Template talk:Violence against women

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Gender Studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This template is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Human rights (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This template has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Items not solely against women[edit]

Re: human trafficking and slavery. As neither of these are explicitly violence directly solely at women, they don't belong. For example, Women can be murder victims, but it's clearly misleading to list murder as a category of violence against women. The editor who objects to this removal acknowledges this fact by saying removing slavery is ok (though they put it back in), so it's unclear why they object to the edit, other than possible POV reasons. TJ Black (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you might as well remove domestic violence, acid throwing, sexual slavery, forced prostitution, sexual violence, rape, and violence against prostitutes, since neither of those are explicitly violence directed solely at women. Q T C 06:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
That would seem to rather miss the point entirely. While men can and are victims of those acts, they are generally associated with women victims and are most frequently discussed as such. Human trafficking of men for forced labor is discussed quite often, possibly more so than that of women for purposes of sexual slavery/forced prostitution, BOTH of which are listed. So there doesn't seem to be any justification for including human trafficking as well. TJ Black (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
To many editors here, apparently, there seems to be plenty of justification to see human trafficking as an issue that profoundly affects women. Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia, but the first sentence of Human trafficking reads "Human trafficking is the illegal trade in human beings for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation or forced labor." If you want to stick to your guns, you should be consistent and remove that mention from the article. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
That comment doesn't in any way back up the inclusion of it here. If you want to discuss this, great, but these ridiculous, knee-jerk reversions have to stop. Please try to work with other editors to improve wikipedia. TJ Black (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Also, since this page was blanked and stayed that way for nearly a week before I fixed it, you're essentially arguing that it's better for this template to not exist rather than exist without human trafficking on it. If that's the case, please nominate it for deletion. I disagree, but I won't oppose it if you feel that strongly about it. TJ Black (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Having items on here that are directed against both sexes seems a bit questionable. I modified to at least split the items that can be against either into a separate section, and label them accordingly.
I may have missed some, so please move any others that are more appropriate in that subdivision.
Some of the items there I know are much more commonly directed against women, others I am not so sure. If they all are predominantly against women, could modify the section title to reflect that. Zodon (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The template is about violence against women only. That doesn't mean that each article linked to must only be about women. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


The purpose of navigation templates is to link a small group of closely related articles.Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates If one uses the definition that anything that includes violence against women goes on the template, then every article that is about violence applied to adult humans, except for those that apply solely to men, should be on the template. That is obviously far too larger a set to be reasonable.

As it is the title and template are misleading. It also pushes a particular POV. To prominently label something like Human trafficking under the heading "violence against women" says that it is about violence against women.

Possible approaches to deal with the problem:

  1. Change the template title and maybe name to something like "violence primarily against women", or add qualifier in the sub-title that these are items where women are primarily the victim
  2. Use a section for those items that apply to both sexes, but are predominantly against women
  3. Delete the template
  4. Expand it to cover violence against men and women (renaming to violence), with separate sections for men, women, or either as victim.

In the case of Human trafficking I could not find any statistics on that page to suggest that it applies to women any more than men. Since navigation templates rely on the underlying pages for their citations to WP:RS, having that link on this template seems particularly questionable.

Also, why did you remove domestic violence and pregnancy? No explanation given in the edit summary. That one article at least says that it applies mostly to women. Zodon (talk) 07:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Another solution is to remove the items that apply to both men and women. I did not suggest it in my list above because there had been objections to it in the past discussion. However, upon looking around further I see that this template has already been removed from various of the questionable articles, such as domestic violence, rape, human trafficking. Evidently the editors there neglected to remove these items from the template, which I have proceeded to do to make things consistent. If you reinsert those pages here, please also add this template to the related articles. Thanks. 18:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I went through and added this template to the articles that did not transclude it where it seemed appropriate and it's presence had not been obviously questioned.
  • In the case of Foot binding, there is a discussion on the talk page questioning extent to which it is violence against women vs. self inflicted. Though in some other articles I introduced a link to this template where it appears to be appropriate and missing, since the link there has been questioned/removed, I removed it here.
  • In the case of Sati (practice) and Witch_trials_in_the_Early_Modern_period neither one transclude this template, so they should be removed here or added there. But I am out of time right now to do either.
  • Might consider adding Violence against women in the Philippines to this template.
I should have said in my previous note here - add template, and/or join the discussion on the relevant pages about whether listing on this template is appropriate. Zodon (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Redundant link in "Part of a series"[edit]

Why is it necessary to have the text in the superheading "Part of a series" link to the same thing as other links on the page. This is confusing and serves no useful purpose. The wikilink for the superheading should just be removed. (Or the category listing at the bottom should be removed.)

