Talk:Violence against women/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Violence by women: Beyond the box of heterosexual couples.

Observations:

First and foremost the article on 'violence' is a rather 'black and white' perspective of abuse, with violence being merely one form of abuse, and not necessarily abuse, as in a reaction to some form of abuse. This has been long known as part of the 'game' of violence.

I also wanted to bring to your attention an incident whereby a bi-sexual woman, involved her lesbian lover to kill her boyfriend. While this is quite possible, I am surprised on how the 'theories' of today are so blatant stereotypical and sexist.

Here is the link: Bisexual Girlfriend found guilty of axe murder --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Caesar, your above post is an inappropriate use of the talk space. You have previously been warned for soap-boxing - if you are still unclear what the problem with posts like this are please follow the link provided for an explanation of the relevant policy--Cailil ^talk 23:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• • "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view.**

My comments are to suggest to the readers of this site that the article does lack neutrality, plain and simple.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for quoting policy Caesar also bare in mind that soapboxing includes "opinion pieces" and "scandal mongering". Thank you for clarify your point also, but that is neither what you said nor what you inferred in your last post
If you have a specific issue as regards the NPOV of a section, sentence or paragraph please be specific about what, how and where and please restrict your remarks on that to how such an issue may be resolved through verifiable sources pertinent to the subject of the article, rather than your personal opinion on and I quote "the 'theories' of today" or tangential matters.
Let me be explicit Caesar, the relevance of a regional news item about a " woman [who] involved her lesbian lover to kill her boyfriend " to Violence against women is precisely zero. Your previous post is a soapbox about the subject of this article rather it's content. That makes it a "forum posting" or more generally 'soapboxing' - which is inappropriate use of the talkspace. You have been reminded of this policy once again please don't continue to use the talkspace in this manner--Cailil ^talk 01:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• • While the article's title focuses on violence against women, the real issue is abuse. (that the article refers to...)

Secondarily the article above invovles the possible manipulation of one women by another women to kill her other lover. Abuse in this case moves beyond the normal one dimensional type that the article focuses on. Today the orientation spectrum should be considered if only to expose the complexity of it relative to the abuse of a women.

I have noted that the attack on 'talk pages' in the interest of expanding the article beyond the biases of some theories is very unacceptable to wikipedia. I have taken this approach to refrain in correcting the article directly, and hoping that someone who prefers to make the changes do so. Again this is a talk page. --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes Caesar this is a talk page and you clearly don't get what is appropriate use of one - there will be no further warnings--Cailil ^talk 14:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• You have not shown how the suggested information does not improve the balance and intregity of the article. I do not apprecaite your threat, based on an unconfirmed warning on your part. I might suggest some other individual without 'feminist' leanings to comment on the talk. The article is definitly not a straight and honest approach to the problem. Gays, lesbians and bi-sexuals abuse each other and the article infers otherwise. A link has been provided and hopefully someone else can make the appropriate changes to the article to remove a bias, that others have commented on.

As a matter of record, there have been several attempts by 'feminists,', gays, lesbians and bi-sexuals and even some heterosexuals of questionable background to attack my suggestions and attempt to censor obvious errors of omissions, albeit politically incorrect.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Going back to the original CBC story, all I see is a story about a specific crime, with nothing in that of a wider scope. Accordingly, I don't see how it has a bearing on this article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What about masochism ?

Masochism and Women: The Debate Continues:

"The primary dictionary definition of masochism is the getting of sexual pleasure from being dominated, mistreated or hurt physically or otherwise by one's partner, according to the second edition of Webster's New World Edition of the American Language. The secondary definition is the getting of pleasure from suffering physical or psychological pain, inflicted by others or by oneself."

