< June 23	June 25 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete; merge contents of Category:LGBT models from Canada to Category:LGBT models and Category:LGBT people from Canada. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT models from Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:LGBT models by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per many past discussions about what levels of LGBT categorization are or aren't warranted, models are not an occupation for which we need a triple intersection of "LGBT", "models" and nationality. While obviously "LGBT models" and "Models by nationality" make sense as categories independently of each other, as a unified category like this it violates WP:OC#LOCATION as a non-notable and non-defining intersection of unrelated traits — it's also the only such category that exists at all, as parent Category:LGBT models by nationality (which should also be deleted) contains no other nationality siblings. Delete and upmerge all entries back into the parent categories Category:LGBT models and Category:LGBT people from Canada. Bearcat (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• support per nom, triple intersection isn't needed, there aren't enough entries anyway to merit splitting by nationality.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete LGBT is not a defining aspect specifically in respect to modelling in Canada (i.e. the LGBT aspect is not distinct between, say, an American model and a Canadian one). LGBT models and LGBT Canadians parent categories are division enough. SFB 10:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lepidoptera of Metropolitan France (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Odonata species of Metropolitan France

Nominator's rationale: This is tidying up following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_19#Category:Insects_of_Andorra. Each of these categories currently contains just one subcat (and the subcat is in several other categories). DexDor (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Beetles of Metropolitan France to Category:Beetles of Europe

