Keep (Real Wikipedians): Cirt (autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 181291 edits); James500 (autoreviewer, reviewer, 26581 edits); Marteau (reviewer, rollbacker, 3368 edits since: 2003-03-23); Reyk (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 17294 edits since: 2005-09-05); Carrite (autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker, 55012 edits); Topbanana (sysop, 68032 edits); Benlisquare (autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 41604 edits); BabbaQ (34633 edits); Ruby2010 (autoreviewer, filemover, reviewer, rollbacker, 31629 edits); Doc James (eponline, sysop, captcha-exempt, 123220 edits); George100 (10740 edits since: 2006-03-05)

Keep (Obviously canvassed): Westside12345 (8 edits); 70.109.187.181; Jay Vogler (18 edits since: 2014-12-17); Calum Henderson (16 edits); Yankeescouser (3 edits); 76.64.13.4; Yhufir (4 edits); TheWaters (8 edits); Grillmaster423 (91 edits); Seth Forsman PhD (63 edits); Andelocks (13 edits); 208.54.38.224; Deep Purple Dreams (240 edits); Akesgeroth (80 edits); 88.107.70.141; 31.51.3.181; 58.7.81.106; 216.73.201.25

Keep (Borderline, can't definitely decide): MeanMotherJr (1308 edits since: 2011-12-29); 386-DX (924 edits since: 2006-12-13); Mr.Random (1045 edits since: 2006-01-04); Yurivict (2290 edits since: 2004-12-11)

Delete (Everybody): CircleAdrian (700 edits); Shibbolethink (191 edits since: 2014-08-18); EvergreenFir (reviewer, rollbacker, 25759 edits); Alexbrn (17645 edits); Johnuniq (reviewer, rollbacker, templateeditor, 32204 edits); Fyddlestix (1285 edits); The Four Deuces (reviewer, rollbacker, 30452 edits); 67.78.248.206

Are you going to continue to feign ignorance and extend the drama? You are literally putting your emotional reaction above your logical decision making. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You still show your inexperience on this matter. I looked at each one of the WP:Single purpose accounts' and barely-there editors' edit histories before your inaccurate "09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)" post above. I essentially stated that the vast majority of Wikipedians in this deletion debate are WP:Canvassed; they are WP:Canvassed. And by "Wikipedians," I mean the IPs in addition to the WP:Single purpose accounts and other barely-there editors. You should become more familiar with what WP:Single purpose accounts and WP:Dormant accounts are and how they operate. You can learn from the WP:Dormant accounts I pointed to in my "16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)" post above. The number of years an editor has been registered with Wikipedia and that Wikipedian's edit count can mean nothing in such cases. For example, we have editors who have been registered with Wikipedia for years, but are essentially WP:Newbies because of their sporadic editing that has been spread between years, as is in this case. Look at some of these accounts that have similar edit histories. I am not feigning ignorance; I am speaking from knowledge/experience. You are either feigning ignorance or simply don't know what you are talking about. You are also extending drama by trying to school me, when you are the one who needs to be schooled on matters such as these. And if I'm putting my "emotional reaction above [...] logical decision making," so are you. But then again, I am going on logic because I am noting the massive WP:Canvassing that has gone in this deletion debate, and that this deletion debate is a joke because of the rationales given for keeping the Violence against men article and because of the massive WP:Canvassing. Again, "If you want to defend the poor rationales to keep the Violence against men article, and the obvious barely-there editors, it would be better for you to find a different editor to preach to." You are wasting your time debating with me. Flyer22 (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There are a bunch of canvassed users. So what? Ignore them, and only pay attention to the arguments of those who are long-term regulars here, and I assure you, there are still plenty of them around here. Earlier on, you claimed that very few people here were genuine editors and the majority were SPAs/dormant accounts, a claim which was complete nonsense. "You are wasting your time debating with me" - in other words, "lalala, I can't hear you"? I've made my points perfectly clear. It is dishonest to state that a discussion should be closed because SPAs have taken part, because it is unfair on those editors who are here with honest intentions. I assure you, the closing admin is not stupid, and he won't fall for a bunch of nobodies who have barely any presence on Wikipedia, so you really have no reason to become overly concerned over this like you currently are. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"your inaccurate ... post above" Explain how it's inaccurate, pray tell. The figures are precisely accurate, up to that exact point in time, and taken directly from the site itself. I based my judgement on who is and isn't an SPA based on how much total edits they had, and what kind of user privileges they have. You have claimed that I am wrong, yet you do not elaborate on how you come to that conclusion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as mostly SYNTH and OR. Violence_against_men#Violent_crime, Violence_against_men#Self-directed_violence, and Violence_against_men#Sexual_violence are entirely OR/SYNTH. Violence_against_men#Are_men_inherently_violent.3F is COATRACK and actually about male violence, not violence against men. There's nothing worth keeping if those are removed, so NUKEANDPAVE. I will add discussion about Violence against women is WP:OTHERSTUFF, and ignores the fact that that topic is internationally notable (e.g., Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women). The encyclopedia is not about parity, it's about reflecting notability and reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• WP:N has never required that topics be international, so that isn't really an argument against this article. We normally accept national topics, and often sub-national ones. OTHERSTUFF is an essay, and it admits that such arguments may not always be devoid of merit. That essay is primarily concerned with arguments that an article should not be deleted because similar articles, which may also be invalid, have not yet been deleted; the essay might not be applicable where the similar article is admitted to be valid. James500 (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability still not established and entire article is still SYNTH. NUKEANDPAVE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The argument that violence against men is not different enough from violence as a whole is strange, as it is arguing that some violence is more noteworthy than others. This may be true from a societal viewpoint, but not from an academic viewpoint. The objective and equal distinction is that violence is an umbrella that covers many topics, including articles such as: violence against specific groups, the societal/evolutionary advantages and disadvantages of violence, the causes of violence, and other narrower topics. Just because a narrow field is not heavily researched does not mean that it should be deleted or assumed under it's overarching topic. To me, that means the article should be left up so it can be edited and changed as more information becomes available. TheWaters (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep The larger issue here has less to do with the article, but rather who initiated the "deletion". Not to discount the vast amount of Wiki-related projects Kaldari has contributed to, but it would appear that Kaldari - OFFICIALLY RETIRED - credits themselves with creating a Feminism WikiProject. There is a clearly a conflict of interest. It would be like the creator of National Association of Police Organizations calling for the deletion of Police brutality. Hogwash.