To highlight the problem with the article, there is no mention of masochism, relative to a persons perspective on the acts of violence. It does exist, with some people, the noted article disputes it, but it should be included for women and or men, as a subcategory, to avoid generalizations. --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 05:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Template

We should create a template for Violence Against Women which can be added to this article and other relevent articlesSusanbryce (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

incorrect wikilink URL

could someone please modify

Government agencies often disregard the victim's right to freedom of association with their perpetrator

to

Government agencies often disregard the victim's right to freedom of association with their perpetrator

I.E. delete the "s" from the URL. thanks. YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN (where is the article?)

i'd like to pose a question to anyone reading this: why is there a wiki article on violence against women but not also one on violence against men? i want to make it clear i am totally against violence against women, but as i've become more and more aware of the invisible sexism that men still face in 2010 i'm wondering why there is NEVER a focus on violence against males as a gender. all of the data point to the fact that men over the course of their lives are much more likely to be a victim of violence in general. even in regards to a specific form of violence (domestic violence) where women make up the majority of victims, studies have shown up to 30 percent of victims are men. yet domestic violence is seen pretty much universally as a "women's issue". this is an example of sexism against men. the fact that there is an article on wikipedia for "violence against women" but not one for "violence against men" is another example of a double standard that still privileges women's lives over men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.81.20 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

While you may have appropriate criticisms of society, Wikipedia cannot be proscriptive in this sense, to try to correct a perceived wrong in society. We simply follow sources. Why is there a UN "Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women", but not one for men? Why does the WHO have a factsheet on Violence Against Women, but not men? Why is the US congress considering the International Violence Against Women Act of 2010, and previously passed the Violence Against Women Act? Because of all this, hopefully this explains why we have an article on this topic, but not "violence against men". Due to WP:UNDUE we can't present both sides as "equal" when it is clear that our sources (and society) currently have this disparage. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from your user page that you're either a feminist or agree with feminism so obviously you would want to deny the fact that men are still oppressed in numerous ways in 2010 and you'd want to elevate women's suffering over men's. by the way all of the U.N. acts and congressional acts that help decrease violence against women i am in support of. you ask why there are no factsheets and acts trying to help stop violence against men. that is my whole point: men are invisible and violence against men is normalized and acceptable the way it was for women in the 1950's/60's and prior. if you disagree with me and think women are still being abused and victimized MORE than men in the year 2010 please give some facts and/or statistics that support that line of backwards thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.81.20 (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you are new here. Please consider WP:NPA. It isn't appropriate to discuss other users personally on article talk pages. We have user talk pages for such. It also isn't appropriate to make blanket assumptions about other editors in a disparaging manner. It doesn't matter what I personally want or believe. It is about what reliable sources say. How is this discourse played out in public. These are core tenets of Wikipedia, and I encourage you to read up on "how things work" around here. You asked why there was a VAW article but not a VAM, and I explained why I thought that was the case, and why we simply can't present both topics as equal. If you feel you have sources and content to contribute, in accordance with our guidelines and policies, then please go ahead. But it isn't appropriate to make snide comments about others, try to bait them. Remember, Wikipedia is not a Forum (WP:NOT). -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

ok, fair enough. i know it's not a forum but there was also a snide tone to your original response so i was just responding to you. no harm meant.

• "Violence against women‎" has 3,440,000 Google hits (and that includes all the feminist POV material)
• "Violence against men‎" has 402,000 Google hits

So it looks like a "Violence against men‎" article is fully justified.--Penbat (talk) 09:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily: Google hits are not an indicator of the notability of a subject. In the case of violence against women, there are a number of reliable sources that cover things such as the UN Declaration, that show violence against women is a notable subject and distinct from violence in general. Unless there is coverage in scholarly sources, newspapers, and the like, there cannot be an article on violence against men—and even if there is such coverage, it will have to show violence against men as a unique subject. —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also agree that a violence against men article would be highly justified. Men suffer far, far more violence than women anyway.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying is all true. In fact, it is my understanding that the best scientific data is that even for domestic violence men are as often the victims as are women. However, that is rather beside the point. The real question is--if you guys are so interested in their being an article on it then why haven't you started one? Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I believe there are plenty enough mentions of violence against men, including scholarly studies, government sources, etc, that it could quite clearly be notable. Mystylplx (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Kirby.ijdh, 8 June 2011 (suggest to go under 'State Violence')

States’ Accountability in Disasters

Speaking at the UN General Assembly in 2010, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences noted women’s particular vulnerability and increased risk of experiencing violence following disasters. The sexual violence experienced by large numbers of Haitian women and girls living in the Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps created following the January 2010 earthquake is one example. In an unprecedented decision, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recognized the accountability of state actors to respond to gender-based violence committed by private actors, when it granted preventive measures requested by Haitian women's grassroots organizations and human rights lawyers.