Nominator's rationale: This is tidying up following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_19#Category:Insects_of_Andorra. All other "Beetles of <region>" categories are for much larger regions (and physical geography rather than political geography). This category currently contains just one sub-category. DexDor (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Violence against men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Violence against men in North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Violence against men in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Violence against men in Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Violence against men by continent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Violence against men in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a category that is simply being used as Men's rights movement propaganda. Not a serious encyclopedic category covered in the academic literature. jps (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Note - I combined these since the rationale was the same).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy close as keep, this was already discussed only 3 months ago and closed as keep: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_15#Category:Violence_against_men. No new arguments have been brought to the table. False assertions that violence against men isn't covered in the academic literature suggests the nominator did not take time to search the academic literature, which has studied sexual violence against men, domestic violence against men, and violence against civilian men in times of war (see Androcide and the work of Adam Jones [1] on gendercide. The sub-categories, which divide this by continent, are standard ways of dividing up large categories, I think they are useful (we have a similar structure at Category:Violence against women by continent for example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the nom may want to read this article, from well-known mens-rights-propaganda machine CNN, which covered a recent attack in Nigeria. "The attackers, who posed as soldiers, told residents they had come to protect them from Boko Haram and asked them to assemble. They singled out men and boys and opened fire on them, Biye said..."Even nursing mothers had their male infants snatched from their backs and shot dead before their eyes," the local leader said." But you're probably right, no-one discusses this in academic literature, and no-one publishes papers studying silly things like "Recognizing Gender-Based Violence Against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict Situations" [2] or "Sexual violence against men and boys" ". But, no, perhaps we should just trust the nominator who couldn't be bothered to do a bit of research, and instead just decided to demean and deride male victims of gendered violence by calling it propaganda. Nicely done. Speedy close this and trout to the nom, do more research next time pretty please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are a WP:SPA who is a MRA with seeming your only agenda. Your presence on Wikipedia is solely to advocate for your political position, in violation of WP:SOAP and a number of other policies/guidelines. You are misusing sources and presenting fringe sources as legitimate to push your agenda. You probably ought to be banned from Wikipedia. jps (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't that special. I suppose that's why I created the Category:Violence against women in Afghanistan category and placed a number of contents within, or deghettoized hundreds of female biographies by placing them in gender neutral parent categories per WP:EGRS. Can you tell me which fringe sources, exactly, are being used to suggest that violence against men is real? Do you have sources that suggest otherwise? Please, I can't wait to see them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your agenda is transparent to anyone who looks through your contributions. I'm not amused by your attempts at deflection. Nor am I amused by the way in which you misused sources above or the way you are pretending you are ignorant of your own agenda (c.f. [3]). jps (talk) 12:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for content instead of scurrilous accusations. In what way is violence against men not a topic in the literature. How are the specific papers I've linked above or elsewhere are considered fringe? How specifically are sources being misused?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me that you're feigning ignorance to further your misguided cause. Felson is an academic much criticized for his MRM-pandering and much quoted by the MRAs in fashions similar to you. Sivakumaran writes through a Foucauldian lens about sexual violence against men that occurs not as a categorical difference from other forms of sexual violence, but as a manifestation of wartime violence and would likely reject your facile attempts at indicating that there are specific instances of a phenomenon vis-a-vis the male gender (this goes similarly for Carpenter's and Russell's less artful work). It's clear that you're promoting an agenda through this vain attempt at establishing academic credulity for your arguments. jps (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's enough with the accusations of agenda pushing. Your arguments make no sense - the simple fact is gender-based violence against men does exist and is a topic studied in the literature - whether through intimate partner violence (see Domestic violence against men), sexual violence (see Male rape), sexual violence in times of war (see recent work in this studying the conflict in Congo for example where something like 22% of men reported being victims of sexual violence, massacres of men (see work by jones, carpenter and others on gendercide of males - eg Srebrenica, Kalavryta, etc), etc. this is a topic category and thus covers a broad sweep of different instances of gender-based violence against men, which despite your attempts at painting it as propaganda actually does exist and is a real and studied phenomenon. If you have credible sources that state that gender-based violence against men isn't real or doesn't exist please provide them, otherwise cease the bad faith accusations.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is not on me to prove a negative. I impeached your sources and besmirched your integrity vis-a-vis WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY. Since you are doing the heavy lifting here, it is only fair we scrutinize the apparent agenda evidenced in your contributions. Your denial of your agenda is not at all convincing and your attempt at scholarship is just a smokescreen. jps (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't impeach anything jps. You just waved your hand and said some blah blah, but provided zero sources to back up your claims. If you want to engage in an academic discussion as to whether gendered violence against men is real or studied, then provide some sources. I've provided plenty, see below.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STOP accusing Obiwankenobi of SPA and personally attacking him. Jps, you haven't provided any rationale on the content of the category, instead repeating old arguments refuted at the previous AfD. You've personally attacked Obiwankenobi, and that seems to be the meat of your argument. I'm supporting him in most of his arguments here, so please don't state that he's the only one pushing this "agenda" you speak of. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to me that there are many who are sympathetic to the MRA position active on Wikipedia. I don't think I accused Obiwankenobi of being the "only one pushing this 'agenda'". jps (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making this personal, jps. Please discuss the issues, not the editors. --GRuban (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POVPUSH is the issue. That editors are the ones who do it is unavoidable. jps (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The last CfD basically said "the category is valid but should be cleaned up to include only articles/cats that are primarily or exclusively dealing with violence against men. I tried to start on that cleanup now, and got instantly reverted. Since the cleanup doesn't appear easily possible, at this point I support deletion of the entire category as an alternative. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Revising my vote as of 7-6: Delete all child categories currently, with prejudice - none of them have enough content to function primarily as useful cats rather than as POV-magnets. Delete the parent cat currently with no prejudice to its recreation in the future if done in a way that meets WP:Categorisation and provides a useful navigational aid for our readers. Cats are treated differently than articles are, and merely demonstrating the fact that a cat is the subject of serious scholarly study is not enough to justify it's existence. WP:Categorisation provides useful guidance for how we should treat categorization, which I am going to paraphrase here - verifiable information must exist showing why an article belongs in a category, categories must maintain a neutral point of view and since annotation or referencing a cat is generally not possible to explain its existence on a page categorisation should generally be uncontroversial, and categories should only be applied to articles where they describe one of the defining characteristics of a subject - that is, a characteristic that reliable sources commonly and consistently define as being central to the article. There are relatively few articles if any articles about VAM that ENWP currently has where an article that deals with violence against men can meet all three of those criterion and be appropriately catted, although I can imagine the future creation of articles where all three of those criterion are applicable (and have offered to help Obi write some of them in the future.) Until a diverse enough corpus of articles that can be appropriately catted as VAM exists, I think that this cat will overwhelmingly attract POV-pushers instead of people interested in making constructive contributions to the encyclopedia, and that's not a good thing - they take time away from building useful content, sometimes essentially blocks our ability to build useful content, and generally wastes a lot of time. I can see a generic VAM cat being useful, justifiable, and policy compliant in the future, but it's current incarnation is not really any of those. (And I would suggest the closer of this discussion carefully read over our cat related policies and discard !votes that are simply "keep, it's a legitimate field of study" - the goal here isn't to meet the GNG as it would be in an AfD.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what the last CFD said, the last CFD said "keep; contents to be managed better." You're quoting one of the participants, whose view did not translate into the closing statement. You attempted to remove a valid subcategory tree of Category:Rape, which is an example of gender-based violence against men (as well as women of course) - estimated 10% of victims of rape are male; another study found 38% of victims of sexual assault were male [4]. Deletion of this category would be an excellent demonstration of POV - Kevin, did you bother to read the sources I provided above?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the official closer said "keep, but manage the contents better." Since you appear to be opposed to a solution (which would involve catting far more individual articles and far fewer high level categories) that would mean that Domestic violence and pregnancy would not be categorized as "violence against men," then the next best option to me seems to be to get rid of the whole category. I'd prefer a well managed violence against men category that tags appropriate articles, but I'm not really okay with a system that includes domestic violence and pregnancy in the category violence against men. I see two options: managing the category so that it only is applied to articles where it, you know, actually applies, or alternately (and less preferably,) just getting rid of the whole category. I'd be more than happy to dedicate time to ensure the category is only applied to articles where it, er, actually applies, but you don't seem a fan of that approach. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so how do you deal with Male rape, which is in Category:Rape, and thus a subcategory of Category:Violence against women? How do you deal with Beauchamp–Sharp_Tragedy, about the murder of a man, which is a subcategory of Category:Domestic violence, and thus a subcategory of Category:Violence against women? The larger problem is that categories like Category:Rape which are about gender-based violence themselves aren't gendered, but they have gendered parents, so you end up with some inconsistency, but it is inconsistent all around. One solution could be to keep Category:Rape and Category:Domestic violence and Category:Honor killing as subcats of Category:Gender-based violence, and remove them from the VAW and VAM tree. But otherwise, it's not worth it to go around categorizing all of the articles in Category:Rape as VAW or VAM, it's much easier to just subcat the whole tree. OTOH, deleting the whole category tree because you can't cope with some minor inconsistency is a rather bizarre response. Show me any category tree and I can show you inconsistency once you go one or two levels down. Ultimately, these are broad topic categories, not set categories, and have a bit more flexibility in their application. Why not try a policy-based reason - like "Violence against men doesn't exist" or something like that, but, um, good luck proving that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite literally in the middle of trying to address the inconsistencies you point out among many others when you started blanket reverting my edits. I wouldn't call classifying this article as a minor inconsistency - it seems like a pretty freaking big inconsistency to me. Similarly, it makes little sense to have Pregnancy from rape catted in a way that implies it's a form of violence against men. I'd be more than happy to help fix the inconsistencies this set of cat tree involves, but can't really do so when you start reverting my policy compliant edits within minutes of when I start to do so. You also recatted Forced prostitution in to violence against men despite the fact that the only mention in the entire article of men involved children - which should realy be catted as violence against children, not violence against men - that one being quiiiiite confusing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, when you have non-gendered categories like Category:Rape that have gendered parents like Category:Violence against women, these issues will arise, but we're better off accepting those inconsistencies, of which there are many. We can have a discussion about individual contents elsewhere Kevin, this isn't the place - this is a discussion on whether to delete, which should be speedy closed as already discussed 3 months ago.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a category can be used in a non-disruptive way is relevant to whether or not the category should exist. If people regularly prevent a category frm being used in a non-disruptive way, it's a good sign that either those people should be topic banned or the category shouldn't exist. Since I think you make some valuable contributions in this area, I lean towards the latter. But either way it's relevant. You've also not given a single reason why this discussion should be speedy closed, and I would suggest you read the criteria that apply to speedy closes. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kevin, most of the CfD stated to essentially make the contents very exclusive, and not very inclusive. You're the only one who disagreed in the CfD. But Kevin, just because your edits to the category are being reverted, doesn't mean you should delete it. The proper way is to form a consensus, (which correct me if I'm wrong, seems to have already been done), and to implement that consensus. Obiwankenobi disagrees with the scope of your edits, so I think a discussion on the talk page about all the specific articles that should be removed would be in order. Also, I have started a discussion on the Category talk:Violence against women as well. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where there can be reasonable disagreement about whether or not a cat should be applied in a particular way, I agree that discussion should occur. However, in situations where my edits both meet the common sense test and follow the consensus established in the previous CfD, I don't really see a need for discussion on every individual page. Some of the pages I changed the cat on I can see a reasonable need for discussion on... for some, I can't. Blanket reverting all decats I did (keeping in mind they were in line with an already formed consensus) is just disruptive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - The category itself was created as a mirror to Violence against women, a category that has its own category. However, since the editor removed the Misogyny and Misandry categories from the respective categories, neither is defined by how the term Violence against women is described in article. In a way this is a subtle form of agenda pushing, as if violence against women and men are equivalent, which they are definitely not. Most violence against men is not because of their gender, while most violence against women is. Furthermore, the primary aggressor in male violence is men. This form of erasure is not unusual from an editor who has a contentious editing standpoint towards feminism. I'm not saying that they are overtly anti-female, but it seems, looking through comparable articles, this editor has spent years stewarding these categories, slowly removing many articles from Violence against women, and populating Violence against men with articles that, in some cases, are only slightly relevant. This editor is very misleading in getting their way with these things too. On my article talk page he said that "inclusion in the category of violence against men does not require "gendered" motives". However, the Violence against women category defines it as "Similar to a hate crime, which it is sometimes considered, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive." It is in this manner of "moving the goalposts" that Obi has gotten his way in recategorising dozens of articles, most significantly those in the Rape tree (i.e. neither Gang rape, Marital rape, Date rape nor Domestic violence are in the Violence against women category, despite the primary victim of these crimes being women). Again, I bring up the editors antifeminist editing slant in these edits. This level of slow, long term editing has probably resulted in a complete restructure of these viewpoints from a male centrist viewpoint. The category itself has largely been used for propagandic purposes. It has been added to many articles and every time it is removed after a lengthy discussion with MRA editors (for instance, the case of SCUM Manifesto, where Obi fights for its inclusion for months only to be responded with by an admin saying "A point raised above (the earlier discussion) is valid--whether we can speak of "organized" violence against men in the first place in the way in which women historically have been the target of violence as women. Unfortunately that is not an issue that can be solved here, but it does suggest that the very business of categorizing is not easy"). This seems to be many months ago, but the standing of Obi has not changed. As it stands, the category does cover the content that it should. If it is not a collection of articles where men were the victim of a hate crime, such as those in violence against women, then it is not functional as a Violence against men category. This is quite possibly the biggest push for MRA viewpoints on website and the fact that it has gone so far without being challenged is further evidence of the stranglehold Obi has on MRA and feminist related categories --80.193.191.143 (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very strong and unwarranted accusations. The Category:Rape category has around 1000 articles I think, and there is no reason to bubble some limited subset of five or six of them up to the Category:Violence against women category per WP:SUBCAT - there's no need to put articles in the child and parent - especially since things like Gang rape are also an issue of violence against men. I agree that violence against men and women are not equivalent, they manifest in different ways, but they do both exist and they are both studied in the academic literature. If you have specific issues with the contents you can bring them on the appropriate pages, but if we start removing instances of violence against (X) because they weren't motivated by "gender", we'd have to eliminate a lot - violence happens for a great many reasons, not all of them gender. What these categories have been used for is gender-based violence, e.g. instances where victims were selected for violence primarily because of their gender - but that's quite different than motive, which can be quite varied. the example of Massacre_of_Kalavryta whereby Greek civilians were separated from the women and massacred was not driven by hatred of Greek men but rather was a revenge operation by an occupying military force that decided in that instance to only kill men and spare the women (in other instances the Nazis just killed everyone). To be honest I haven't read much at all of the MRA literature, so I'm not pushing an MRA agenda in any case - and if i was, why would I have created and populated Category:Violence against women in Afghanistan for example? I also created and populated Category:Massacres of women, and have ADDED additional items to all of these categories, my goal has been to expand coverage and categorization in this domain. You have placed a particularly one-sided set of accusations that have no place here, the goal is to discuss this category. Do you have any policy based reasons to delete? I don't see any. Violence against men as a topic is well attested, literature links have been provided above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we look at what is in the category at the moment, it mostly consists of topics that are mirrored in Violence against women, at least in the main category. There are a few events that are valid but I'm not entirely convinced it is necessary. It should really be a smaller category than it is if it is to remain. This was the result of the last AfD, mainly that it should be better policed for inclusion --80.193.191.143 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I would support WP:TNT with more neutral editors --80.193.191.143 (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• further responses To respond to the IP who stated that "Most violence against men is not because of their gender, while most violence against women is." - I want to say ^{[citation needed]}. If we look to reliable sources, they tell a different story. for example, the following excerpt is from the Oxford Handbook of Gender, Sex and Crime, looking at the issue of gender-based violence in conflict situations.

