Talk:Violence against women

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Content moving from Domestic violence[edit]

The following information was in the Domestic violence article - and it seems more appropriate here. I've posted it here for the short term to see if these points are already made -- and if there are any thoughts about the addition of the information to this article.

potential additional content

According to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, a survey of 16,507 Americans by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30.3% of women and 25.7% of men reported being slapped, pushed, or shoved by a current or former intimate partner in their lifetime, while 24.3% of women and 13.8% of men reported being the victims of severe physical violence.[1] A 2012 survey of over 21,000 residents of England and Wales by the UK Office for National Statistics showed that 7% of women and 5% of men were victims of domestic abuse (defined to include non-physical abuse such as emotional and financial abuse, as well as physical violence) in the last year.[2] A study in the United States found that women were 13 times more likely than men to seek medical attention due to injuries related to spousal abuse.[3]

Women are more likely than men to be murdered by an intimate partner. Of those killed by an intimate partner about three quarters are female and about a quarter are male. In 1999 in the United States 1,218 women and 424 men were killed by an intimate partner,[4] and 1181 females and 329 males were killed by their intimate partners in 2005.[5][6] In England and Wales about 100 women are killed by partners or former partners each year while 21 men were killed in 2010.[7] In 2008, in France, 156 women and 27 men were killed by their intimate partner.[8]

In their study of severely violent couples, Neil Jacobson and John Gottman conclude that the frequency of violent acts is not as crucial as the impact of the violence and its function, when trying to understand spousal abuse; specifically, they state that the purpose of domestic violence is typically to control and intimidate, rather than just to injure.[9]

A recent study in South Asia, done in from 2010 to 2013, interviewed 10,000 men from a variety of countries. The study found that "...overall nearly half of those men interviewed reported using physical and/or sexual violence against a female partner, ranging from 26 percent to 80 percent across the sites. Nearly a quarter of men interviewed reported perpetrating rape against a woman or girl, ranging from 10 percent to 62 percent across the sites." [10]

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, I say you go for it @CaroleHenson: --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Black, M.C.; Basile, K.C.; Breiding, M.J.; Smith, S.J.; Walters, M.L.; Merrick, M.T.; Chen, J.; Stevens, M.R. (2011). "The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report" (PDF). National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
  2. ^ "Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences 2011/12" (PDF). Office for National Statistics. 2013. Retrieved January 4, 2014. 
  3. ^ Schwartz, Martin D. (1987). "Gender and injury in spousal assault". Sociological Focus. 20: 67. JSTOR 20831423. 
  4. ^ Intimate Partner Violence, 1993–2001. U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Crime Data Brief. February 2003
  5. ^ "CDC – Injury – Intimate Partner Violence Consequences". Cdc.gov. 2009-12-14. Retrieved 2010-04-26. 
  6. ^ "Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, Home of the Duluth Model". Theduluthmodel.org. Retrieved 2010-04-26. 
  7. ^ "All domestic abuse deaths to have multi-agency review". BBC. 13 April 2011. Retrieved 14 April 2011. 
  8. ^ Nationale sur les Morts Violentes au sien de Couple. Ministère de l'Intérieur, Delegation aux Victimes. 2008.
  9. ^ Jacobson, Neil S.; Gottman, John M. (1998). When Men Batter Women: New Insights into Ending Abusive Relationships. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-81447-1. 
  10. ^ "The UN Multi-country Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific". Partners4Prevention. 2013-09-10. Retrieved 2014-01-01. 

Violence against men[edit]

and where is the article for the opposite, this is, violence against men? or is it that if it is against women we can talk, but if it is against men nobody cares? It's strange, does not coincide with what I thought equality was  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.21.117.88 (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC) 
There is a Violence against men article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Inaccurate Source and Attributions, "Obstetric Violence."[edit]

Regarding the following section, there are several issues:

The WHO recently stated that “in normal birth, there should be a valid reason to interfere with the natural process. The aim of care is to achieve a healthy mother and child with the least possible level of intervention compatible with safety”.[1] Practices that should be stopped (in normal labor), according to the WHO:

  • Shaving the pubic hair
  • Giving an enema to empty the bowels
  • Electronic fetal monitoring
  • Not letting the woman eat or drink
  • Telling the woman to hold her breath and push during the second stage of labor (rather than leaving it to do her own way)
  • Stretching and interfering with the entrance to the vagina when the baby is being born
  • Episiotomy
  • Taking the baby away from its mother at birth
  • Getting the woman to lie down on her back during labor and/or delivery

First, the source listed, "Keeping Birth Normal," by Jilly Rosser, does not seem to exist. I can find no publications by that author on the subject. The attribution should go to "Care in Normal Birth," by the Maternal and Newborn Health/Safe Motherhood Unit of the World Health Organization, 1996. The publication can be found here, http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/1996/WHO_FRH_MSM_96.24.pdf?ua=1 in English.

