Talk:Androcide

November 2012

"...or be considered a beneficial consequence of war..."

Do we really need to have the views of those that support genocide take up half of this article? It's kind of distasteful... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.196.38 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed that line. ugh. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Categorisation

... though I'm not sure why this is a contentious issue other than simply to create another contentious issue, our categorisation guidelines make it pretty clear that this article should not belong to both the subcat MAM and the parent VAM. MAM is a reasonably diffusing cat of VAM, per WP:SUBCAT and pretty much all our other categorization guidance I can find, there's no reason to have this article in both a subcat and its parent. Unlike Arkon's last editsum seems to suggest, there's no need to justify the application of an accepted guideline individually for this page. Guidelines are accepted to represent codified consensus that shouldn't be deviated from without an explicit reason to do so, not the other way around. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly a need to justify the use of a guideline, "accepted", or not. One would assume if it were not accepted it wouldn't be labeled a guideline. You need to justify why you believe that the Massacre's against men cat should be removed from an article that begins:

• "Androcide is the systematic killing of men for various reasons, usually cultural. Androcide may happen during war to reduce an enemy's potential fighting capability or as retaliation."

Quoting guidelines doesn't quite cut it. If you don't like the hierarchy of the cats, fix them. If you don't like the cat itself, you know where to go. But it clearly belongs on this article. Arkon (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Guidelines describe and document best practices in applying the various policies Wikipedia has, and, yes, an actual reason is needed to deviate from them more than "but I don't like it!" Even WP:RS is a guideline rather than a policy. There are situations where it's appropriate to deviate from existing guidelines, but the default is to follow them because they represent accepted and codified best practices unless there is an active and articulatable reason to not follow them that has reached consensus and is in-line with the principles of Wikipedia. In the absence of such a reason, it's not appropriate to have this article classified in both a diffusing subcat and it's own parent cat. Please either come up with a reason for deviating from our existing content guidelines, discuss it, and reach consensus before trying to implement it. If you do not do so and rather continue editwarring, you'll just be blocked. Though I guess I don't necessarily object to you doing something knowingly that will get you blocked - just please don't try to feign surprise if you do so and do get blocked. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You aren't going to convince anyone with wikispeak bumper stickers. You are making a change to an article that's been stable for 3 months, justify it, or continue threatening me with blocks, that works too. Arkon (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between threatening someone with a block and pointing out to someone that if they knowingly choose to disregard policy they're likely to end up blocked. I did justify my change, with a well-established guideline that exists for a reason and, yes, applies even to articles that are seldom edited. In the same way that I'd remove someone's blog that insists humans descended from nine-legged giraffes from an obscure article no matter how long it had been there, even though WP:RS is 'only' a guideline. Again, you need a reason to deviate from a guideline, not a reason to follow one. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

pointing out to someone that if they knowingly choose to disregard policy'