Although men and boys constitute a smaller proportion of victims of gender-based violence during war than women, their victimization is not insignificant. Sexual torture and genital mutilation, such as genital beatings and full or partial castration, are frequently occurring forms of gender-based violence against men and boys and have been documented in a number of recent conflicts, including in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, El Salvador, Greece, Chile, and Sierra Leone. Men and boys are also victimized then they are forced to rape or to watch the rape of others. Using a broad definition of gender-based violence, including acts such as scalping, Leiby reports that men accounted for 24% of victims during the Peruvian civil war and 7 percent of the victims during the conflict in Guatemala. Stigma and a lack of designated services and resources function to reduce reporting of men’s and boy’s victimization...Gender-based violence and its collateral consequences are not monolithically determined by gender but are patterned on the basis of intersecting identities. Indeed a number of scholars hypothesize that gender-based violence is likely to be more prevalent and extreme during ethnic and genocidal conflicts. Consistent with this prediction, case studies of several recent conflicts finds the risk of gender-based violence is influenced by ethnic, racial, religious, national, and political identies, as well as by gender…. Religious identity has also been associated with increased gender-based violence in several conflicts… Whether and how to disentangle the effects of intersecting identities on gender-based violence during war are complicated theoretical, methodological and empirical tasks. Race, ethnicity, religion, national identity and gender are all intersections of disadvantage that affect gender-based violence. (pp 676/677)

Thus, the assertion that I am "moving the goalposts" by supporting and attempting to populate these categories and the violence against women categories with instances of people targeted for violence based on their gender is really ignoring the literature. The reason the head category doesn't have any specific instances of VAM and only includes more generic topical articles is because the specific instances have all been moved to the Category:Violence against men by continent tree, where they are divided based on where they occurred. Also, please stop running around accusing anyone who disagrees with your particular POV as an MRA, I'm not an MRA, I don't identify as an MRA, and I have not read deeply the literature of the MRA nor do I spent time haunting the MRA websites. My efforts here are in the name of neutrality and increased coverage of areas that I feel are lacking, such as violence against men and violence against women. You were right, btw, about Domestic violence, which I've added to the VAW and VAM categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I agree with Kevin Gorman (talk) above that it is simply becoming too difficult to clean up disruptive use of this category. I've seen this category edit warred into articles where it didn't appear to belong. On the surface, it's a reasonable category, but until the category is explicitly clarified/defined, and until a method for preventing the use of this category to promote the men's rights movement, in a manner not supported by RS's is developed, I think the category is best removed.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deleting a valid category because there at some disputes about the content is throwing the baby out with the bath water. This isn't an article, it's a category, for a topic studied in the literature - gender-based violence against men. I've seen many categories added to things where they don't belong but that doesn't mean the category should be deleted. It's interesting that none of the delete votes focus the literature or actual reasons to delete and instead are focused on the boogieman of the men's rights movement.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it happens repeatedly and it largely has been done by yourself. I would be absolutely for keeping the category if you were topic banned from using it --80.193.191.143 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be absolutely for keeping the category if you were topic banned from using it sez the IP. Wow, now that's one of the best arguments to keep a category, ever! We should try that at AFD too "Keep this awesome article, as long as <enemy/person I disagree with> can't edit it". Maybe we could broaden the scope, so as to exclude large swaths of editors from topics - e.g. "Keep this article as long as white people don't get to edit it" or "Keep this category provided women don't add articles to it". That you want to KEEP the category, and yet !vote to DELETE the category, could not be a more perfect illustration of the backstabbing and personal-attack-based nature mixed with a tinge of revenge of this discussion. You just won 1 internet for "Most confounding statement of the day + best reason to keep ever seen here".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with Kevin there's too much potential for abuse. The "little cats" ("VaM in...") definitely need to go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given there are not that many articles in the individual continental categories, I would also be fine with merging them up to the main topic category of Category:Violence against men, but I also think the continental breakdown is useful, and scholars do look at the particulars of the intersection of gendered violence and location because it intersects with cultural norms and ethnic divisions.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Most of the comments voting to delete focus on debates on where it applies, not on the category itself. To me, deleting it amounts to an attempt to whitewash Wikipedia to reduce cross linking by category of articles that address this topic.Mattnad (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A pretty sparse category, many of whose entries are spuriously included. Looks like a propaganda piece. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per comment in "Massacres of men" below. This is Mens' Rights Advocacy, not legitimate categorization that helps organize the project. Tarc (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- with a speedy close Violence against men is not an academic topic? Well, let's see. A Google Scholar search of the phrase "violence against men" returns over 3,500 scholarly articles, book chapters and books. That alone should put put a speedy close to this politically motivated proposal. The proposer got it backwards. This is a serious academic topic; it is shameful propaganda by some radical feminists to suggest that is isn't. Memills (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the result of frequent misuse of the category by an aggressive MRA that this is even being considered for deletion (hint: it's the guy who has replied to every single vote for delete) --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - It is worth noting that the existence of this category was used to remove a series of Rape related articles from the Violence against women category by Obiwankenobi. The primary argument for this is here [5] and relied entirely on the existence of both categories, some of the many removals are here [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and here is a discussion where Obi minimalises the experience of female rape survivors: [12] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, this is getting personal. Did you actually read what other participant in that discussion said re: the category removals? "Obi-wan is clearly correct here, Drowning. There is zero need here to replicate the parent categories on the article. That goes above and beyond any debate about the subject of the original article." Finally, that last quote isn't me. Do your damn homework.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The category has been misused and misapplied to a bunch of unrelated articles, a user has been trying to WP:OWN the category, and some of the subcategories shouldn't be part of the category at all (Category:Honor killing as a subcategory of the Category:Violence against men? Are you kidding me?). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the category is presumably being the target of disruptive editing by Obiwankenobi, doesn't mean we should get rid of it. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement with some contents is not a valid reason to delete, the solution should be to fix the inclusion criteria if you don't like some contents. W.r.t your other point, a recent study of honor killing found that 7% of the victims were male; and indeed we have articles in this category about honor killings where men were killed along with women, or even individually. (more research on this here) There are also cases where "honor killing" is used to describe killing of homosexual men by their families, which is again a particular form of gendered violence against men (as well as violence against LGBT). There's a big problem here with people feeling the category system is somehow representing "truth", when in fact it is supposed to be used for navigation amongst like topics; men are a minority, but not an insignificant minority, of victims of honor killings (similar to rape victims and domestic violence victims), and so the ability to browse to those from within the VAM category is useful. The fact that a category has two parents does not suggest some sort of equivalence of victimhood, and does not diminish its relationship to violence against women.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting video This just came out recently. It's ironic that they just launched a campaign about double standards, and we see such double standards playing out here: ManKind's Domestic Violence Video Shows The Double Standards Between Male And Female Victims. I really wish people would reconsider, it would be a shame if in spite of all of the sources this useful category ended up being deleted. I have tried in good faith to develop this and other categories, and while some additions have been disputed, in general there haven't been major issues with anything that was added to this category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does that even mean? Are you trying to say that domestic violence against women is not minimalised by society? Considering that you are discussing, statistically, the majority of victims of domestic violence, you have to realise that it comes across a little like you are saying that female victims have it easier because they are abused more often? It's a misleading video anyway, there is evidence that it has been specifically edited in this way to prove this point [13], and it's a problematic point as well. Why would you try to argue that there is a double standard concerning domestic violence that makes it easier for women to cope with it? It isn't easy for either gender. This is a pretty Americentric viewpoint too. Do you think that women in countries in which they are largely forced into being financially dependent on their spouses enjoy a societal system that takes their fears seriously and supports them? Do you think that people never laugh at women who are abused? Because that happens too --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it seems like there is sort of consensus that the biggest problem with the category is not its existence but its contents. To both parties: please seek for alternatives for discussing the contents, e.g. mediation. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, quite obviously a legitimate topic to categorise, the arguments against seem to either relate to concerns about the contents/size of the category or a dislike of the topic (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) or a dislike of the editor who created the cats. We do allow small cats on Wikipedia, and if they aren't populated all that well yet then it would be best to work towards doing so. As for the attacks on the creator, these are unacceptable and people should be discussing the content here not the contributor. This is not an appropriate location for category content disputes either--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category is an incoherent mess. Men are by far the most common victims of and perpetrators of violence. We could list every battle of every war in history as "violence against men", but it would be pointless. There's a huge difference between the idea of men being the victims of violence, and men being the victims of gender-based hate crimes or systematic violent oppression. The former isn't a notable concept (we don't have "violence against horses" for example, although there are sources), and the later is debatable as to whether or not it even exists, much less as a coherent topic of analysis. Kaldari (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that your first idea that men incidentally being victims of violence shouldn't be in the category. But specific acts of violence being perpetrated against men, such as the Gujba college massacre and this article written by a PhD in an academic journal beg to differ about your ideas that men aren't the victims of gender based hate crimes. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A blonde man or woman may be assaulted, but that is not "violence against blondes" (not until scholarly sources show there is a predisposition for some people to commit violence against blondes). Wikipedia should not be used to introduce "balance" by using categories to assert that violence against women is nothing unusual because there is also violence against men—that's unsourced activism. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While blondes may not be the victims of hate crimes, plenty of red haired people are. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Categories aren't asserting anything (in contrast to articles). Even Adolf Hitler is a category, though that doesn't imply that he was a good man. Categories are just a navigation aid, so in this case, if you find one article about Violence against men, you can easily find other articles about the same topic. There are some rules and customs about categorization but so far I haven't been convinced that any of these rules is applicable in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that these categories have been used to assert things. Most of the articles within don't actively discuss Violence against men or even present the articles as gendered violence. The addition of the categories is used exactly to assert these things (most notably with SCUM Manifesto, that has since been removed). The fact that this category does not have a clear explanation of exactly what should be included means that editors are using it at their discretion to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. There have been many arguments about this category (I'd argue that there are only a couple of articles within it that haven't had heated content debates about inclusion - mostly with Obi) and there is clearly a consensus by some that it is being misused to prove a point. What we have is a very small area of study, Violence against men, that is being treated as directly equal to Violence against women, something that has had decades of detailed and comprehensive study. While it's wrong to say that Violence against men is less real, there is a definite argument that it doesn't happen in the same way. The constant push by (mostly male) editors to put this category on articles that often don't warrant it (again, in the example of SCUM Manifesto) leads to it being used in a very WP:SYNTHy way. The matter of the story is, and you'll find this from anyone who has tried to edit in this area, it is not easy to add or remove this category. It's rules for inclusion are confusing, it doesn't have a parallel article to define it, and I know that Wikipedia isn't really reliable, but that means that we have no idea what the house rules are on Violence against men, and the community surrounding it is, if anything, very at odds to each other. That is to say, we don't really have a true WP:NEUTRAL standing on this. There are people who add it to many articles, including ones with very tenuous links, and people who try to remove it from all articles or delete it based on these mistakes. I don't think there is anybody working in this field from WP:NPOV, which brings us to the point. Can we really work with a category such as this? Surely this sort of research should be happening in academic institutions, not on Wikipedia? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. Meanwhile I understood these discussions were going on for a long time and I just stepped in by coincidence. I understand your frustration about misuse, but you also mention that Violence of mean is real and it's a small area of study and there's a few articles that weren't debated for inclusion, and all of that implies that the existence of the category shouldn't be disputed. For misuse there are other procedures.