Kirby.ijdh (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Expanding out the references listed:

No comment on the article at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Blogs aren't reliable sources, The requesting user also appears to have a WP:COI. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 8:07pm • 10:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed metacategory: "Gender Violence"

RE: calls for pages on violence against men, and in allyship with people of all genders, I propose a metacategory under the Gender Studies portal that encompasses all articles related to gender violence. "Violence Against Women" would be a sub-category, along with "Violence Against Men", "Violence Against Transgender People", etc. Eekiv (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Violence against men started

I hope you can help to improve it and fix the bias on this topic. emijrp (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

(Almost) Only in Muslim World

This kind of violence is in most cases done in (almost only) Muslim/Islamic societies. I was quite supriced when searching for "Islam" and "Muslim", while no search result was found. Do not you think it would be reasonable to include this information within the article? In orded Wikipedia to be objective, we should provide fact. The map of Women violence proportions is almost identical to the map of where Islamic religion is most spreaded- — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrancerCZ (talk • contribs) 04:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If your claim is correct, you'll have no problem finding reliable sources to back the claim up. Otherwise, it may not go in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on my sandbox draft

Hi! This is a student from Georgetown's sport and society class. I recently made a draft of edits I want to add to the page violence against women. (it can be found in my sandbox!) I am just nervous that I didn't follow wiki norms for citations. Is there any way you could take a quick look? I don't know how to use the same citation over and over. is any of this revelant to this section? THANKS!Eec34 (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved your talk entry to the bottom and gave it its own header. I found your sandbox at User:Eec34/sandbox. Here is how you cite the same thing twice: WP:NAMEDREFS. Specifically, here is how you would cite Curry twice, the first is a full citation and the second a very short version that refers to the previous cite:

• <ref name=Curry1991>{{cite journal|last=Curry|first=Timothy Jon|title=Fraternal Bonding In The Locker Room: A Profeminist Analysis Of Talk About Competition And Women|journal=Sociology of Sport Journal|year=1991|volume=8|issue=2|pages=119–135|accessdate=12 March 2012|url=http://www.umt.edu/sociology/faculty_staff/ellestad/documents/275_Curry1991fraternalbondinginthelockerroom_s10.pdf}}</ref>
• <ref name=Curry1991/>

Additionally, after citing a source once, you can cite it again but with different page numbers, like this: <ref>Curry 1991, p. 123</ref>

I don't have a comment right now about your content. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I went over your introductory paragraph and left comments on the talk page of your sandbox, at User talk:Eec34/sandbox. Dkreisst (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional section

Hi! I am curious if it would be okay to make these edits?

Gender Based Violence By Male College Athletes

Violence against women is a topic of concern in the United States' collegiate athletic community. From the 2010 UVA lacrosse murder, in which a male athlete was charged guilty with second degree murder of his girlfriend, to the 2004 University of Colorado Football Scandal when players were charged with 9 alleged sexual assaults, studies suggest that athletes are at higher risk for committing sexual assault against women than the average student. It is reported that 1 in 3 college assaults are committed by athletes. Surveys suggest that male student athletes who represent 3.3 % of the college population, commit 19% of reported sexual assaults and 35% of domestic violence. The theories that surround these statistics range from misrepresentation of the student-athlete to an unhealthy mentality towards women within the team itself.