Furthermore, there is, in my opinion some question as to the tone of this section as well as its relevance. To say "The WHO recently stated" is misleading, as the report was published in 1996. In addition, the report makes no distinction between practices which are "Clearly Harmful" and those which are merely "Ineffective." Finally, some of the items included in the original list, primarily electronic fetal monitoring and restriction of food and fluids are listed in the source as "Frequently Used Inappropriately" and there is no recommendation to eliminate those practices. I think this section should be eliminated or at least rewritten with truer consideration to the source matter. In any case, the source should be properly attributed.

164.49.251.71 (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)DSB

  1. ^ Rosser, Jilly. World Health Organization Publications. "Keeping Birth Normal". 

--Added reflist--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this post:
  • Here's the archive url for the WHO page about Keeping Birth Normal.
  • The link you provided looks very good. My only question is that since it's a pdf, is this the latest viewpoint?
  • I agree with your points about tone - and it should be properly attributed and rewritten to focus on the salient points - a summary would do in a number of cases over giving a lot of detail. In addition, words shouldn'be be bolded for emphasis.
  • It seems to me to be an important section - but, like I say, it also seems to have too much detail.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree that the list is misleading and not appropriate for this section. I do not see the year (1996) as a problem. I agree that there is too much detail. I don't understand the problem you both see with the "tone" Could you explain? Gandydancer (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Too broad range of behaviours included in this article[edit]

This article is obviously written from feminist POV (which is by no means only one discourse in sociology), existence of patriarchy is a given, and every act of violence against women is considered to be happening BECAUSE they are women, and not - for instance - because they are physically weaker, often dependant and readily available for the abusers. There is an idea that women are raped BECAUSE they are women, not because they have a compatible orifice. This is not a "hate" crime, rather a "opportunity" crime. Same with domestic violence - the only reason women are not beating men at the same rate is that they are physically weaker. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-men-the-more-belligerent-sex/ There is no denial that this kind of prejudice exist, but putting everything into the same jar is just unacceptable. Especially given we're talking about social sciences theory, with no possibility of really testing it in experiment. 83.9.95.76 (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM


Feminist See Men as the Enemy[edit]

The artical implies that all men support violence against women. Is there anyone who isn't a man hater who believes men are all rapist, domestic abusers, cybertrolls, involved in human trafficking and are educated to think only with their sexuality. No I am not a men's rights activist, I just fell that all feminist groups are united by their hatred of men because gender studies don't warn women of being victimised but but go to the extreme and demonetise and persecute men simply because they have made them the enemy. Why does this artical compare every country to Saudi Arabia, every website to 4chan and every era to the stone age? Yes in some places its encouraged, but does that mean its ethical? No. Sexual violence is frowned upon everywhere, regardless to how it is treated and there for the page is imbalanced.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The vast majority of violence committed against women is committed by women? No, it isn't. If editors don't want this article to focus so much on men, then societies should do better to ensure that the vast majority of violence against women is not committed by men. I don't see how the current state of the article would benefit from what you've stated. Flyer22 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I never said that women are are abused by other women the most. I was saying that it implies that all men support violence against women.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't; it simply reports on men to an extensive degree because the vast majority of violence against women is committed by men. It focuses on the mindset of these men, cultures that exacerbate this violence, how all of this affects women, and so on. I'm not sure how you perceive the article as implying that all men support violence against women. Furthermore, it's common sense that not all men support violence against women. Flyer22 (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
And I know that you "never said that women are are abused by other women the most." I was making a point with my initial post in this section -- about why this article focuses so heavily on men as the perpetrators. Flyer22 (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Feminist believe all sex and sexual attraction attributes to rape and therefore they say every country is equally oppressive towards women.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not common sense to know that not all men are rapist, it's natural for women to believe all men support violence against women.--180.216.68.197 (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


Link to main article on FGM[edit]

To Flyer22: I had added a link to the main article of FGM, and you removed it. I think that is not "overlinking" but simply points the reader to the fact that there is a main article on FGM. The blue hyperlink is easy to overlook and it may also not take you to the exact page (sometimes there is a hyperlink but it leads to a sub-section of another article). The same is done in the article for Rape and for Marital Rape, for example. If you prefer, you can take out the hyperlink for FMG when it appears just below the {{Main|Female genital mutilation}}. Anyway, I think it is common practice and does not hurt anyone to provide both types of linkages.EvM-Susana (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

EvM-Susana, this matter that I reverted is WP:Overlinking. With regard to the Rape and Marital Rape sections, those sections do not have the "main article" link in addition to the first paragraph beginning with the link. They link once -- with the "main article" link. Instead of bringing this matter to the talk page, all you had to do was re-add the "main article" link, and de-link the term in the first paragraph; I thought about doing that, but waited to see if you would do it.
On a side note: Since this article is on my WP:Watchlist, there is no need to WP:Ping me to its talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Creating a category[edit]