Off-topic, you're asking can we work with this. You know, average Wikipedia readers have no clue about the categorization tree. They just read an article, say, about Castration, then they see underneath this article the possibility to click Violence against men, they try that, and on the category page they see there's only two articles that really interest them, namely Circumcision and Penis removal (just as an example!) so they read these two articles and then close Wikipedia. No more, no less. So it's not us behind the scenes working with categories, we just facilitate, it's ordinary people who are working with it and who make the judgment what is really relevant to them. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, now that the topic ban for Obi has fell through I'm honestly not sure that we can or that I have the energy to continue to debate this any longer. I guess we'll see --80.193.191.143 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@80.193.191.143: Could you link me to the relative topic ban discussion? Novato 123chess456 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is [14], I also wanted to put this link somewhere on the discussion page so it will do here [15] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just another example of MRM soapboxing and POV-pushing. Wikipedia is being used to promote a sexist, misogynist agenda. Such editors as User:Obiwankenobi and User:Shakehandsman should be site banned. I can't believe the amount of other peoples' time ideologically-driven users such as these have been allowed to consume. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to site ban them, take it up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Wikipedia:NOTCOMPULSORY also applies here, as you're free from not debating with them. If they are frivolously abusing Wikipedia policies, then I invite you to ask for a site or topic ban. Although according to 80.193.191.143, he said a topic ban has fallen through. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:PUSH, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:BUTITSTRUE, WP:NOTHERE--Atlantictire (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Marcocapelle. The problem is not the categories, but in what articles are curated into them. -- Netoholic @ 19:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete MRM soapboxing and POV-pushing. Hipocrite (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I think it's been conclusively shown that the subject Violence against men is a thing. Obiwankenobi has provided a huge amount of reliable sourcing to support that position, which is exactly how things should be done here. I've checked the articles and subcats of this category, and they do seem accurate, with the probable exception of Honor Killing. Certainly it's hard to argue that, say, Forced Circumcision or Domestic Violence Against Men or Patricide do not constitute violence against men. I don't see much validity in the claim that the category is being filled with inappropriate entries since, at the time I'm writing this, it seems to be accurately populated. I'm bewildered at the accusations of misogyny against other editors, as it's not clear to me how violence against men (mostly by other men) directly relates to hatred of women; I'm sure I must be missing an important puzzle piece here. Reyk _YO! 05:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Macrocapelle and Netoholic. It is quiet obvious that this category makes sense, we have to use it where it applies. Indeed, it shouldn't be used as a tool to counter the other category(violence against women), and it is not even hard to manage. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kevin. Concerns from the previous discussions have still not been solved, and the category's use in the intervening months makes it even clearer that this category is only being used to further an agenda. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep inb4 i am called misogynist Retartist (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and trim This is a perfectly viable topic and the definition in the category header the scope being "gendered nature to the violence itself" makes this manageable. That a lot in this category should be removed to fulfil that scope (e.g. subcats: Rape, domestic violence, honor killing). I think the topic matter is what's causing people to be disruptive here, not the validity of the category name or scope. SFB 10:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nominator, 80.193, Tarc, Baseball Bugs, Kaldari, and Anthonyhcole have covered everything I could say here. — Scott • talk 22:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reduce scope as per the last CfD, we need some sort of discussion on what to get rid of and what to keep. I propose removing everything that is not related to things specifically perpetrated against men. Novato 123chess456 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having edited in this category area for quite a few months, I don't think it's likely that the editors who stalk this category will let you reduce it's scope as long as it exists --80.193.191.143 (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Given that the nominator has been personally personally attacking numerous other editors, and refusing to discuss the sole reason of the category in the first place, first claiming there's no sources then when sources are presenting, resorting to some sort of mudflinging. Though it's not my aim to discuss editor conduct in this case, it's necessary in that context when it's blatant. Now to the content. I'm not sure if the general notability guideline applies to categories, but I'll be using that in my !vote. The sources represented are high quality WP:RS which accurately and curtly demonstrate the need for the category in the first place, and there has been (that I can see) no rebuts to that regard, but to smear the categories as 'propoganda'. Anything can be aimed and labeled as 'propoganda' and attempted to be dismissed as such. It's not an argument imho, and in my view, given the sources and the relevancy of the categories to the current articles labeled, I !vote to keep. Tutelary (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I echo 80's point mentioned yesterday in that it's effectively impossible to reduce the scope of this category to one that is appropriate. In that case, the only alternative left is deletion. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really saying that about a category with ~20 elements in it, compared to Category:Violence against women which has many hundreds? Did you bother to read the inclusion criteria provided on the category description page? In what way is it impossible to reduce the scope given those inclusion criteria?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nominator's rationale is silly and blatantly inaccurate. These categories have nothing to do with propaganda. They simply reflect violence against males throughout the world and society, just as there are categories for violence perpetrated against females. Why would any fair-minded person want to erase them from Wikipedia? NotHowItWorks (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The two are not equal, any more than "White History Month" is a legitimate thing. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Your statement proves how biased and clueless you are on this topic. You are comparing a gender that is more likely to be a victim of violence than women (see:Sex differences in crime) with the legitimacy of "white history month", that is like comparing apples to oranges. NotHowItWorks (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree, they aren't equal, but I don't think anyone is claiming they are equal. Your comparison would have merit if there were hundreds of sources discussing "white history month", where it came from, how it was started, what caused it, how to deal with it, etc. You're missing the point that even if it bothers some here, academic sources DO discuss gender-based violence against men.That's all that matters, esp for a simple category (I note that SYNTH doesn't apply to categories).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if... every editor who puts (or reverts) the category on a clearly inappropriate article immediately is topic banned from all gender-related articles/wikiprojects/etc., per Men's rights community sanctions. Hopefully a couple neutral admins will step forward to become familiar with topic and consistently police this and give it some teeth. Or does it need to rise to the level of an Arbitration?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:10, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Categories should not be used to promote an agenda. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Convincing references that this is very much "a thing", studied, etc. --GRuban (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: these categories are ridiculously broad and potentially infinite. Are these categories supposed to include victims of police brutality or gay bashing (gender definiton problems right there in at least some cases) or any conflict or battle or war throughout history? Listing is the lesser evil. Quis separabit? 16:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This has been covered enough by scholars to warrant a seperate category. Misuse of a category is no reason to delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As indicated by the sources in the articles in the categories in question, and the ones that have been presented here, this is indeed an encyclopaedic category, with substantial coverage in academic literature. Deletion reasons should be founded on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not on personal feelings about civil rights movements unrelated to Wikipedia. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources that cover the topic of gender-based violence against men[edit]