Controversy Over Contributing Factors

Sociologist Timothy Curry, after conducting an observational analysis of two big time sports’ locker room conversations, deduced that the high risk of male student athletes for gender abuse is a result of the team’s subculture. He states, “Their locker room talk generally treated women as objects, encouraged sexist attitudes toward women and, in its extreme, promoted rape culture." He proposes that this objectification is a way for the male to reaffirm his heterosexual status and hyper-masculinity. Claims have been made that the atmosphere changes when an outsider (especially women) intrude in the locker room. In the wake of the reporter Lisa Olson being harassed by a Patriots player in the locker room in 1990, she reflected, "We are taught to think we must have done something wrong and it took me a while to realize I hadn't done anything wrong." Other female sports reporters (college and professional) have claimed that they often brush off the players' comments which leads to further objectification. Other sociologists challenge this claim. Steve Chandler notes that because of their celebrity status on campus, “athletes are more likely to be scrutinized or fasely accused than non-athletes.” Another Contender, Stephanie Mak, notes that, “if one considers the 1998 estimates that about three million women were battered and almost one million raped, the proportion of incidences that involve athletes in comparison to the regular population is relatively small."

Response to Violence by Male College Athletes

In response to the proposed link between college athletes and gender based violence,and media coverage holding Universities as responsible for these scandals more universities are requiring athletes to attend workshops that promote awareness. For example, St. John's University holds sexual assault awareness classes in the fall for its incoming student athletes. Other groups, such as The National Coalition Against Violent Athletes, have formed to provide support for the victims as their mission statement reads, "The NCAVA works to eliminate off the field violence by athletes through the implementation of prevention methods that recognize and promote the positive leadership potential of athletes within their communities. In order to eliminate violence, the NCAVA is dedicated to empowering individuals affected by athlete violence through comprehensive services including advocacy, education and counseling."

"...victim's gender as a primary motive"?

That text is in the introductory paragraph but it doesn't make sense; the motives will vary greatly from case to case. I think that it should read "...as a primary common denominator" or similar. EdX20 (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. It currently reads:

Violence against women is a technical term used to collectively refer to violent acts that are primarily or exclusively committed against women. Similar to a hate crime, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive.

How would you write it? Gandydancer (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

EdX20 suggested replacing the word 'motive' with 'denominator'. To me, that change reflects a misunderstanding of the sentence. The sentence references hate crimes and the specific targeting of women, both of which imply that the motive is the gender of the person. That is, violence committed against women that would not, in the same context, be committed against a man. I think I prefer the sentence as it is, although maybe it could be re-written for clarity? Incidentally, that definition (gender as motive) goes against the UN definition, which doesn't go as far as to mention motive. -- Irn (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. I agree that the word "motive" is confusing, and doesn't necessary represent the fact that violence against women is gender-based. (As others have noted, there may be multiple "motives" for different acts of violence against women, but the fact that women are women is what in some way allows the perpetrator to target, carry out, or justify the violence against that particular human being, rather than a male human). I added an additional sentence after the sentence containing "motive" to try to expand on/clarify it, however I have left "primary motive" there as others seemed to think that was important to keep. EmmaLKrukar (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Image under 'war and militarism' section

Hi. I was asked to discuss this edit.

I'm not convinced this a relevant and appropriate image for illustrating the topic. The Jamin painting is a highly fictionalized, ahistorical treatment. To quote one scholar[1], "The scene is so conventional, both as a kind of historical or fictional narrative and as a piece of staged or painted theatre, that it has limited emotional impact. The canvas reads more as a well-rehearsed performance than as an intense psychological moment." The book from which the quote comes deals not with sexual violence, but with the visual culture of France 1889–1900, and with historical painting as a way to deal with socio-political issues of the time.

The treatment of the female bodies is clearly intended to be voyeuristic and leering, focusing on their beauty and not on fear and violence: one critic, in a work not available online, calls them "rosy-nippled". There's a lingering operatic Romanticism in the portrayal of Brennus as a noble barbarian. It romanticizes violence against women. The attitudes toward the subject matter are not in keeping with our article, which deals with violence against women not as a trope in literature and art, but as a historical and legal phenomenon in the real world. And that is why I think it's a highly inappropriate illustration. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Or to look at it another way, I don't think the image should be in the article unless it's with a well-sourced section on how violence against women has been given aesthetic treatment, which would be an interesting topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you prefer this photo? Gandydancer (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you may've hit on my main reservation by using the word "photo". This is a photo in only the technical sense: it's actually a photographic reproduction of a painting intended as a work of art, not as a factual representation of the topic at hand. This too would be appropriate only in a section on aestheticized depictions of violence against women: notice how this painting similarly highlights the women's breasts, which are depicted with a creamy luminescence. It also raises complex questions about what scene is being depicted (not really an incident with which most readers will be familiar) and about its racial and ethnic composition. In other words, real violence doesn't look like this, carefully composed and artfully highlighted. Paintings of female martyrs often emphasize their beauty and vulnerability in nudity (notice Eulalia's artfully swirling locks and unmarked skin), and sometimes express what can only be interpreted as sadistic pleasure. These have to be understood as part of an iconographical tradition, and aren't unmediated representations of real-world violence. I would prefer not illustrating the section if we lack public domain photojournalism or other documentary photography that is suitable for illustrating the topic. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Photo taken in Xuzhou, showing the body of a woman profaned in a similar way to the teenager described in case 5 of John Magee's movie.