Has "Violence against men" been researched extensively as the converse? Of course not.

But calling for the deletion of a subject with which the usurper may or may not have personal issues with is both callous and a form of censorship. In principal, such philosophy flies against Wikipedia's expressed purpose.Grillmaster423 (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Please discuss the merits of the article, and don't attack the nominator. Same goes for all of you who are accusing the nominator of bias or bigotry. Reyk_YO! 07:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I completely agree that this subject should be discussed on its own merit and not the people discussing it, however, that's a two-way street. Both sides need to refrain from attacking those discussing here. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not in any way a conflict of interest. Haminoon (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep "The motives for violence against women are similar to the motives for violence against men: to gain control or retribution and to promote or defend self-image. The motives play a role in almost all violence, regardless of gender." I believe this article could be improved to better dictate the key points specific to violence against men that aren't domestic violence specific, but delete it all together would silence important dialogue pertaining to an issue that is becoming more and more relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andelocks (talk • contribs) 07:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

References

• Delete. Synthetic (possibly tendentious) topic that lacks on-point sourcing and so fails WP:GNG. This leads to the embarrassment of an article we currently have containing the tortuous illiterate & illogical, e.g.: "In armed conflict, sexual violence is committed by men against men as psychological warfare in order to humiliate the enemy.". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Non partisan on this subject; a few minutes clicking through the references in the article made it clear (to me at least) that there are distinct patterns of violence against men, and that these have been the subject of study by both academic and government groups - the topic is notable. -TB (talk) 08:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable WP:SYNTH with the subtext that there is no such thing as Violence against women because (it is claimed) everyone has violence perpetrated against them, and violence against females is matched by the same violence against males. Only trouble is, there are no authoritative secondary sources making that claim. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• I genuinely do not understand how you are extracting that subtext. 76.64.13.4 (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Delete While the topic is notable and there should be proper sources to build an article without resorting to synthesizing facts it currently stands as an extremely poor mix of general statistics and poorly sourced statements. The article falls under WP:SYNTH, although it is possible to improve it I support deleting it in its current format. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Advocating that articles on "notable" topics that are "possible to improve" be deleted... Astounding. Simply astounding. Were that philosophy extended to the encylopedia as a whole, we would not HAVE an encylopedia. Marteau (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand, most likely deliberately. None of the content in the current article is appropriate, and slimming down the article to the single sentence of value that would persist: "Violence against men is violence against men" is grounds enough for deletion. Rather if the article were to be recreated it would require the use of the extensive sociological, anthropological and psychological literature that is available, instead of using io9 sensationalist nonsense combined with random statistics. Even a notable topic needs to at least reach stub status to be included in Wikipedia. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I misunderstand nothing. The fact is, you admit the topic is notable, you admit there is information available to improve it, you admit it can be improved, yet rather than give it a little time to improve, you advocate its outright deletion. That is, as I said, astounding. Marteau (talk) 13:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes you do. Articles may be deleted for lack of content, regardless of whether they have potential to be improved. I do not oppose having the article, simply having such an abysmal article as was this one in its previous state. Some of my concerns have been dealt with, but I still stand behind that without the improvements it should have been deleted. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE all say that we don't delete an article on a valid topic because of content issues that can be fixed through normal editing. James500 (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep: Though this topic has always been surrounded by controversy, both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere, it's a topic that we're going to have to deal with as long as one can establish notability. Based on the coverage amongst third-party publications, I'm inclined to believe that this is a valid topic. The article content may not be as good as one would hope, but that in itself shouldn't be a reason for deletion. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: - controversial articles does not equal deletion. Clearly notable article. Period.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep and Improve I ran across this when checking the GGTF to see if anyone replied to a notice of an article that I placed on Jimbo's talk page about the toxic editing atmosphere and how we might improve it. Sounds like a crusade to eliminate something that does noes not reflect a political POV. Violence against men is real and destructive to families. The notion that this is not a big deal is purely political. Not having an article on this is not improving but harming the encyclopedia. The violence against women is destructive to families and I would say keep that if it ever came up. 208.54.38.224 (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Obviously notable topic with clearly reliable sources. Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per James500's logic above. This topic clearly is notable under GNG (see this search for example). Obviously the article needs improvement but that's no reason to delete. I'd say more but am writing on phone. Ruby 2010/2013 15:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You understand that nearly all the hits in the search you linked to do not include the phrase "violence against men"? Haminoon (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