I have posted some additional quotes and sources for those who are unfamiliar with the topic of violence against men or those who believe this is a fringe subject being promoted by the Men's Rights Movement, from a broad variety of scholars across a broad variety of issue areas, though below I mostly focused on sources that looked at sexual violence against males in conflict situations as well as gendercide/androcide. A great deal of other sources could be provided around Prison rape, Male rape, Domestic violence against men, and other forms of gendered violence perpetrated against men, but I didn't want to spam this page with links for that given we already have articles on same.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources[edit]

further discussion on sources[edit]

I've grouped some further sources above (click to expand), according to rough thematic area. Note that not all violence against men is considered or studied as gender-based violence - for example, the criminology studies below mostly focus on a gender-analysis of victims, but don't consider such violence to be gender-based violence. Additionaly, for example, death of soldiers in war is not considered gender-based violence. Accordingly, if the category is kept, I think it should be limited to things the literature considers sexual and gender-based violence, and not go beyond that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's really encouraging to hear, about you thinking it should be limited to things that sources considers to be sexual and gender based violence, what made you change your mind? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the inclusion criteria for the category, always has been (actually, "sexual" wasn't there, but we should add it, for the VAW category too). I never would intend this category to include men being killed for random reasons, or battles, or gang crime, other things like that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone understands your impression of the inclusion criteria - it does not include "men being killed for random reasons," but it does include the 2014 Isla Vista killings, Stop Abuse for Everyone and the Peterborough ditch murders. Hipocrite (talk) 22:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the best place to discuss individual contents, you're welcome to discuss on my talk page or elsewhere.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is Obi, you don't use it for that. That's why people have this problem with your editing Obi. You don't follow those criteria --80.193.191.143 (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to do so carefully. But again, as has been pointed out by other editors, the solution to a few problematic inclusions in a category is discussion, RFCs, etc. Not deletion of the category. Otherwise we'd have gotten rid of Category:Antisemitism a long time ago, there are constant edit wars over that one. topic categories for contentious areas do indeed exist, but I'm not even convinced this is a contentious area except on wikipedia itself - no-one has provided sources which dispute the existence of sexual or gender-based violence against men. Where is the debate in the literature on this concept? I don't see it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but I'm certain you will continue to patrol changes to the category, control inclusions and removals and make the same mistakes that you made before if it remains --80.193.191.143 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Massacres of men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a category that is simply being used as Men's rights movement propaganda. Not a serious encyclopedic category covered in the academic literature. jps (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy keep - NOTE: Before !voting, I kindly request that you read the inclusion criteria and sources linked from Category:Massacres of men.

