Talk:Violence against men

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] New article and Merge

It strikes me this is badly redirected, not sure where it should go but not to domestic violence as that implies that all violence against men is domestic so in the meantinme am redirecting to violence, SqueakBox 22:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have built this page myself and have included references for all input detail and information. Please feel free to build on this article. I have about 10-years experience in dealing with domestic violence from the job i'm in so i'm quite happy to build on this article in due-course. Thanks. --Oblong-Square 12:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this article is improperly placed. If anything, it should be moved to "domestic violence against men". However, that said, I propose, again, to restore this page as a redirect. I feel strongly that all of this content can easily be covered under the scope of the current domestic violence article. There is no reason to fork out content (see wikipedia's spinout guidelines). If anything, we should create a domestic violence against women article long before we create one against men, because of wikipedia NPOV, undue weight policy. Not only is there a lot more attention, research, and media given to DV against women, it is also statistically much more prevalent. So the reason why a DV against men article is being created before a DV against women baffles me. We are giving undue weight to a minority position by giving more space (by creating an article for one, but not the other). I believe we can cover all relevent POV in the main DV article without spinning out genders. Would you like to work up the sections in the main DV article having to do with men? Creating of this page goes against the previous merge consensus that happened twice within the last 3 months. If you really want to keep a seperate page having to do with men, I ask that you discuss matters first at Talk:Domestic violence, and gain a consensus to do so, before going against the previous merge consensus.-Andrew c 18:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the latest edition is okay and basically if we want the revert we should go to afd. Thoughts? SqueakBox 22:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask, as I have looked back at previous reverts what is this issue with men never being victims, Andrew. I work in the field of dealing with hundreds of men as well as women who are victims. WHat you are claiming is victimization of the worst kind. There is a violence against women article on here - and there should be a violence against men one to counteract this. If you keep removing this article the Violence against women article should also be removed and merged with the domestic violence topic. A Scottish study has been performed into Violence against men, and you are basically saying in your arguement that it's a load of trash, which is totally wrong for the millions of men that are domestically abused each year by their wives and girlfriends. I notice YOU didn't discuss the revert to redirecting the aricle, but were the first to say that I have to talk about it before creating something. I don't understand why you cannot work WITH me to build an excellent article. --Oblong-Square 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are completely misunderstanding me. I think very well that there should be information about DV against men. Only, I think it's proper place is not in this article, but in the appropriate section of the main Domestic violence article. I don't understand why you can't work with me to build an excellent Domestic violence article that covers both sexes. I'm not saying this content shouldn't exist. I'm saying that per out content forking guidelines, and per our NPOV (undue weight) policy, an article at this title shouldn't exist. Finally, I'm a little confused by one of your comments. I had nothing to do with reverting your changes. I came to talk first. It was another editor that restored the redirect (showing that at least I am not alone in my view).-Andrew c 23:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, why can't we merge the Violence against women article with the Domestic violence article as well at the same time? Sorry if I misunderstood you. --Oblong-Square 23:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Two things, I have basically blanked the page because every paragraph was taken verbatim from other webpages. This clearly isn't how wikipedia works. There is a warning everytime you edit Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted. Next, this articles existence should be discussed on its own merits, not weighed against other articles. If you look at Talk:Violence against women you can see a few topics that discuss a merge, and the reasons why it is not a good idea. We have to keep in mind that there is a big difference between violence and domestic violence. As I said in my very first comment, if anything, this article should be moved to Domestic violence against men, and then we'd have to create a Domestic violence against women article first. The violence against women article talks about other forms of violence besides domestic violence (such as war, rape). As it stands now, there is no content that wasn't copied from the web, so can we just restore the redirect, and if we want to work up the sections dealing with males in the main Domestic violence article, more power to us (as long as it doesn't involve copy and pasting from other webpages).-Andrew c 23:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I say we leave the article as it is in the state you've left it in, no merge, no redirect, just leave it as you've left it, please. PS: Have you noticed the copy and pasting on the violence against women article? Remove that as well maybe --Oblong-Square 23:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)--Oblong-Square 23:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you why a redirect is better than a one sentence article. Go to Domestic violence. This article gives an overview on the topic. It discusses a number of things that are irregardless of gender. However look at

Domestic_violence#Violence_against_men and [[1]]: two sections dealing specifically with mens issues. There is information at that article available for someone researching the topic (both general, and specific to men). Therefore, that article is by far more useful and informative than one sentence.

To answer your question, no I have not noticed the copy and pasting at that article. You are more than welcome to remove content yourself, or go through Wikipedia:Spotting possible copyright violations.-Andrew c 00:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been talking this out on the talk page. The article Oblong-Square is trying to place here is actually about "Domestic violence against men" not simply "Violence against men". The "Violence against women" article is not comparable to Oblong-Square's version because the Violence against women article discusses more topics than just domestic violence, and covers the UN resolution dealing with Violence against women (especially state sponsored violence, which clearly isn't domestic). Again, these two articles are not comapreable. If you go to the "violence against women" talk page, you will see 2 or 3 discussion regarding a merge, plus a vote, and there is a strong consensus to keep that article there. It would be impossible to merge violence against women into the domestic violence article because where would the state sponsored violence section go? the war section? the section on the UN resolution? all these topics that are not domestic related. On the other hand, there have been multiple past discussion that support merging the domestic violence against men content into the main DV article. Because of that, there are multiple section already at the DV article dealing with men. There is no reason to fork out that content into its own spinout article yet. So again, I ask you to please help work up our current domestic violence article before going against prior consensus and trying to create new articles. -Andrew c 19:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-creation?

This is at least the second time that this article has been created without discussion from a redirect that arose out of discussion (see this talk page, and the archives at Talk:Domestic violence. So I'm curious what has changed? What compelling arguments are there for this article not to redirect to violence? This article is a single sentence definition (seems inaccurate in at least two regards) plus a list of links. I don't see how this article is more informative than the violence and domestic violence articles, and I have concerns about POV forking and notability.-Andrew c 12:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well for one -there are many journals that make mention of violence against men -especially male on male violence (which is statistically the most common form of violence (see: street fighting)). Anti Anti Anti 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)