You and the one scholar you have furnished have made comments such as, "clearly intended to be voyeuristic and leering, focusing on their beauty and not on fear and violence" and you mention another complaint about the women's rosy nipples and now you comment about their breasts, "which are depicted with a creamy luminescence". The scholar describes the work as allowing the viewer to, "enter a woman's space of sensuality and flesh to 'imagine and share Brennun's desire'"

Speaking for the viewpoint of a woman who did focus on the "fear and violence" suggested in the paintings rather than looking at the color of the women's breasts, nipples and such and was certainly not imagining Brennun's desire, I thought that the painting was adequate for our article's war violence section. Certainly it would be better to have a photo to bring war rape up to date--it is as violent and brutal today as it was at the time that the paintings represents. Here is one that should do. Gandydancer (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm a woman too. That's why I object to beautifying violence against women, and I'm taken aback by your response. It seems a little extreme to go from genteel 19th-century paintings that use violent acts as an excuse to show lovely naked women (notice the artist hasn't chosen models who are old or unattractive), to what must be one of the most brutal photographic images we have on Commons. Clearly we haven't read the same feminist art criticism or you'd know what I mean about the ways in which these paintings are by and for "the male gaze" (this was my point about the highlighting). Nor would I find it necessary to illustrate the article with such a profoundly disturbing image as you've chosen, though it certainly demonstrates my point about the difference between a painting that beautifies violence and a photograph that documents the sickening reality. So I'll just slink away, and file this under "maybe it isn't just the guys who make Wikipedia such a hard place to edit as a woman." Cynwolfe (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Cyn, actually I understand your criticism quite well and in many ways I agree with you. I think that you made some excellent points that should give anyone (including me) something to think about. Perhaps in a way we have brought out something very disturbing about war rape? Or even rape in general? The old artistic renditions are too artistic and a modern photograph is too graphic. It would be good to get more input from others... Gandydancer (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Link labelled hate site

In this edit a link to a page on "WikiIslam" was removed. It's probably valid to remove it on the basis of being a 'wiki' rather than a fixed resource, but I'm wondering if anyone knows why it's being called hateful. Towards women? Towards Islam? Ranze (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Towards Islam.VR _talk 05:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Singling out one religion

I removed a singular reference to the Qur'an from the article. If we want, we could have a balanced discussion on violence against women from the perspective of all religions and those with no religion, with both sides represented fairly. BUt singling out one religion is a violation of WP:NPOV.VR _talk 05:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that. Dkreisst (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggested edits to follow the first paragraph under "Violence in empowerment systems"

Human rights violations perpetrated by police and military personnel in many countries are correlated with decreased access to public health services and increased practices of risky behavior among members of vulnerable groups, such as women and female sex workers. These practices are especially wide-spread in settings with a weak rule of law and low levels of police and military management and professionalism. Police abuse in this context has been linked to a wide range of risky behaviors and health outcomes, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance abuse. Extortion of sexual services and police sexual abuse have been linked to a decrease in condom use and a elevated risk of STI and HIV infections among vulnerable groups. Steps necessary to reduce and prevent human rights abuses by law enforcement personnel include systematic monitoring of human rights violations, police trainings, impact litigation, and incentives for cross-sectoral collaboration between police and human rights entities.