I am wondering about creating a category relating to "sport-related violence against women" - there are various articles about individual cases that would fall under this category (one example would be the Steubenville High School rape case) and it seems that there is growing understanding of sexual assault by athletes. I haven't created a category before so any advice would be great! Uenuku (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't really see the benefit of this. Isn't this basically just about rapes that happen in a sporting environment? Would you really need a new category for this? EvM-Susana (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd recommend starting a list instead. fgnievinski (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a relatively recent area of research and of particular interest in the United States where - according to several studies - sexual assaults in this context make up the majority of sexual assaults on university campuses. I could make a list - of interest, why is that preferable to a category? Uenuku (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering: "only" the majority of sexual assaults on university campuses or also outside of these campuses? I think a list might be better than a category, as a category is meant to group together different topics that fall under one over-arching category (like the category on sanitation). EvM-Susana (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


Limiting the number of sections visible in the table of content[edit]

I propose to use the {{TOC limit|3}} command for the table of content. Reason: it makes the TOC shorter and therefore gives the reader a quicker overview of what's in the content (only section headings up to level 3 are displayed). We have done the same for all the articles of the WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Sanitation. Perhaps Doc_James knows a link to a page where the justification for this approach is explained. I didn't like it at first but now I am used to it and would agree that it's actually better. EvM-Susana (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's important for readers to see clearly and quickly the tiles of all sections so they can easily get an idea of what is presented in the article.123username (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's personal preference. It's a Wikipedia MOS standard however. Just take a look at all the featured articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_articles), they all have short TOCs (I randomly looked at 10 of them and they all followed the short TOC style). Featured article is the highest standard that a Wikipedia article can reach... I don't know where in the MOS guidelines, but it must be there somewhere that short TOCs are preferred.EvM-Susana (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
EvM-Susana, 123username and Doc James, I meant to comment on this at the time this discussion started, but it's true that the many headings this article currently has make it more difficult for readers to navigate through the article. Some of the headings (mainly the ones for a little bit of material) are not needed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I am supportive of a TOC limit 3 aswell. If the TOC becomes overly long such as this one has it becomes less useful to the reader. Most people reading Wikipedia are generalists and on a cellphone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
123username, have you reconsidered? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

"doesn't make sense to provide one particular example here"[edit]

I tried to start a list of Reported incidents of violence against women but it was reverted with this comment: doesn't make sense to provide one particular example here.

The idea was to start this list and have others contribute to building it not to provide only one example. I believe a list of incidents will provide a concrete illustration of what the article is all about, and do not understand the opposition to providing such a list. Anyone? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It gives WP:UNDUE to this example. VAW happens on a regular basis all over the world. Indeed, it doesn't make sense to have this example, neither to have a "list". Anyway, what examples would be chosen for the "list"? Major acts of VAW (such as École Polytechnique massacre) could be integrated in the article in relevant sections.123username (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with 123username. That's what I think as well (it was me who undid that addition of the example). It really makes no sense to list particular incidences, the article is about violence against women as a generic topic not about Woman A being murdered by Person X in Country Y. EvM-Susana (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@123username:
VAW happens on a regular basis all over the world You and others here may believe this, but many others do not.
what examples would be chosen for the "list" How many such incidents have articles on Wikipedia?
BY the way, why not wait until consensus is achieved before reverting my edit once more? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand your point. So you are saying that this example: "In September 2015, Basil Borutsky allegedly murdered three women in the Ottawa Valley. All three women had formerly had a relationship with the suspect." is so important that it warrants to be mentioned here? Are we going to list all the thousands and thousands of reported cases where women have been murdered by their ex-husbands??? Rather provide links to overview and summary information (which the article already contains). Listing individual murder cases achieves nothing. - And equally I could say: why do you revert my change and the change of 123username before consensus has been reached on the talk page? Give people a bit more time to discuss this on the talk page before re-inserting your example into the article. EvM-Susana (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Violence against women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2016[edit]

Under the subtopic "Effect on Society", the image with the title "A map of the world showing countries by level of women's physical security, 2011" needs to be changed. It is out of date, and the map is missing the Caspian Sea, making it hard to read. An updated version is available from the same source as the original map, http://www.womanstats.org/. The same issue is present in the map under the subtopic "Human trafficking and forced prostitution" Meepbutter (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; it would be great to have an updated version of that map! This is the image you're referring to, right? I could be mistaken, but I don't think the licensing on it is compatible with Wikimedia. If you look at the lower right corner, you see a number of icons, one of which is a dollar sign in a circle with a line through it, which means that commercial use is not allowed. Wikimedia Commons licensing policy requires that commercial use be allowed. -- Irn (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Violence against women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

SSC 314 Classwork[edit]

Watts, C., & Zimmerman, C. (2002). Violence against women: global scope and magnitude. The lancet, 359(9313), 1232-1237

Katz, Jackson. "Violence against Women-it's a Men's Issue." TED Talk | TED Conference, 2012. Web.

