Talk:Violence against men

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources carefully. Haminoon (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The Daily Mail is definitely not a reliable source when it comes to crime statistics. I'd recommend not using news articles like this at all, even if they come from more credible newspapers. Stories like this usually focus one a single researcher or some interesting new study and doesn't attempt any overviews of available research.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Government statistics are a primary source. A news article about the statistics is an interpretation of the primary source, so a news article is considered RS. If there are any questions about this, we can have them answered at the RS Noticeboard. USchick (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Depends on the news article. If the stats are actually put into a relevant context and experts are consulted, then no problem. But overall, they should be used with caution. There is no such thing as automatic RS status for newspapers. Mind you, this is a very extraordinary claim. It's not something that should be left to a publication that has suggested that Elizabeth I was a man.

From what I can tell, the Mail (doesn't even have named reporter) is drawing its own conclusions about statistics which they are definitely not qualified to do. The article in The New York Review of Books[1] seems well-researched, but it doesn't attempt to make any such comparisons. And keep in mind that the claim is specifically about the US, so it's not from a global perspective.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I just cut this out

because the chunk used here really does not capture the sense of the article.

In September 2014, Time magazine, using CDC statistics, said that men have reported that they've been "made to penetrate" at almost the same rate that women have

alleged rape.

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

@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)

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)