Gransford (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to add this, but the last sentence needs a little work. We can't really say, in Wikipedia's voice, that those steps are necessary. If you'd like to revise it to say x persons or entities have said the steps are necessary, please do. Otherwise, I think it could be added with the final sentence omitted. Rivertorch (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Partly done: Added all but the last sentence, per my comment above. I'm not absolutely clear on what's going with the Gupta source; the template may need further adjustment. Rivertorch (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional modifications (from a group of graduate students for gender class)

As part of a group project for our graduate studies program in Gender and International Affairs class, we are planning on improving this Wikipedia article. We aim to improve the existing entry on Violence Against Women on Wikipedia. We observed that there is a need to improve and expand some existing sections in the entry, as well as incorporate the other related and essential subtopics.

Overall, the entry seems to focus the issue in a broad and universal sense.

There is, at the right side of the main entry, a more thorough List of Topics, which includes links to many other sub-categorizations of Violence Against Women, but we consider that this one, being the main article on the subject, ought to include at least short and general introductions to topics such as Psychological and Physical Violence Against Women, Violence Against Women in the Context of Activism, and Legal Aspects of violence against women.

We also plan to expand the section on “History of violence against women”, which is too short to be a detailed history or mention enough important historical aspects. In addition, we plan to expand the section on "Impact on Society" with more information. We also plan to do an introduction on the concept of obstetric violence, which some scholars, especially in the Spanish-speaking world, have recognized as an important source of potential violence, around which there is still much denial and unrecognition.

The entry also appears to have insufficient ‘legitimate’ sources and research-backed approach. This is apparent throughout the entry while it is referring to a very limited number of: 1) United Nations’ treaty bodies such as the United Nations General Assembly, on the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women and the 48th UNGA Resolution [2] 2) The international human rights instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW, which is not even mentioned, and neither is the Convention of Bélem do Pará and the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action and 3) the empirical data and reports of the situation on the ground from the ‘Non-governmental organizations ’being used to support the content of the entry. Some of these references were mentioned just in titles, but not in details. We deem that it is necessary for this entry to have more ‘legitimate’ and ‘human rights based’ sources to support the information related to this topic. Therefore, we propose a number of existing subsections to be expanded: history of violence against women, impact on society, female genital mutilation and activism, and other subsections such as violence against women in the justice system and obstetric violence to be added.

However, there are some recent contributions that we very much appreciated: addition of subsections under the section of 'domestic violence' and 'state violence,' the rearrangement of sections and restructuring of the article page. Wipadap (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

In addition to that, we also would like to create a small subsection on the definition of 'violence against women, which seems to be debatable among many feminist scholars. Wipadap (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wipadap, Sounds great. I'd say go for it, and thank you. Here are some suggestions: It seems you've already reviewed some of the history of the page, which is a good start. Please consider reading the past discussions on this talk page and the archives of this talk page, if you haven't already, to see what issues come up most often. Also, you mention adding to the history section: you might also consider beginning an article on the subject, as there is no current article and there is probably more than enough information to provide for one.

Thanks again. I look forward to seeing the results of your research! Dkreisst (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dkreisst, thank you for your kind response. We will make sure to read the earlier comments and take into account the issues that need to be addressed in the article page. Also, we would like to update you that we are planning to also expand on the 'Impact on society' section due to the fact that what is there is considered to be insufficient and uninformative for a good 'wiki' article. My colleagues and I will keep you and other contributors updated on parts that we would like to fix and expand. I personally work on the Introduction, Definition and Activism parts. If you have any further suggestions, please do not hesitate to let us know. Wipadap (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi DKreisst, thanks for all your comments. I am the group member for this class assignment who completed the revisions on the History section - I agree that there is a lot more which could be said on this part, indeed enough for a whole new Wikipedia entry. However that goes beyond the scope of my course's requirements for this assignment, but if you have the time & interest in doing it, please do so, I would be really interested to read the result. Also, do you have any recommendations on extra resources to find information to include on this part? Of course I found a bunch of international milestones (which is the first bulleted list there), but it seemed harder to find information on national levels or local levels on the history of violence against women. I have the impression it is something that was not always well-recorded (as many forms of it were seen as "private matters of the home"). Specifically, I know an improvement to this section (which I cannot undertake now) would be to include examples from other countries (besides the US, but along those lines) of milestones in the recognition of & working to end violence against women. I appreciate any suggestions or edits you may have! At least I think it is improved from what was originally there (a 3-sentence paragraph!) Thanks again. EmmaLKrukar (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi EmmaLKrukar, sorry for the late reply. I have not been able to come up with the resources you request. Thank you for the work you've put into the article! Dkreisst (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