Susana T. Fried. (2003). Violence against Women. Health and Human Rights, 6(2), 88-111. doi:10.2307/4065431

Humphreys, J., Parker, B., & Campbell, J. C. (2001). Intimate partner violence against women. Annual review of nursing research, 19(1), 275-306. Juliannewilkinson (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Violence against women[edit]

So, yeah. This page says that violence against women is not always against women... yeah... like... you know, violence against men isn't always against men, or violence against animals is not always against animals. --Blanca Lap (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

The social phenomenon of "violence against women" or "gender-based violence" does not encompass any violence that happens to affect women. Rather it's violence rooted in misogyny or violence that disproportionately affects women and girls. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
You're wrong. Violence against women is the type of violence that occurs to women for being women. Because that exists.--Blanca Lap (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Likewise, an attack cannot be unlabeled "violence against women" just because one or more of the victims are male. (Picture a demonstration where over 95% of the marchers are women.) Because the violence is rooted in misogyny and primarily targets women, it would still be labeled "violence against women". —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's violence against women because of their gender. But changing
"Violence against women (VAW), also known as gender-based violence, is, collectively, violent acts that are primarily or exclusively committed against women."
to...
"Violence against women (VAW), also known as gender-based violence, is, collectively, violent acts that are committed against women."
makes it sound like VAW is just violent acts committed against women, regardless of reason or disproportionality . EvergreenFir (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
"Violence against women (VAW), also known as gender-based violence, is, collectively, violent acts that are committed against women for being women."--Blanca Lap (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
But that's not what you did in your edit here. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Blanca Lap: Let's go back to my example. A group of protesters demonstrating for a women's cause, 95% of whom are women, is attacked. Are you saying it is not violence against women, because people other than women are attacked? —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, let's forget that example. That doesn't fit here.--Blanca Lap (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The motive is the status of the victim as a woman.--Blanca Lap (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Let's do this.--Blanca Lap (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Do what? I don't see where any change needs made to the intro. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't mean it needs no changes.--Blanca Lap (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Let me rephrase, then: I see where the intro needs no changes made. —C.Fred (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
From the discussion here, I see no reason to make changes to the intro; it is good as it stands. Jim1138 (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it needs any changes beyond maybe making those block quotes look nicer. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Violence against women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Female genital mutilation[edit]

The section on female genital mutilation was huge, so I cut part of it, leaving a summary with a link to the main article. This article is already very long, so I think it must be reshaped a little. 123username (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the article, per #Limiting the number of sections visible in the table of content, is still all of the section headings. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Violence against women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Should there be dedicated articles for each country?[edit]

I have just recently began researching this with the focus on Peru. I created the femicides in Peru article and realized that it would be more suitable for the article to be "Violence against women in Peru" due to the many factors. I performed searches such as "Violence against women in the United States". Nothing. Only sub-articles like Domestic violence in the United States or Rape in the United States.

I propose the creation of the article List of violence against women by country (or similar) and then the creation of articles dedicated to violence against women for each country.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ZiaLater, per WP:No page and WP:No split, we should not unnecessarily create sub-articles. This article is big, though, and sub-articles are likely needed in some cases. You can also ask about this at WP:Med, pointing to the discussion you started here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: Where would I start the discussion on WP:Med?--ZiaLater (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
ZiaLater, on its talk page. Just create a new section at the WP:Med talk page for discussion about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
I saw the note at WT:MED, and I agree that gender-based violence in individual countries is likely to be a WP:Notable subject for most countries. For example, there should be prevalence statistics from the specific country, a description of the legal situation (e.g., whether and when marital rape was made illegal in that country), an outline prominent local issues (e.g., breast ironing in Cameroon, but acid attacks and dowry abuse in South Asia), etc. I am usually in favor of avoiding a multiplicity of articles, but I don't really see any way around this. This article is large already, a country-by-country summary of each point won't fit, and country-specific information will definitely be wanted by students (and others). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
A recommended procedure is to have one top level article until there is enough content to split off dedicated national articles, leaving a summary section for each country in the main article. When there is enough content to create a substantial daughter article of about C-class, complete with adequate referencing, that content can be split off, leaving all the rest until they also can be split off to substantial articles. Eventually there would be a whole set of articles for countries and a summary top level article linking to them all. The India article is extensive enough to justify a full article, the Peru article would be too small to split off at this stage. Compatible titles would also help, so Violence against women in Peru would work well with Violence against women as the top level article. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Violence against women. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)