Quick summary: (1) The category has a head article, actually two, at Androcide and Gendercide. (2) The category is well supported by academic literature that studies such gendered massacres. (3) The members of the category pass the WP:DEFINING test, in that the ledes of most articles in this category describe the event as a massacre of men - in other words all of the members describe targeted killings where non-combatant men were killed and women and children were spared. see Androcide and [16] research by Adam Jones (Canadian scholar) and others into this topic. There is even a database of case studies of gendercide at [17]. Sources also call this "sex-selective massacres", and several WP:RS which cover sex-selective massacres of males can be found at Category_talk:Massacres_of_men#Gendercide/sex-selective massacres of men. Thus the claim of the nominator that this is not covered in the academic literature is demonstrably false, and no delete votes have addressed this discrepancy. The fact that Category:Massacres of women was not also nominated here tells you everything you need to know about this biased nomination. There is research that looks specifically at gender-based violence directed against men, esp civilian men in times of war, which describes most of the contents of this category such as Recognizing Gender-Based Violence Against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict Situations or [18] or Rethinking gender-based violence during war: Is violence against civilian men a problem worth addressing? and Sexual and gender based violence against men in the Democratic Republic of Congo: effects on survivors, their families and the community. Yup, seems like a lot of propaganda to me from sketchy blogs. Could the nom please do a bit more research next time instead of making ignorant nominations like this one?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Obiwankenobi created the category himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Massacres_of_men&oldid=604214410--80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As near as I can tell, none of the massacres in this category targeted men because they were men — almost everything in here is a military attack, in which the victims were not targeted because of their gender, but because they were military personnel. That's not comparable to Category:Massacres of women — of which there have been many where women were targeted because they were women. Thus, it's a false equivalency that doesn't support a category unless you have an agenda. Update: I'm not entirely disowning my initial reaction to this category yet, but I acknowledge that Obi-Wan has presented at least a moderately credible case for reconsideration of it. The trouble, however, is that I don't have the time right now to examine his sources in enough depth to decide whether they convince me or not — I'm going to be busy with other things for several days, and the earliest I could possibly even begin to really look at his sources in any comprehensive way will be after the seven-day CFD period is up. So I certainly urge people to look at and consider the sources in question as much as possible to see if they're convincing — but since I can't personally do so right now, all I can offer is the possibility that my initial reaction may have been a gut reaction to typical "men's rights movement" POV, and that the sources being offered may in fact support a reconsideration of that. No opinion. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bearcat, please see the inclusion criteria; it explicitly excludes cases where military personnel were massacred, I don't think there are any instances in the category of that. Most of these are cases where civilian men were separated out from the women and then killed. Also see the research by Adam Jones into gendercides, he details the separation and killing of civilian males during conflict, which most of these instances are - he notes that during the war in Kosovo, "the most systematic and severe atrocities and abuses were inflicted disproportionately or overwhelmingly upon non-combatant men." If you have additional massacres of women instances please let me know, I've been trying to populate that category but haven't found as many instances in the wiki. I agree that if this was just killings of soldiers by soldiers this wouldn't work as a category (since that is not, ultimately, gendered but based on role), but the victims of the Srebrenica massacre or the Massacre_of_Kalavryta were not soldiers, but civilians. There are also a fair number of cases from the conflict in Yugoslavia, and now recent reports out of Africa on similar gender-based targeting of civilian men (see Androcide for more details on same as well). Might you reconsider your !vote in light of these arguments?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like pretty much every article in the category was a military action during a military conflict, and often the victims were "battle-age men" (as mentioned in the Al-Anfal Campaign article). Thus the reason they were killed was not because they were men, but because they were potential combatants in a military conflict. Should I remove all of these articles from the category? Kaldari (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only contents of the category are massacres of civilians as far as I can tell. Some of them include terrorist attacks, like those carried out by Boko Haram that specifically target men and boys. Whether they are battle-age or not does not change the fact that scholars call this gender-based violence. If you look at Srebrenica, these were not combatants, the victims included young boys and old men. So, no, I don't think removal of those is justified, but we can discuss after this (you shouldn't remove items from a category up for deletion, but feel free to add events if you find them). Buchanan describes gendercide as "sex selective mass murder—that is, killing women because they are women or men because they are men."[19] Calling the mass slaughter of civilians a "military" action is stretching things a bit, frankly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Calling the mass slaughter of civilians a "military" action is stretching things a bit". Huh? When an army during a war slaughters civilians, how can that be considered anything but a military action? Would you say that Al-Anfal Campaign was not a military action? Do you think that that article is a good fit for the category? Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Anfal campaign actually was covered as it's own case study at [20], a study which was also cited and referenced by other literature, and it details the gendercide that occurred there and the instructions to separate men and kill them. It's much more of a war crime than a legitimate military action, which is again why these things are studied separately from battles and wars amongst combatants. Anyway, once this discussion is over we can continue the debate re: this particular entry, but the question I have is how to frame the inclusion criteria so that the category could be kept, in your mind.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria for the category should be massacres that have been specifically identified as gender-based violence against men (and preferably have that mentioned in the article). Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep massacres of men is not a men's rights issue. It is a standard tactic to decimate the pool where the fighting capability is drawn from and reproductive viability of your enemy, and has been used throughout history. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation for the claim that such massacres are distinguished from others? jps (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Adam Jones (2000). "Gendercide and Genocide". Journal of Genocide Research.
• Adam Jones (2008). "Straight as a Rule: Heteronormativity, Gendercide, and the Noncombatant Male" (PDF). Men and Masculinities.
• Geetanjali Gangoli (2006). "Engendering genocide: Gender, conflict and violence". Women's Studies International Forum.
• R. C. Carpenter (2002). Innocent Women and childen: Gender, Norms and the Protection of Civilians. Ashgate Publishing.
• R. Charli Carpenter (2003). "'Women and Children First': Gender, Norms, and Humanitarian Evacuation in the Balkans 1991-95". International Organization, Vol. 57, No. 4.
• Moses Chrispus Okello* and Lucy Hovil (2007). "Confronting the Reality of Gender-based Violence in Northern Uganda". Int J Transitional Justice.
• Elisa von Joeden-Forgey (2012). "Gender and the Future of Genocide Studies and Prevention". Genocide Studies and Prevention.
• ELIZ SANASARIAN (1989). "GENDER DISTINCTION IN THE GENOCIDAL PROCESS: A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE ARMENIAN CASE". Holocaust Genocide Studies.

Besides the studies above, Jones and others have created a repository of case studies that specifically groups such gendercides or sex-selective massacres at [21]. So, yes, scholars have studied these sex-selective massacres separately, and looked at the role gender has played in violence and genocide.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These sources absolutely do not show that there is something distinguishing a "massacre of men" from any other kind of massacre. Some sources point out that in certain massacres, there is a gendered aspect to the way in which massacres are carried out, but there doesn't seem to be any source which shows a massacre of men because they are men with no other broader (and more categorically appropriate) conditions (e.g. in the context of ethnic cleansing, (para)military engagements, etc.) jps (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes I realize you are smarter than most of these academics and you have invented your own rationale which is 'massacres of men are not worth studying unless the ONLY reason they were killed is becaus they are men - no other factors allowed to come into it" - unfortunately no sources agree with you and instead sources do take a great interest in sex-selective massacres and studying why this happens and actually how it is quite different from indiscriminate massacres. If you have sources to back up your claims or that agree with your statements please provide them. You asked for sources, I provided them, that demonstrate that academics study gender targeting in violence and specifically study sex selective massacres of males in conflict situations, and these same sources study and question what are factors that lead to such gender targeting vs other genocides or killings which don't have this same gendered aspect. I think in your mind there's no such thing as a massacre of men killed because they are men, but sources actually state exactly that; in the same way we wouldn't consider the mass rape of Tutsi women in Rwanda to be somehow less worthy of study as violence against women just because Hutu women weren't targeted to the same degree.-Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never once said anything about comparing myself to any of these academics. I have criticized your blinkered reading of many sources, so maybe I'll just drop this here and see what you think of the critique of this author you've cited before but apparently have not read with understanding. Why do you not cite this paper in your standard WP:Wall of text? jps (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to download that one, so I'm not sure what it says. Anyway, it looks like someone is critiquing some specifics - so what? Does that invalidate the whole category all of a sudden? Her abstract ends with a new model for incorporating gender into genocide studies. For this category, I make very specific claims - e.g. that gender-based massacres/aka sex-selective massacres are a topic of note and WP:DEFINING of the contents of the category. I have demonstrated this claim in spades and backed it with sources. You have yet to demonstrate how specifically, precisely, with quotes or evidence or SOMETHING, I am misusing the sources to defend that claim. Instead, you just wave your hands and invent your own goalposts, such as "It's not a massacre of men based on their gender unless all men on the planet are targeted". You have quite radical concepts, but they are not supported by any sources, as always. Jones is not the only one who is looking at the intersection of gender and mass violence, and your attempt to have him labelled as FRINGE failed miserably, not a SINGLE person agreed with you.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you include this paper in your previous listings since it is written by one of the authors you cite and is directly about another author upon whom you have relied heavily? Is your research done solely on the basis of which papers to which you have access? And if you have access and have read every other source you listed but not this one, did you get these papers through WP:RX or do you have access to some other website which hosts them? How did you curate your reading list? Your admiring public is eager to know all about the peculiar difficulties you encountered in conducting a kind of scholarship which seems to block your access to certain papers and not others. jps (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it to the list below, my network has access to some of the journals and some others I was able to find PDFs online, but this one I can't. I haven't claimed to read all of the 50 sources I've cited, in some cases I've only read the abstract. That said, this is just a bloody category, so I don't think we need 50 sources to defend it, but I decided to add them anyway to deflect suggestions that this was not studied or that only one scholar looked at these issues. Jps, you're really doing a great job of not engaging in the questions I've asked you. I presented clear claims, I defended those claims with sources. You asked whether sources study these massacres separately from other massacres. The answer is a resounding YES. You have presented other claims but have been a bit obscure about them, so why not lay out your claims clearly - what is the policy-based reason for deleting this category? What specifically, in my claims, is disproven by the scholarship? What scholarship supports your claim that a massacre of men, chosen for death because they are men, is not a subject of study nor DEFINING of the contents. What scholarship supports your claim that violence against men or sex-selective massacres of men are ONLY worth of study or can ONLY be considered a useful topic IF and ONLY IF there are no other extenuating circumstances, and if ALL men globally and worldwide are targeted for death and such killing can ONLY be driven by a single motive, that is hatred of men as a gender, and if any OTHER motive enters into it, therefore it has ceased to become gender-based violence. Show me a source, Jps, show me a source...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the sources you cited above where it is not obvious, where did you find their PDFs online? Can you indicate which webpage linked to them? For example, where did you find this PDF? jps (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per jps' comment right above and also his nom rationale. Just because men are killed in a particular conflict does not warrant a distinct category. Also jps is correct that this inappropriate category is being abused for the purposes of POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is not for men killed in a conflict this is for men selected for massacre based on their gender. Again, please read the sources such as Jones on gendercide which details this phenomenon.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if you don't like jones you can also read Buchanan here [22]: "A relatively recent term, coined to indicate mass killing that targets a specific sex, is gendercide. The term denotes sex selective mass murder—that is, killing women because they are women or men because they are men... The sex selective mass murder of men is not meant to refer to males killed as soldiers. Rather, the focus on male gendercide highlights the selective killing of male non-combatants. Evidence on recent conflicts documents that men and boys may be selectively targeted for death. For instance, in a detailed report of the war in Kosovo, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) concluded that: “young men were the group that was by far the most targeted in the conflict in Kosovo…every young Kosovo Albanian man was suspected of being a terrorist….the young men were at risk more than any other group of Kosovo society of grave human rights violations.”"