He neglected to quote the search phrase. Try this. Marteau (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Well sourced and relevant topic. I fail to see why this should be deleted when articles about dubious concepts such as mansplaining or otherkin are tolerated. Akesgeroth (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Informative and well sourced topic with plenty of room to expand, as issues of male focused problems such as these are growing in interest among the scientific community. There's no valid reason to delete this topic, and doing so would only further bring into question ulterior motives and welcome accusations of parties involved. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - Well thought out and relevant article. Why is this even being considered? One of your editors is a well known militant feminist with strong anti-male views. That is the ONLY reason this is being considered. Violence against men is considerably more prevalent than any other type of violence and this is just one more example of the anti-male bias in the media. If you allow a militant feminist to edit articles like this, she will do anything to get her views across, but I cannot allow my gender to be marginalised like this. How dare you even think about removing this article?88.107.70.141 (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. There is absolutely no evidence one of the editors has "strong anti-male views". Haminoon (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - There are some serious questions here on the motivation of the petitioner considering what can be perceived to be a conflict of interest. I would even call WP:NOTHERE as Wikipedia is not a forum for gender 'disputes' from individuals despite certain people and WIKI:FEMINISM continuously moving outside of their scope and remit to attack articles covering the problems men face. 31.51.3.181 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

There have been absolutely no serious questions about the petitioner's motivations so far. Haminoon (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been brought up many times here that the user who has brought this article up for deletion has a conflict of interest due to his/her personal views. While personal attacks should not be welcome (which the user you responded to here has thankfully refrained from), these motives should be considered. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah its been brought up, but there has been no serious questions and no evidence of a conflict of interest. I don't see what motives there are to be considered. The nominator's opening statement if clearly argued and can stand on its own. Haminoon (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel that you stating that there's been no serious questions is disingenuous. You may disagree with the claims, but I can assure you that those who have brought her motives into question take it very seriously. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 00:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not serious enough to produce any evidence. I'm still waiting to see evidence of the editor's "strong anti-male views" and "conflict of interest". It sounds more like personal attacks than "serious questions" to me. Haminoon (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The evidence has already been produced in this discussion several times over. Again, I feel you're being disingenuous. If you are not being willfully ignorant, though, and have instead legitimately missed these points, I strongly urge you to go back and read these comments. Seth Forsman PhD (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism? That's evidence of nothing. The argument is specious and a thinly-veiled personal attack. Its like saying someone who edits punk articles shouldn't edit disco articles. Haminoon (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it would be like the creator of National Association of Police Organizations, championing police, calling for the deletion of Police brutality, a page portraying police in a negative light. Or neo-Nazis calling for the deletion of the Holocaust page.. For someone who cares enough to create a whole project championing a specific gender's rights and then calls for the DELETION of a page which intimately concerns the opposite gender. Any user who calls for DELETION of any active page should and always will have their motives questioned.Grillmaster423 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Note: There exist several instances where violence against men is exclusive of other types of violence.

For instance, in the US, Police shoot and kill men at a much higher ratio than they do women. According to a Mother Jones article of arrest-related deaths, there were "4,594 arrest-related deaths of men in 2003-2009, versus :218 for women. In other words, 95% of those deaths are of men, 19 times more than women."

