The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew, article is being worked on. (non-admin closure) Madeline (part of me) 16:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against men[edit]

Violence against men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is obviously bunkum, it's WP:POINTY, about as pointy as it gets. Looking at sources, they are frequently misrepresented. After taking the time to read the first few sources, it is evident that they clearly do not support the claims they are linked to. Generally, the article's claims are poorly cited and wildly at odds with mainstream academic discourse around the subject of gendered violence. Many claims are very dubious, for example the article claims the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide were "gendercide", among a litany of other blatant nonsense. There does appear to be a small amount of legitimate content amongst the pointy bunkum. Perhaps merge any useful, valid and well cited content into another article/articles like War Crime or Domestic Violence? I'm a bit confounded as to why it wasn't deleted at the first two nominations where consensus was to delete, and with good reason. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : There shouldn't be a Violence against women article, When Male violence isn't represented. That's plain sexist. User:PeenorMan
• Keep: I reviewed a few of the academic articles and I didn't see them misrepresenting anything, but I'll go back later when I have time and do a deeper dive. Criminology isn't my area of expertise but from the articles I read that seem to reflect a mainstream viewpoint as they are still cited by people within the last couple of years. With that said I think a lot of the articles could use an update which I don't think would be that hard to find. I think the gendercide content isn't the greatest part of the article for sure but it doesn't make up a large chunk. Since the last time this article was up for deletion it's grown significantly and has a lot more information and depth. If you could give a more detailed outline of what you believe is wrong with the article it would be helpful because this is a really long articles, most of the AfDs I see here are a lot shorter and have less material to go over. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 02:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Echoing what @LordPeterII said, if I'm missing something I'm willing to change my vote. It is a really long article so there a chance I could have missed something. I did go over the article a bit more, updated some of the academic articles, and tried to improve the flow. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 09:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although I might change my vote when the deletion reason is expained: @Tambor de Tocino, why do you believe this article should be deleted? This procedure is for very specific reasons only (please see WP:DEL-REASON), a bad article quality not being one of them. If you think that the article has issues, please tag them or fix them yourself. There were not just two, but four noms previously, with different results; but I agree with Dr_vulpes that the article today seems to be a different one. I see a large number of sources, and couldn't check them all; but it seems the article is not all bad. Parts of it might be, yes, but that doesn't mean we should delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Dr Vulpes and LordPeterII, thanks for your considered responses. I hear what you are saying, and I also struggle to go through the entire article as its really long, but at a cursory look, I found a lot of fringe/dubious citations and issues that raise concerns for me that the article has been created in bad faith and often edited so. The first two citations back a claim that men are over-represented as victims of violence...this is in stark contrast to the figures and in contrast to mainstream academic views on gendered violence...and unless I missed something, neither citation makes that claim, on the contrary all the evidence I've seen says the opposite. This is a false claim, obviously false and easily falsifiable (last time I studied this subject women were four times more likely globally to be victims of gendered violence). The article misrepresents citations by conflating all violence that men experience with gendered violence. A prime example is the obvious non-sense that the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust targeted men on the basis of gender (this is blatant BS). The article was originally created in an obviously pointy manner, someone just copied the violence against women article and changed the genders used in the article, that was an obvious farce. The article had been improved but like the fist citations, the cites are often misinterpreted or selectively read, many of the cited materials also run with fringe views when Wikipedia articles, while giving some space to alternative views, should be weighted to favour the mainstream view. I don't think any serious study of the subject of gendered violence would lead any reasonable person to the conclusion that men are somehow highly represented as victims of gendered violence, it's patent nonsense, a deliberate and obviously false equivalence. The Violence against women article has a heap of issues too, but at least the subject is really a thing. I hope that's not too long winded a response, it's hard to address the issues in an article with such an inexhaustible list of problems. I guess it could just be improved, but it reads like it was created by partisans in the American culture wars, like a real anti-feminist, super WP:POINTY article. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I did a Google search for "rwanda genocide gender" and the very first result is an academic article that contradicts your assertions. Just because an article may go against your ideology does not mean it should be deleted. If there are sources that support your claim, you should edit the article to include them as well.