But, yeah, maybe Marek is right, perhaps the OSEC is just a propaganda mouthpiece for the mens rights movement. The amount of bad faith in these nominations is quite stunning, and I really wish people would read the literature rather than make accusations of agenda pushing.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per posts by jps and Volunteer Marek. It has largely been misused and does not aid navigation in any meaningful way --80.193.191.143 (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any evidence to back up your claim? Are there particular instances in the category that do not meet the inclusion criteria, e.g. the selection of civilian victims for murder based on their gender, as covered in Jones, who notes "If gendercide and mass killings of males is to some degree definitional of modern conflict, we may also be able to isolate an essential if not universal ritual of gendercide against men. It is the physical act of separating men from women as a prelude to consigning men to death. The ritual is enacted with great frequency the world over, although it is not always explicit in the above examples." You haven't clarified exactly how it is being misused, nor why it doesn't aid navigation (I note that we have Category:Prisoners of war massacres‎, Category:Massacres of Sikhs‎,Category:Massacres of women‎,Category:Indian massacres‎, etc - does Category:Massacres of women aid navigation while Category:Massacres of men does not? The literature notes that a defining feature of such massacres is the separate targeting of men and boys specifically for death, and that this is gender-based violence (see quote by Carpenter above, who wrote a whole book on this issue 'Innocent Women and childen': Gender, Norms and the Protection of Civilians.), and that is the inclusion criteria for the category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you made both Massacres of men and Massacres of women yourself after being refused the inclusion of some of these events in the main Violence against men category. Again, this is your own propagandic use of categories, and it is worth noting that it is you defending a category that you created at every vote for delete. That alone should be noted if deletion is to be based on consensus --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the original nomination strikes me a political rationale. The category is beneficial to help organize things. While MRAs can abuse the category, that's not in itself a good rationale for removing it. There are plenty of abuses on both side of any controversial topic. Mattnad (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Misogyny masquerading as a category, much like the under-the-surface racism when certain people ask "Why is there no White People History Month?" every February or so. You don't get categorization or special mention for the ordinary or for the majority, sorry. Tarc (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ooh, that's a good one. Bring it back to misogyny. So, the Srebrenica massacre being called out as a horrific instance of gender-based violence against men is.. misogyny? You fail to realize that reliable sources discuss these massacres, explicitly, as instances of gender-based violence. That they happen more commonly to men than similar massacres of women is irrelevant, and your comparison with race is undue.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be better if you discussed the events in question rather than going on an ad-lib rant about misogyny or your distaste of the term - personal slants against women will not help your case here, nor will monopolising the conversation by stalking the page and replying to every single delete comment --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What Obi-Wan Kenobi said, just above. This is a ridiculous proposal. It deserves a speedy close. Memills (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will get a speedy close when more than half of the votes are for deletion. Why don't you at least acknowledge its use in pushing MRA propaganda by Obi? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The reason given by Obiwankenobi "see Androcide" doesn't convince me considering that the article about androcide is a pov nightmare, consisting exclusively of primary sources and editors' personal analysis and opinions. I also think it noteworthy that the user removed the Category:Misogyny from École Polytechnique massacre but keeps adding his misandry/violence against men categories to a whole bunch of unrelated articles. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed misogny since it was already in the subcat of Category:Violence against women, and I also added that incident to Category:Massacres of women. I've also created Category:Violence against women in Afghanistan and populated it, and categorized a number of other articles into the VAW tree. If you don't like Androcide, see research by Jones at [23] or several other papers quoted above by different authors.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I haven't seen any convincing counter-argument on the assertion that male massacres have taken place and have been documented as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and/or a content dispute. As I stated above this is not the place for content disputes and it's obvious a notable subject to be categorised. Also have concerns about why only one gender has been singled out for having their category deleted.--Shakehandsman (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Cat gender. Men are by far the most common victims of and perpetrators of murder and violence, so there is no need to have a men-specific subcategory for massacres. Kaldari (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what that guideline says. It says, you can create a gendered category when "where gender has a specific relation to the topic." - not only "if the gender in question is a minority w.r.t to the topic". If you look at the list of sources that have been linked a number of times and are provided above, scholars have specifically studied the gendered nature of sex-selective killing in conflict of males and the term of art used to describe this is gender-based violence against men (and in this case, gender-based selection of male civilians to be killed). There is even a whole book written on this specific topic, here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Obiwankenobi:. I'm referring to the part of the guidelines which say "As another example, a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest, though it does not need to be balanced directly against a 'Male heads of government' category, as historically the vast majority of political leaders have been male." See also my comments above. Kaldari (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "does not need to be" is not the same as "must be deleted on sight". It's an interesting question as to whether attacks on civilians are indiscriminate or gendered, there is a lot of research on this and it varies a ton across time and space, scholars are studying the extent to which other factors such as ethnoreligious issues, poverty, societal norms around gender etc influence the effect of gendered violence in conflict, and these scholars are looking at gendered violence against women civilians but ALSO looking at gendered violence and slaughter of men. I think I only found about ~20 instances where we have articles on massacres of males, whereas we have hundreds of other articles about other massacres, so my sense is at least in terms of wikipedia content only a minority of the massacres that we cover here include the separation of men specifically to be killed vs indiscriminate killing. There are also instances where women are separated and killed, but that is more rare, if you find more examples please add them to the category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete People do nasty things in war, and men suspected of helping one side may be killed by the other side. That's appalling, but it's just part of business in a war—the women and children may be spared because they are believed to not be a threat. The massacres are nothing to do with gender. Johnuniq (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I quoted above disagree with you, explicitly calling it gender-based violence. Do you have any sources that agree with your assessment that gender has nothing to do with it? Perhaps you could also read the contents of the category - this isn't "men suspected of helping one side" - this is often "eliminate all men in area X from age 12-80" - thus quite different from the execution of partisans.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:BUTITSTRUE, WP:COATRACK--Atlantictire (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Bearcat basically reflects my opinion. I recall a discussion a couple of years ago on Wikipedia about POV-pushers trying to categorise massacres such as Srebrenica as the work of roving misandrists rather than ethnic cleansing by another party in the war; sad to see that sort of opinion still holding sway here. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question, are ethnic cleansing, and massacres of men mutually exclusive concepts? Or rather ethnic cleansing and roving misandrists? --Kyohyi (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Misrepresents it's members to POV push. Hipocrite (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom and Bearcat. -- TaraInDC (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep most arguments cite "misogyny" etc. Lots of male hate in the delete arguments Retartist (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm male and I'm fairly sure a lot of the Delete comments are by male editors. Considering the gender divide of the website (87% male to 13% female), it's unlikely that the only people voting Delete are female. For the record I have no prejudice against my gender either, this is about the misuse of the category to push an agenda and a skewed worldview --80.193.191.143 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These events can all (I think) be categorized by location and year (possibly approximate if historical). Categorization by gender of victims (or motives/methods of attackers) may work in some cases, but in others it may not be easy to tell whether an event meets the criteria without getting into OR etc. The information currently on the category page is excessive. I'm also not keen on "distinguished" subcategories as they complicate categorization.