Other instances of violence specifically directed at men is with the recruitment of child soldiers of Africa. The violence is unique because the perpetrators turn their victims into lifellong instigators of the violence as :well.

Psychological violence has been conducted on men to a much higher degree in the military, where males were and are frequently subjected to a higher degree of verbal and physical abuse than their female counterparts.

Sexual violence against men has been conducted during medevil times with the flaying of Eunuch

Domestic violence against men is also an issue (Lorena Bobbit dismembered husband's genitals, Andrea Yates killed her and husband's five children - 4 boys and 1 girl.).

Prison violence in the form of sexual abuse has been perpetrated by female guards against male inmates.

Social violence against men as in when extreme feminists attempt to censor very real subjects on the sole basis of their own biases. Then when their own personal biases are called into question, decry sexism.

The list is ongoing. Granted, the topic is not well researched, but it does indeed have definable parameters of "specific types" of violent actions conducted against men - explicitly.Grillmaster423 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope you do some more reading on child soldiers in Africa and feminism before you attempt to add any of this to the article. Haminoon (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Keep I am not seeing an issue. It provides symmetry to violence against women Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Per nominator, Shibbolethink, and others. Insufficient reliable sources that treat "violence against men" (as distinct from violence in general, or domestic violence in general) to justify an article on this subject.Fyddlestix (talk) 01:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per "Blow it up". Possibly there is an article, but the current article is just a mishmash. If a subject exists in reliable sources then an editor can recreate it. But that task is made easier by deleting an article that cannot be improved. TFD (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• You can do something "based on the advice given by" WP:BLOWITUP, however you cannot do something "per" WP:BLOWITUP. It's a personal essay, not a guideline or policy. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• It is consistent with reason 14: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia." Tendentious OR is not suitable content. TFD (talk) 08:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep This title can cover other types of specific violence targeting men as well, like Enforced Conscription and Circumcision 58.7.81.106 (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment The main issue here should be WP:GNG, but the nomination makes no attempt to explain why this topic isn't notable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep As long as the article Violence against women exists, then this article too has a right to exist, if you are willing to have this article deleted, than the other article too, should be deleted, unless your definition of "equality" means being extremely unequal and one-sided, but that has no place on an encyclopedia 216.73.201.25 (talk) 03:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep There is no issue here; the article is about violence done specifically to men because they are men. MeanMotherJr (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Question How did we manage to create an article on this without mentioning violence against gay men? The word gay appears only in a navbox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep The article meets the notability criteria. It clearly lists and exemplifies several types of violence largely and specifically affecting men, all with reliable sources. I don't agree with the OR/SYNTH argument either. The referenced sources clearly identify and distinguish the types of violence directed towards men in particular. Surely there is room for improvement, but that goes true for most Wikipedia articles. --386-DX (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Cirt, Grillmaster, et al. TFD may have a point about WP:BLOWITUP, but I don't think the page is completely irredeemable. Random ^(?) 06:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm seeing a lot of !votes (mostly from IP users) based solely on perspectives of sexism, and not on WP principles like WP:RS and WP:V (e.g., "keep because we have a 'violence against women' article" and "delete because sexism against men doesn't exist"). I strongly suspect that the canvassing is to blame; in any case, is there anything that can be done about this? I'm a bit rusty. Random ^(?) 08:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment There are a number of reliable sources available that can be used to write an article on violence against men. However, the article that we currently have has serious issues with original research and synthesis. If kept, the article will need to be substantially edited to bring it in line with Wikipedia policy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delete "Against" means in opposition too, or in opposite direction. How can men be in opposition or contrary to their own actions? Since most violence 'suffered by men' is indeed caused by men we can't possibly have an article violence against men centered around cherry picked statistics about male vs male violence. I suggest deleting this article since men are not under any threat nor victims of gender inspired violence an coercion. Therefore there is no need to have such a provoking politically incorrect article on wikipedia giving it unearned legitimacy. As quote Anita Sarkesian a foremost expert in the field "There's no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society." — Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) November 15, 2014.

• Comment: On top of that definition of "Sexism" being a feminist-only definition (not the accepted definition of the world at-large), the article isn't about "only" male on male violence. There are plenty of forms of violence against males not perpetrated by males. Moreover, I find your characterization of men being unable to be opposed to male-male violence inflammatory and derogatory.Yhufir (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

67.78.248.206 (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC) — 67.78.248.206 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Keep the violence against men definitely has place, and it is under-reported for a variety of cultural and historical reasons. And it is not only under-reported, it is often reversely-reported, and the man is arrested when he isn't at fault. These are all contentious issues, hence topic deserves the article. Yurivict (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve - The topic is notable and distinct. Perusing Google scholar brings up a number of resources in addition to the American Psychological Association article already mentioned. --George100 (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per cirt Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)