  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14623520120113900?journalCode=cjgr20 188.213.136.3 (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Please, feel free to improve the article. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is completely false. Its a well known fact that men are vastly more often the victims of violence, everything you write is completely bad faith. What is funny is that what you claim that its conflating all violence that men experience with gendered violence when what actually happens is the reverse, gendered violence against men are ignored and dismissed as just violence while all violence that women experience gets conflated with gendered violence all the time. Just go look at the article for violence against women, its stacked full of it while here we have well documented instances of violence against men and your first instinct is to delete it. 130.226.157.37 (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with reservations. There is a valid topic here but the article needs to be reviewed carefully. Somebody needs to go through and remove all the poorly referenced stuff, if reliable alternative sources can not be found. The thing that seems to have set the nominator off is the Holocaust stuff and, yeah, that's absolutely fair. gendercide.org looks to be an anonymous blog. It's definitely not RS for sweeping statements about the Holocaust, and probably not for anything at all! More broadly, the article needs to take more care not to equate the extent of gendered violence against men with gendered violence against women and other genders. It is fair to note that wars are often fought by men who are unwilling conscripts but this is not, specifically, gendered violence. The article should link more to the articles about the equivalent articles affecting women. This article is going to accumulate more and more MRA nonsense unless watched carefully. There are indications of that in the current See Also section. The inclusion of links to SCUM Manifesto and Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy are dubious at best, and that latter one might be a more plausible deletion case than this article. That's annoying (as MRAs often are) but it's not cause to delete. DanielRigal (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with your points, I think the article is trying to draw false equivalences, misreads sources, misrepresents scholarly materials, is so poorly constructed, makes so many obviously false claims and is clearly WP:POINTY...I think it should be deleted or a t least burnt down and re-built from scratch. But when all is said and done, it'll eventually just end up being a dogs breakfast again, it's such a quagmire of blatant falsehoods, false equivalences and mindless anti-feminist POV pushing that it's unlikely it'll ever be a good article. There's a reason it keeps getting nominated for deletion. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  >It is fair to note that wars are often fought by men who are unwilling conscripts but this is not, specifically, gendered violence.

  I'm not sure the question is as cut and dry as you make it out to be in that specific case. This academic at least considers it to be part of the issue: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0967010606064139?journalCode=sdib

  UNHCR (https://www.unhcr.org/gender-based-violence.html) has this to say about gendered violence: "Gender-Based violence refers to harmful acts directed at an individual based on their gender. It is rooted in gender inequality, the abuse of power and harmful norms." Further on in the article, they include economic acts as a form of gender-based violence. The Council of Europe has a similar definition which is broad, all encompassing.

  I'm not going to go into extent or prevalence debate, there's a lot of different statistics out there, some of which paint a much more "balanced" picture of IPV and gendered violence, but it's not my area of expertise. I do think that without necessarily making violence against men or against women as a competition, it's possible to discuss the issues. I think it's important to maintain neutrality and not present the issue as one gender having it worse than another except when firmly supported by data, and then with proper qualification of the sources. 24.203.119.44 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to change my !vote slightly. It is still a keep, but additionally I now recommend indefinite semi-protection to keep the more disruptive elements at least somewhat in check and allow the grown ups a chance to make progress with the article without tearing their hair out in frustration. DanielRigal (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this recent report from the World Health Organisation (WHO) contradicts the entire premise of this article. This entire article is blatant non-nonsense. In the UK for example women are the victims of 77% of gendered violence and 96% of perpetrators are men...but yet, somehow this article? Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Look we're willing to try and salvage this article. No one is disagreeing that the article as it was nominated was problematic but it is an important topic and we can fix this article pretty easily. Even if we have to remove large chunks of it. And if we see more nonsense being added back in we can go request page protection. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, I can see what you're saying. Now that it's getting a bit of work done on it it's looking less like an anti-feminist attack piece...I really can see what you're saying, thanks. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What is your logic exactly? WHO have a heavy anti male feminist bias but even if we assume that claim to be true that article does not disprove that men are victims in any shape or form.