This may be suitable for a list (e.g. "List of events in which men were separated from women before being killed") that can provide more explanatory info than a category - and if it's not suitable as a list then it's not suitable as a category. DexDor (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is further discussion at User_talk:DexDor#Massacres. DexDor (talk) 06:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Every massacre involving a man dying could be considered a massacre of men, let alone, who defines a massacre in western civilization is quite...fascinating in itself. Regardless of my own opinion (yay revisionists!) Per nom, per Bearcat, and a few other folks.. SarahStierch (talk) 19:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Men have always been first on the list of targets, because they may respond violently. A massacre of men is simply a massacre of people, a normal massacre. Binksternet (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, a massacre of women is special, is that right? It almost sounds like you're justifying what happened in these cases. Have you read any of the contents? Did you actually look at the inclusion criteria, or the sources provided?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at all that. The www.gendercide.org website was particularly invaluable for showing me that this division of massacres is worthless. All I saw was a lot of pontificating by Adam Jones, PhD, who completely failed to see that the mass killing of enemy men is an act of war. How blind can one be? Binksternet (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the other sources, now provided above but also on the talk page of the category, that show OTHER scholars who are looking at the gendered aspects of killings of civilians in war? And the scholars who are now claiming that in studying genocide it is important to take a gender lens to the work? The mass killing of enemy civilian males, including boys, infants, and old men, is usually not referred to as an act of war but instead as an act of genocide or as a war crime. But, should we go with your opinions on the matter, or do you have sources which back up your critiques of looking at gender in such massacres, and claim that this is not gender-based violence? I haven't found any sources that make such claims.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, Atlantictire, Tarc and DexDor. — Scott • talk 22:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Also delete "Massacres of women" I also think that this category doesn't really offer anything functionally that "Violence against women" does not, in fact, I feel that they would fit better in the area specific "Violence against women in..." subcats --80.193.191.143 (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that BoboMeowCat has argued for the [deletion of the Violence against men category as well. Removing this and related categories is a systematic campaign.Mattnad (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with Atlantictire regarding WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:BUTITSTRUE, WP:COATRACK--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The term "massacre" is usually if not always inherently subjective,as I think my good friend BrownHairedGirl would agree while at the same time it is not used in many cases where it would apply viscerally, but is used in other cases because partisans created the verbal coinage; thus the playing field is inherently unequal. Quis separabit? 00:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just deleting a reference to another editor I hoped could and would contribute on this thread but will likely not be able to, so I am removing the reference to her so as not to leave any impression that she and I are in entire agreement or that I could ever possibly speak for her. Sorry about that BHG. Quis separabit? 01:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I find it interesting that when discussing non-combatant men and boys are rounded up and executed during a conflict, some of those editors in favor of deletion say that's just part of war. That of course is not how the Hague Conventions or the Geneva Convention characterize it. They consider it a War crime. Similarly, we would not dismiss mass rape or murder of women and girls as simply part of an act of war (even though one could just as easily argue that terrorizing the civilian population is a war tactic). I'd love to see you tell the family of their murdered father, husband, or brother, that it was OK, not a massacre, because they could have taken up arms in the eyes of those committing the atrocities.Mattnad (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My !vote here will mostly reflect upon the sources and not the nominator, though I would support a RFC/U for this instance. The sources presented are high quality reliable sources and are in numerous supply, as well as support the subject matter full heartedly. The category is usually discussed on pages it is put on; and is not a valid reason to delete. Additionally, 'being MRA propoganda' is not an argument and sounds more of a 'I don't like this category, so it's propaganda' to me other than a coherent argument. There are numerous reliable sources to support the matter, and they do quite well. Tutelary (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category might be being misused by some editors, but that needs fixing rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Prominent examples of androcide such as the Srebrenica massacre deserve appropriate categorisation. Number 57 22:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Categories should not be used to promote an agenda. Gamaliel (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Convincing references that this is very much "a thing", studied, etc. --GRuban (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which reference is most convincing to you and how was it convincing? jps (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Recognizing Gender-Based Violence Against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict Situations and Sexual and gender based violence against men in the Democratic Republic of Congo: effects on survivors, their families and the community. They convinced me that this is studied. --GRuban (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? To quote from the first source: "Additionally, to the extent that ‘strategic rape’ of women is intended to be a psycho-social attack on men of a group, addressing the psycho-social consequences could undermine the utility of rape as a strategy of war and thus serve as a prevention mechanism." Raping women is violence against men because they are men? What? Or: "Some authors have emphasized the property status of women relative to men (Ehrenreich, 1997; Niarchos, 1995). If the point of killing is to eliminate a human community, only the humans must be killed." So men are killed because they are regarded as human and not because they are men? That convinced you? The author cannot actually name a massacre where men were killed because of their sex rather than because they were regarded as more of a threat. Instead, he points to some obscure website (gendercide). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Deletion rationale can be summarized as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEOBIWANKENOBI, given the large number of baseless personal attacks. The sources presented demonstrate that sex-selective massacres of men have happened, and the sources describe them that way. Reyk _YO! 01:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no really good reason to categorise massacres by sex of those killed. Pretty much all military massacres have been of men (most militaries throughout history are short of Amazons), and why do we need to categorise the Massacre of the Ninth Legion and the Boston Massacre together, simply because the victims were adult males? Moreover, any massacre would qualify for inclusion here if more than one man was killed; that's the Virginia Tech massacre. Anyway, throughout history, most non-military massacres have been performed to weaken the enemy, either to kill off the child-bearing population or to kill off the child-fathering population; it's a natural course of action, and it's definitely not something that warrants inclusion via a category. Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This clearly excludes military instances. It is a topic people actually study, so whether some like it is not relevant. That the victims were selected based on gender in many cases is clear. That this has happened and should not be ignored is clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters with cold abilities to Category:Fictional characters with ice or cold abilities
• AND Category:Video game characters with cold abilities to Category:Video game characters with ice or cold abilities

Nominator's rationale: Both were previously located at Category:Fictional characters with ice abilities and Category:Video game characters with ice abilities. While cold is a more general descriptor than ice, I personally believe that ice should be mentioned. Also, note that there are categories Category:Fictional characters with fire or heat abilities and Category:Video game characters with fire or heat abilities. If those heat categories include a mention of fire, the cold categories should include a mention of ice. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 17:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed - I agree that "ice" is too narrow and "cold" is a broader term, but it loses in precision and consistency with the sister category (Category:Fictional characters with fire or heat abilities). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Telenovelas set in Rio de Janeiro to Category:Television series set in Rio de Janeiro

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Obsolete and unnecessary. NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge; proposals to further upmerge the category tree can be pursued in a fresh nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Telenovelas set in Rio de Janeiro (state) to Category:Television shows set in Rio de Janeiro (state)

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Obsolete and unnecessary. NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose higher upmerge to Category:Television shows set in Brazil. The descending structure of this parent category has barely a dozen articles yet these are split into eight categories (most of them empty). Only Category:Telenovelas set in São Paulo has more than two articles. The benefits gained in finer detail do not outweigh the navigational drawbacks. I suggest we merge the following categories into the main "in Brazil" category: SFB 09:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Television series set in Rio de Janeiro
• Category:Television shows set in Rio de Janeiro (state)
• Category:Television series set in Rio de Janeiro
• Category:Telenovelas set in Pernambuco
• Category:Telenovelas set in Rio de Janeiro (state)
• Category:Telenovelas set in Rio de Janeiro
• Category:Telenovelas set in São Paulo (state)
• Category:Telenovelas set in São Paulo

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Exhumed people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I fail to see how this is defining. In looking at the articles, a number of them don't even mention being exhumed. In any case, that a body is exhumed may be a relevant part of a criminal investigation and covered there, but it's not really a defining feature of these people's biographies and it isn't otherwise a standard biographical detail. People get exhumed for many reasons, most of them probably banal, like they want to move the body elsewhere, etc. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not defining and another weird death cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I presume this was created to cover people who were exhumed for extraordinary reasons. The reality is many, many people are exhumed simply for corpse relocation. Even Lincoln was exhumed. This category as its stands is not a defining feature of a person. SFB 10:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge proposal Category:Songs from The Hunger Games (film series) and Category:The Hunger Games (film series) soundtracks into Category:Music from The Hunger Games (film series)

Nominator's rationale, do we really need three separate categories for the music of a franchise that isn't famous for it's music anyway? Charles Essie (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Support merge and relevant parent soundtrack and song categories to be added to those articles after the merge. SFB 09:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: per SFB rationale and suggestions. Quis separabit? 18:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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