Talk:Violence against women
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Violence against women article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about violence against women. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about violence against women at the Reference desk. |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Wiki Education assignment
editThis article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Odiericci123 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Luciaxcuriel.
Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2024
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= oder |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
doemstic = domestic 2603:8000:D300:3650:7DF4:F5F4:69E5:4CB6 (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- Erledigt —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Editorializing, second wave feminism, questionable sources
editI've never questioned a page before, so bear with me.
The inclusion of Brownmiller surprised me. She certainly does not pass the sniff test on neutrality or verifiability (as many psychologists, psychiatrists, and other feminists of her era point out).
Language like:
"Since immemorial times, women, due to their lesser physical strength, and other limitations inherent to them, such as menstruation, pregnancy and breastfeeding, have found themselves subjugated to the other half, the male, of humanity"
Seems blatantly un-neutral and unverifiable.
"Such violence may arise from a sense of entitlement, superiority, misogyny or similar attitudes in the perpetrator or his violent nature, especially against women."
This sort of thing belongs in pages about feminist theory of sexual assault. This isn't verifiable -- the cited authors aren't psychologists, and aren't writing based on science. This branch of theory is dubious from a psychiatric perspective. The introduction of this article reads vaguely like second wave soapboxing. In short, that source is reliable only insofar as it relates to feminist theory; it's not an authoritative treatment of sexual violence against women, and makes historical and psychological claims of dubious truthiness (and, ultimately, of dubious verifiability). Feminists have debated the validity of that work for a long time, but nobody contends it to be neutral. Thejosephfiles (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)