  Are you trying to argue that because there is female victims there can't be male victims? What is the logic here? This seems to be nothing but and unfunded anti male attack on male victims. 130.226.157.37 (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

40+ years after lying about DV, we see 5th attempt to remove wiki article on DV against men.

KEEP 2A02:908:1255:2DA0:4CE0:7206:4C71:2020 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I suggest reverting all changes made by Tambor de Tocino as when you look at the changes they have made they have done nothing but sabotage the article removing valid sources and injecting their own biased language.

Fx they changed "Men are over-represented as both victims and perpetrators of violence." to

"Men are over-represented as both perpetrators and victims of violence." Removing sources and shifting the focus from men as victims to perpetrators. Why one would write about men as perpetrators in an article about male victims in the first place is highly dubious and indicative of anti male bias, but the fact they went out of their way to change the focus of the sentence reveals that their actions are nothing but anti male attacks.

Care to explain yourself Tambino and maybe revert your questionable changes? 130.226.157.37 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If you have a problem with the article, fix it. What you're doing is clearly WP:POINTY, about as pointy as it gets.

KRLA18 (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of misandrist garbage is this? It's obviously an agenda driven attack on male victims as this entire discussion does nothing but but make false accusations having no valid examples of how it's "bunkum" despite the vast evidence provided of violence against men. It's clear as day it's nothing but anti male retorics by misandrist who wants nothing but silence and cover up the ways men are victims. Everyone who are trying to get this deleted should be ashamed of themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.44.83 (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Amber Heard vs Depp case is a mainstream example of false accusations against men. Any feminist who denies this is just gaslighting. 82.132.186.196 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!... there are so many men who suffer in silence and think they are alone. 190.92.37.2 (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... you do realize that all votes above were "Keep", meaning that we think the article should not be deleted? We are currently working on the article to make it better, instead. We don't need articles that are in a bad shape and risk getting deleted, we need good articles that can inform people. Heard vs Depp was indeed an example of a false accusation (but it's not really within the scope of this article, so I'm not sure why you bring it up). Wikipedia has a WP:NPOV, which is why I believe it is important to have articles like this one, too. But unless you want to participate in this deletion discussion or the improvement of the article, I suggest you find a discussion forum. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Jesus himself was weeping. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your actions. You aren't even pointing out anything wrong with the page, just making broad general statements that its bunkum despite it is factually not and have a giant pile of well documented sources. You should be ashamed of yourself and your obvious misandry. If you had any decency you would apologize for this obvious and unfounded man hating attack on male victims and delete your account and never ruin another wiki article with your bias. Shame! 130.226.157.37 (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that this page never should have been up for deletion, that its likely a anti male attack on male victims and this entire discussion is filled with anti male rethorics? And as such it seems likely to me that any such "improvements" are just gonna be ways to silence male victims and cover up violence against men. If anything the only improvement that is needed is that the page way underplays the sheer scale of violence against men. I wont let this kind of misandry go unchallenged.

I suggest that Tambor de Tocino should never touch the article ever again due to obvious misandry bias, and so should anyone in this discussion who wants to "improve" the article by covering up and silencing male victims. Especially any feminists as they are known to have heavy anti male bias and largely operate by creating anti male attack pieces. Anyone critical of MRA should have no say, as their bias is obvious since they are against men having basic humans right. In fact, the only ones that should be writing about this are MRA and people who are knowledgeable about violence against males and can write without obvious feminist anti male bias. 130.226.157.37 (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - to delete this page confirms the violence against men, be it physical, emotional or just bias. Feminism lacks empathy towards men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.223.136.5 (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP No specific references to what is wrong just their conclusion that sources are 'frequently misrepresented'. I dont have time to sort through all refrences to see if I agree. If there are issues please bring the forward so that they may be fixed. I would say the general philosophy of Wikipedia is to improve not delete.