We do, of course, know that's not what's happening here, right Kevin? Good, now explain how that category can exist and not be applicable to this article. Arkon (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:EW is policy, so yes, pointing out that you will likely be blocked if you try to editwar instead of advancing a reasonable argument on the talk page is in fact pointing out that you will likely be blocked if you knowingly choose to disregard policy. Per WP:SUBCAT we don't normally put an article in both a subcat (MAM) and its parent (VAM.) In the absence of a compelling reason and consensus to not follow a pre-existing content guideline, we follow the pre-existing content guideline - if you go read our categorization guidelines, they do a decent job of explaining why that is the case. Anyway, done responding until someone else joins the conversation or you bring up a valid point. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Dude, you're the one that went all "first one to 3 reverts loses" on this. You are suppose to discuss your change on the talk page when challenged per BRD, but of course, that's just a guideline right? Again, as I stated to your first post on this talk page, if you don't like where the hierarchy of the cat, take it up there. There is no dispute as to it's applicability to this article. Arkon (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• keep in both, per IAR and eponcat. This is the head article for a subcategory which is effectively an eponymous category, thus in the same way that Rape is in both Category:Rape and Category:Violence against women here we have Androcide both in the parent and in the child. Such duplication happens with eponymous categories - for example I reckon Paris is in both it's eponymous category and some of it's parents. UltimaTely the setup for rape, domestic violence, Androcide, etc with dual parenting due to eponymous cats makes it easier for the reader to find relevant articles which is the point, such exceptions in dual categorizing the head article are commonly seen.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• It's not an eponymous category, either by Wikipedia's definition or common sense. Paris is in one eponymous category and even that one seems a little questionable, but this isn't an eponymous category in the first place. Rape is in both catRape and catVAM because it's the eponymous category for rape and a subtype of violence against women. Massacres against men represent a form of androcide - that's why androcide is appropropriately listed as the head article for the cat. But it's not an eponymous category. There isn't an accessibility issue by not having this dual catted - it's not like VAM has so many subcats that MAM is going to get lost - and every massacre linked from this page is obviously additionally catted as a massacre. I'm a firm supporter of IAR, but it's not a trump card, you need a reason to actually invoke it, which you have failed to supply. Kevin Gorman (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's close enough to being an eponymous category + head article to merit inclusion in both places. Think about it this way - someone browsing to Category:Massacres of men from Category:Massacres would find it strange to see Androcide as the "main" article for this category, but they'd notice that the same article isn't even in this category? I think this is generally a bad idea, which is why I generally support dual categorization in the exceptional cases of head articles (e.g. Rape, Domestic violence are handled the same way). Sometimes, due to the scope of a given article, the category name and it's head article differ slightly. For example, Femicide is not the same as Category:Massacres of women, Femicide is actually used in a broader sense. Similarly, Androcide could be used to refer to sex-selective abortion of boys, but this wouldn't be called a massacre nor fit in the massacre tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Obi, your argument amounts to "A dolphin is close enough to a banana to be categorised as a porcupine." "Eponymous category" has a specific meaning. This falls far outside of that specific meaning. Neither femicide nor androcide belong in their respective massacre subcats (and femicide hasn't been in one as far as I can see.) Inventing new meanings to words so that they agree with your preformed conclusion is bad practice. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

actually it's much more akin to saying 'this head article on oranges and lemons is close enough to citrus to merit inclusion in both the orange category and the citrus one. I don't recall you participating in lots of categorization discussions at CFD or on category policy pages, so you may be reading the category guidance too much as strict policy but I assure you it is not - I regularly bring categories for deletion that clearly violate our guidelines but consensus keeps them, and ultimately local consensus determines whether X is in category Y on a regular basis all across the wiki. In the violence against women tree I can find dozens of articles that are present in both a parent or grandparent and a child, indeed in any tree you will find such - the vast majority of articles on feminism are categorized in a great many overlapping topic categories but I have yet to see you wage war against those, so why this particular one - esp for a category that days ago you were arguing to delete? Do you realize that 99% of the massacres in this category fit the definition of Androcide? This is not dolphins and bananas Kevin. I'm not arguing for a wholesale ignoring of subcat, I'm simply arguing for an epon-cat like exception here for a single article, even if the scope of the cat and the head article are slightly different (which also happens a fair bit), the principle is the same - will the reader be helped by finding the head article in both categories? Yes - and that overrides concerns about dual categorization - since were only talking about a single article. Fwiw you are now edit warring by any definition.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Update?

Looks like Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has been doing it in Iraq, and probably Syria, and there are claims Ukrainian nationalists are doing it to Russian speaking men in SE Ukraine. RS may use term at some point. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Boko Haram

Several news papers (thus reliable sources) have written about Boko Haram killing specifically male villagers throughout Northern Nigeria since early 2014, where the only female victim was a grand-mother who protected her grand-son, in fact there are countless of situations of androcide that this article seems to lack, in fact many have been documented, I'm not sure if Boko Haram should be mentioned here as their androcide is inspired by religion, but they spared all females and killed all males, often burning little boys alive, but this can also be considered religious extermination. --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Novel synthesis?

This article appears to be crafted entirely from primary sources (like the Bible!) none of which appear to support the term "androcide". (It's hard to tell, the refs are, for the most part, awfully incomplete.) Do reliable secondary sources actually support the existence of this term? Guettarda (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The term might be rare as men are never seen as "special" when women are systematically killed we'd call it "femicide" but when men are killed it's just "genocide", "democide", or "ethnocide" or whatever more general term, society in general doesn't recognize men ever as a group when it concerns victimhood, so finding secondary and tertiary sources that directly refer to the term might be hard, but then again I could use Windows N.T. as an example where Wikipedia has used a name that is not commonly used to refer to a variety of related concepts and places them together, I hope this helps.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No, sorry, it doesn't help. Policy says that we need to use sources that discuss the topic to create an article. I don't see that here. Most of the article is obvious WP:SYNTH and needs to go (or find secondary sources). But more to the point - is "androcide" even a term that's used by serious sources? Nothing in the article indicates that it is. Guettarda (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources

So I had a look at some of the sources here. They're problematic to say the least.

