Talk:Violence against men

Wiki Education assignment: Global LGBTQ Rights and Representation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ryankirzner22 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Laurencraven.

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)

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)