Given the articles that this template has been placed on it is not clear that they are "Part of a series" That designation makes much more sense when there is a coherent group (preferably ordered, i.e. a series) of articles that the template covers. Since this template covers a fairly heterogenious collection of articles it is not clear that it makes sense to call these articles a series. I removed the Part of a series designation, but it has been added back without explanation of why it makes any sense for this template.

(e.g. What makes Witch trials in the Early Modern period (an article on the template) "Part of a series", as compared to say Witch-hunt (which is not)) Zodon (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

See also section[edit]

A recent edit removed the see also links to {{Abuse}}, {{Rape}} and {{Sexual abuse}}.

With the edit summary Removed "see also" categories because they also imply subjective ideas about the related subjects.

I am unclear what subjective ideas the inclusion of these other templates imply. I put them in the see also section because they are other templates that deal with violence. Unlike this template they do not cover violence solely against women.

I think that providing links to other templates about violence helps build the web, so editors know what related templates are out there. It also might help keep this template focused, since an editor might realize that what they were proposing to add here might fit better on another template. That seems especially useful here, since this template has accumulated some links whose appropriateness has been questioned.

Would it help to clarify that the see also is other templates about violence, not specific to women? Are there other templates that could be added to the see also that would serve similar purpose? Zodon (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. Zodon asked me to comment here, though I'm not sure I understand the concern. Rape is an issue strongly related to violence against women, as are domestic violence, human trafficking, foot binding, etc. There is no requirement that articles listed here be solely about women; there should simply be a strong link between those issues and the issue of violence against women; that is, high-quality reliable sources who discuss violence against women would also discuss rape, domestic violence, human trafficking, foot binding, etc.

    There is also no requirement that the template be added to, or remain on, articles that are included on it.

    I have no problem including or removing the See also. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 14:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible Effect on Neutrality of Related Articles[edit]

As already discussed, deletion of the template is a possible solution to the gender issues associated with the articles in this series. While "Violence against women" may be a meaningful categorization, the usage of a template as a series can affect the neutrality of the articles at hand, as well as the perception. While series are meant to be used for useful navigation between connected articles, I'm unsure whether this takes precedent over the need to maintain neutrality. On the one hand, including the template on some of the articles introduces bias. On the other hand, exclusion of some articles could imply they are not meaningful issues surrounding violence against women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jandjorgensen (talkcontribs) 07:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Bride buying[edit]

Without prejudice to the question of whether bride buying is "anti-women" (see also War on Women), it's not clear to me how arranged marriage or forced marriage or child marriage or any of that constitutes violence. You may as well try do define racism in terms of a majority or more powerful race engaging in prejudice / discrimination while declaring that the same thing the other way isn't "racism".

Let's find a way to describe such things without taking sides, and also without distorting the language.

Do we need a category and/or infobox about anti-women practices? I'd be glad to help make one. Don't forget the Japanese and what they did to the Comfort Women - see also Rape of Nanking. --

Looking for reliable sources to support inclusion of FGM in this template[edit]

MGM is removed from Template:Violence against men. Please explain why FGM belongs here but MGM doesn't belong there. Ranze (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Nominating catfight for inclusion[edit]

Jim removed this when I added it, but it is an article about violence against women, in this case, when other women are committing violence against other women. This template includes Sati (practice) which is when a woman commits violence against herself (suicide, self-immolation) so why wouldn't we include an article about women hurting other women? Ranze (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Disagree Catfight is seems to be an American term and therefore probably should not be included in an international encyclopedia. A "catfight" is between two women, not against women which the template is about. "Catfight" not belong on this template. Jim1138 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Disagree . The article is about the term catfight, not about a form of violence against women. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)