1. 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica - an online search turned up no mentions of "androcide"
2. The Bible - For starters, this is not a reliable source for historical information. Beyond that, the story of Dinah does not mention "androcide"; nor does the story of Moses, nor does the 'slaughter of the innocents'. While these could be discussed in that context, we'd need a high-quality reliable source that discussed it. And we still couldn't report these are historical events.
3. I don't have access to Jan Kaplan and Krystyna Nosarzewska's Prague: The Turbulent Century; could whoever added that reference please provide a quote that supports the usage of the term "androcide"?
4. The Human Rights Watch Report does not use the term
5. The Crimes of Saddam Hussein - too vague to be useful.
6. I don't have access to Iraq's Crime of Genocide; could whoever added that reference please provide a quote that supports the usage of the term "androcide"?
7. Srebrenica Timeline - too vague to be useful
8. Serbians Still Divided Over Srebrenica Massacre - too vague to be useful
9. ICTY - first three references provide links, none of them mention "androcide"; next three don't provide links, site search doesn't turn up the term either
10. CNN - found a later version of the article - no mention the word. Site search of CNN.com - no mention of the word.

None of the sources appear to support the term. Do any? The whole history section is at best SYNTH, at worst coat racking. Guettarda (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

¿Would a source such as www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/the-empathy-gap-is-shockingly-real/ qualify? As it lists the killings by Boko Haram as androcide, but the source itself is from a page all about men in general.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

A Voice for Men is an activist group, not a scholarly publication. So I'd say no. If you want a second opinion, you can try WP:RSN but I don't see it meeting the standard for a reliable secondary source, which is what we need here.

The issue isn't whether men are, for example, targeted in wartime, or the the massacre at Srebrenica targeted men and boys. The primary question is whether this is considered a category of killings by scholarly sources, and whether such a thing would commonly or generally be termed "androcide", and secondarily, whether these things listed are properly considered members of that category.

For both of these, we need reliable secondary sources - sources that consider this a thing, not an activist website saying that this should be considered a thing. Guettarda (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It states that it is androcide in Nigeria, and as for "activist site" the book by Diana Russel is mostly just an activist book, as various well respected authors such as Warren Farrell and Erin Pizzey write on it I'd say that this site is more than mere activism.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The point isn't that it's activist but rather, that it's neither a scholarly publication nor a news site with a reputation for fact-checking. Guettarda (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger with Gendercide

As there are no sources anymore it's time to merge this page with gendercide and to implement the information here into that page as it has been reverted to nothing more than a stub and a description. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The merger might possibly include Patricide which has absolutely no sources in the entire article for the same reason.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Patricide is a well-established term in English; I don't think it would be hard to reliably source that article. Androcide doesn't seem to have that history, it seems like a new term. At least in this context. (It looks more established, though rare, as a term for killing males sex cells in plant breeding.) Guettarda (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Since there's nothing in this article that isn't in that one, I think a simple redirect would suffice, rather than a whole merge discussion. I'm going to redirect the article, but feel free to undo my edit if you think a merge discussion is more appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to undo your edit but I think it is worth discussing where this should target, or if disambiguation would be better. Rather than start that myself, you may be interested in the ongoing discussion (predating your merge) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 23#Mascucide, a redirect which targets here (and will shortly be redirected by the bot that fixes double redirects, no doubt). Ivanvector (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Androcide in feminist literature

• See especially the works of Joanna Russ. (Review of a critical work e.g. ) In this context the word means '"the ethical logic of the preemptive strike", the murder of the male protagonist by the female.'

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC).

Anfal Genocide

Since there isnt a lot of content on here, I was planning on including a paragraph about the androcide that happened in the Anfal Genocide to give readers an example of a time in history where androcide has occurred. Iqramahamud (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Iqra

"Men In Cages" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Men In Cages. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 31#Men In Cages until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Something about Ukraine?

It also androcide - what feminists do against?:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanig74 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Downplaying?

Why is the very first paragraph downplaying the sole topic of the wiki? Yes it happens but, that’s not how you start a paragraph about hate crimes. 2403:4800:8204:EA88:A47F:CC0C:1DDE:2F44 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

How is it downplaying? Can you provide an example from the article? —Panamitsu (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)