In the context of this same Group contribution, I have added an entirely new section which was not previously referred to; neither in the "Topics Box", nor in the Article, nor in the rest of Wikipedia. The concept of "Obstetric Violence" is fairly new to most people in the developed world, and especially among English speakers. One could still tend to think that the context of "medicalized" birth cannot be a violent one; but evidence from various studies, as well as from international health organizations, legal institutions and NGO's demonstrate that in fact the context of childbirth in the developed world can present violent situations for women. Thank you for your comments. ClaraeFranco (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Very exciting. Have you heard about the work of Young Women United in New Mexico? They organize around this issue. See their page here. Dkreisst (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dkreisst, thank you for this interesting Website about this organization!... In order to build this article, I did look into several different organizations that share the purpose of humanizing childbirth and informing women about Obstetric Violence and about the options they have. I had not come across this one. However, I found it relevant to devote more space to talk about the legal advancements in Venezuela and the particular Mexican states that have included in their laws the right to a life free of Obstetric Violence. The USA has not yet seen any similar law at the national level; however it would of course be interesting to mention more organizations and the work they do. There are many others around the world: some also in Europe and in other Latin American countries. Thank you! ClaraeFranco (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now added a brief line of information about this organization. Thank you very much for the suggestion! ClaraeFranco (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi group members, I've read over your contributions and I think they all help to expand the article and make it more detailed and informative, so thank you. Specifically I wanted to address the added "Definition" section, I think that was a really good idea and gives a better framing to the subject, even if the exact definition is still under debate by scholars. This gave me the idea to make a small addition to the very first paragraph of the article (the lead), because I (like other previous editors) found the wording "as a primary motive" not to exactly capture violence against women. I left that wording there, but expanded upon in. I also wanted to let you all know that I noticed the addition of the WHO typology of violence against women (good idea), and in that same section, I decided to add a diagramatic typology of violence I came across in my research, which captures visually more dimensions than just the time element, but also the perpetrator of the violence. Hope you all find it helpful. EmmaLKrukar (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmmaLKrukar (talk • contribs) 16:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear, contributors, I have added more information on the activism part with three more subsections on: 1) Background and history, 2) Levels of activist movements, and 3) Achievements of VAW Movements. If you have any advice please feel free to let me know. Thank you in advance Wipadap (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Specific Article on Nigerian Women

Hello. I am planning to create a new page about physical violence against women in Nigeria as a part of my course, Human Development. My aim for the new article is to inform people about what women in Nigeria face. I plan to talk about quite a few topics. as of now, I plan to focus on rape, domestic violence, mistreatment of widows, sexual harassment, and human trafficking. I think that these issues are incredibly important and that they will be relatively easy to back with research thus giving am accurate viewpoint on the problems that exist for women in Nigeria. As of now, there is no real information or article about women and Nigeria on Wikipedia so I am creating it from scratch with the basis and format of other articles such as this one dealing with violence and women. My professor mentioned that I should also add the resources that are available to women experiencing these issues. What sort of resources other than NGOs should I look for? In order to make the article balanced, should I also include a section about resources hindering women’s efforts in these regards? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Gracieoribamise (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014

Hello, I represent The WomanStats project. Our map is under the "Impact on Society" section. This is a poor quality and outdated version. The new version also has our logo for credit. Please update the map with this instead: http://womanstats.org/substatics/Women's%20Physical%20Security_2009tif_wmlogo3.png All our other maps may also be found here: http://womanstats.org/ I can also email a higher resolution .png version if desired. Cbakaitis (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• If the new image is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0 like the old one, one of the first modifications we'll make is to strip out the logo. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)