″I'm a bit confounded as to why it wasn't deleted at the first two nominations where consensus was to delete, and with good reason.″ This is easy to answer, those nominations were in 2006 and 2011. The current year is 2022 and this pages history starts in 2013‎. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EatingFudge (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up :D I think this deletion discussion can be closed now, there's a consensus to keep and improve and I agree, the article has many problems, but there is a real article in there, it just needs a lot of work.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:ATD-E and WP:BATHWATER, and especially per DanielRigal. Articles such as these require regular careful scrutiny to make sure they remain NPOV. If there are problems with the page, either fix them or use one of the many fine discussion mechanisms. If in doubt, start with the talk page. De Guerre (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - And a huge thanks to everyone working hard on fixing the article. De Guerre (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The fact this question even got asked is just more proof of how disposable women, and society, think men are. It's obvious that nobody cares about men's problems, that's why feminists keep trying to delete this page. Men suffer MUCH higher rates of suicide, workplace deaths, domestic violence and more than women, but we're not allowed to talk about it. At least we have this page, if nothing else. And, frankly, you can't have a Violence Against Women page without this one. That's called hypocrisy, and it's against the Wiki policy. Cfisher 06:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbfisher (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: I've just had to revert some personal attacks on this page. MRAs, please try to understand that you are not helping anybody by behaving like this. If anything, you are making me reconsider my keep !vote. Please, just pack it in and let the grown ups work on this. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DanielRigal. There are massive issues with articles like this being targeted by fringe individuals pushing their agenda, I think this is evident in some of the hysterics. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is massive issues with the way this article is being targeted by you pushing your anti male sexist agenda, its evident in your hysterics and complete lack of any evidence of your claims. You "Men are over-represented as both victims and perpetrators of violence." to

"Men are over-represented as both perpetrators and victims of violence." Removing sources and shifting the focus from men as victims to perpetrators. Why one would write about men as perpetrators in an article about male victims and thereby victim blame in the first place is highly dubious and indicative of anti male bias, but the fact they went out of their way to change the focus of the sentence reveals that your actions are nothing but anti male attacks. You should stop your obvious feminist anti male agenda driven attacks on male victims. 130.226.157.37 (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Behaving like what DanielRigal? Calling out anti male misandry and feminist attacks on male victims? Why is not helping? And why is defending male victims making your reconsider your vote as all that should matter is the articles validity not your feelings about being called out. Please, pack it in and let grown ups work on this, like egalitarians and male rights activists. Not obvious anti male feminists. 130.226.157.37 (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are disrupting the AfD process. Remember, that's what we are here for, to decide whether to keep or delete the article. This is not your personal soapbox to rant on. Pack it in! --DanielRigal (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: 1) Use the talk page to identity direct quotes from cited sources, 2) Restructure the topic around those sources, 3) Avoid blanket generalizations, 4) Keep on topic and not qualify points about violence against men with 'and ABC also happens to other groups' to diminish each example.

Please no simpleton derailment for the same reason no one would write about Agatha Christie as such: "Agatha Christie was an author, as was Arthur Conan Doyle, of popular mystery novels; but Arthur Conan Doyle was more popular. Her novels are widely regarded as near the pinnacle of the genre, though critics consider Arthur Conan Doyle's works to be of higher quality." Wikipedia, on many facets, has a tendency to one-upmanship in many articles which should be discouraged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:E8D4:FB31:78E2:D335 (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nomination fails to make a valid case for deletion. There seem to be plenty of sources available to establish notability. Article quality (or lack thereof) is not a reason for deletion. GoldenRing (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. —Wasell^(T) 🌻 16:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.