Talk:Violence/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Violence and War articles and New Changes

Was all that new material added from some other page? I noticed there is a lot of psychology stuff on war that could go here; and the newest laundry list could be expanded forever and be added there. Is this a list of big wars that could just be referred to? Just wondering. Not likely to do anything about it.

User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

HEJ :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.222.246 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical examples

Isn't this section one long example of original synthesis? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

i agree sir 71.232.93.164 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal

I removed the section that said "damage to property" because violence only refers to the harming of living things. 66.69.194.16 (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I added citation to the base definition and reapplied property damage as a 'variant' (as in strange or odd) definition. I think the only citations available calling property damage a form of violence must hinge on possible terrorizing intentions or tautological legal justifications (unfortunately my forte is reality not the jargon of law) so others will have to find such citations. Currently my definition cites three oft cited dictionaries. TalonX84.152.245.244 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

vkfvujifrdio he7r8q7ervcx7rtfubzdaxyg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.166.229 (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

United States

Omg here are no USofA examples at least from Vietnam in the section: Violence#Historical_examples_of_violence (I'm not a communist or anti-American, the list just doesn't make justice to the more media-covered events such as certain unit in Vietnam imho --Andersmusician NO 00:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

this is a b-class article overrun by thoughtless propaganda. not a word about the U.S. war machine, but the chinese, the japanese, even the romans-- all get their's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.164 (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

HISTORICAL VIOLENCE SECTION DELETION

This list really doesn't make any sense in the context of this article. I know some may have put a lot of work into it, but really it's just a mess. If there are no objections I'll delete it in a couple of days. Talonxpool (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)22:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

--If someone wants to make a seperate page for historical examples please do so by looking into the page history and extracting the relevant text. I'm deleting it in the main page. Talonxpool84.152.218.231 (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Youth and crime

This section currently has few references. It refers to events and sentencing without giving sources. The language might be a bit on the conversational side, and it is unclear whether the text represents the authors evaluations of the subject or is meant to be the current majority view held by sociologist on these issues.

I think the sentence (in the first half of the last paragraph of this section) "If you pay careful attention you will understand why this is." should be changed. It is not appropriate for a wkikipedia article.

Bj norge (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As highlighted by other users, this article has serious neutrality issues.

Violence in Peace and Conflict Studies

I don't like the article because it's only concerned with direct physical violence. If I want to re-write the whole article, how do I go about it not to have it reversed instantly? Is there a way to propose a draft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilchimy (talk • contribs) 08:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You can create a user subpage. See WP:SP. --Robert Daoust (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical, psychopathological and social definitions of violence.

1st Philosophy: Violence usually has to do with intolerance, xenophobia and aggression.

2nd Psychopathology: There also is a psychopathological form of violence which means that the actor is a psychopath who wants to hurt his/her environment without any feeling of regret. Also sexual violence belongs to this topic. Usually the psychopath is looking for total control over someone. It is not the sexual act on itself, but the feeling of power over the victim that gives a strong sensation of lust for a psychopath.

3rd Social: Designed violence: has nothing to do with 1st and 2nd but is the result of a pure scheduled violence. E.g.: the attack of another country to gain territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubert68 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Major error

There seems to be a major error in the relation between the title and the numbers in the violence world map (File:Violence world map - DALY - WHO2004.svg). The figures given are estimates for DALY, not for actual deaths. If the numbers shall be for deaths it would be more correct devided by 100, as there is no country in the world with regularly more than 200 murders per 100 000 population each year, USA has about 5, UK maybe around 2 (?).

opening

Violence is the expression of physical or verbal force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt. --- this doesn't seem to be necessarily true: why 'compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt'? -- it is a statement that lacks objectivity, and seems to condone violence by praising the effort that is necessary against one's will. this doesn't seem true of violence in all instances: violence is sometimes reflexive, which is to say that it does not involve any rationalization or acting against 'one's will'. i think this opening should be edited w/neutrality in mind. -sio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.224.28 (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

question ?

... as a ammendment to previous statement, i would also like to ask what is proper means of flagging neutrality? there is some flag/tag that is placed in wikister fashion to indicate you find something questionable? how is this done? -sio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.224.28 (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Gender and violence

In that section i see traditional feminist point of view, but List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate tells that men are about 5 times more frequent victims of violence that women.Обедающий философ (talk) 14:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A United States tank in Paris during World War II

The vehicle in the photograph under section 7. War is actually not a tank, but an armoured car. On photograph's own page, the vehicle is identified as a M-8 "Greyhound" armored scout car, which is believe is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.111.254 (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot of definitions of violence

Hold that it needn't be physical.

Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.69.135 (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the specific concern of being physical, the definition currently used now goes beyond that. --Chealer (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Not all violence is bad

Why doesn't this article mention the threat of force used by the police against bank robbers? Or something like that? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Not all violence is bad - in fact, in order to grow as a weightlifter, we destroy our muscles, and we all end up killing plants or animals for food. Nonviolence is suicide and basically opposed to life. Though there certainly is some violence that is destructive - yet don't forget the old saying, "No Pain, No Gain". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.166.75 (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Structural Violence

I deleted the paragraph which dealt with 'Structural Violence' as it conflated the view with anti-capitalism and linked in an article from an overly partisan website. 'Structural Violence' is not a term used by the left and is a main stay of most academic discussion on peace and conflict, from both the left and the right. To leave the article as it was would have been misleading, especially as the articles linked conflating structural violence with anti-capitalism actually had nothing to do with the academic discourse which coined them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.253.114 (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead should include the spectrum of definitions

Earlier this year (2012), a major edit was made to the lead [1] which changed the definition and scope of the article to a definition promoted by WHO. Also, in the current version of the article[2] all of the citations in the lead are from WHO, and in fact the first eight citations in the article are all from that organization.

I've tagged the lead with a {{one source}} tag to solicit comments here. I think the lead should be rewritten to include an exposition about the spectrum of different definitions and include a variety of sources. And the lead should be written so that it covers all of the most important points of the topic, not just those from the perspective of a single organization. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC) .

I agree that a rewrite of the opening paragraphs is in order, along the lines you suggest. The current definition is way too narrow. See the definition and derivation at Dictionary.com and other sources for an indication of how the word is actually used and how much this differs from the article. Trbdavies (talk) 05:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should expand on the definition, surely in a new section. For now, I have started by clarifying that violence has many definitions before giving the WHO's. --Chealer (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Include cultural anthropology perspective

The article is missing a discussion about violence from a anthropological perspective. Right now[3] it is written almost entirely from the medical/sociological/psychological perspective. I think a full discussion about how various cultures relate and regard violence should be included. Also, the section on violence and the media should be expanded. Right now it only talks about research on short-term or directly correlated psychological research and excludes any studies on cultural and anthropological interaction between society and violence in the media. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Violence map - deaths or DALY?

Description of map on page says: "U.N. rates of physical violence resulting in death, per 100,000 inhabitants by country in 2002" but numbers are much to high. Also -- map file name says it shows DALY statistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.105.3 (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bias

"For each single death due to violence, there are dozens of hospitalizations, hundreds of emergency department visits, and thousands of doctors' appointments." What is that meant to be? That is no better than asserting that anyone who does not hate violence (go tell a bear not to kill things) is somehow insane. Serious NPOV issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.176.166.121 (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Violence against non-human sentient beings

Is violence against non-human sentient beings (e.g. animals) covered anywhere in this article? Can it be made clear if violence against animals is in scope or a separate topic? Can perhaps a "see also" section point to this topic? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 15:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Undoubtedly the article is anthropocentric in a very sociological way, as it addresses violence as a purely ethical matter, in accordance to the opening sentence, and apart from a single mention of animal, it ignores animals and the role of humans among them. In order to incorporate a broader definition of violence (which apparently has been requested on this talk page, years ago), some more sources may be needed or the already cited source for the opening sentence may need to be removed. In general, violence is understood to be something more specific than injurious or destructive turbulence/excitation, and signifies something that is carried out by a human being (or perhaps a member of any primate species or even any sentient animal species). Violence is not amoral, in other words. I'm not yet sure how to fix the problem in question, in the article. Lee, are you sure that you cannot make some of the changes that you recommend on your own? -- Lindberg 06:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindberg G Williams Jr (talk • contribs)

This will remain a bad article until...

...it is renamed, as it presently not only flouts Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, but represents perversion of the English language due to excessive (if not almost wholly exclusive) emphasis upon one narrow definition (corporeal violence by humans upon other humans) of "violence".

The bad influence of this article spreads far beyond its page: Yesterday, while editing the lead of the Boston Tea Party article (in which the words "destroyed" and "destruction" were present in the same section), I removed the word "nonviolent" as a descriptive. The edits were briefly reverted a few times by a person arguing that destruction of property could be nonviolent so long as nobody was hurt.

I propose that the article be renamed (perhaps to "corporeal violence").

~ ~ ~ ~

--Froglich (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

smoking and college students.

Here in Zimbabwe ,peer pressure is affecting youngsters.Most probably starting at college levels teenagers begin smoking.However,if such banning laws affectively enforced then rates may as well be reduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.246.55.154 (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Violence is not self inflicted.

Violence is not self inflicted (no reference for why it's a fact by the WHO), please understand the term/word. Violence is through hate or love, which we all can debate as well. I can harm or pleasure myself, violently. The whole word usage of violent is incorrect. Deathly, should be the word. O wait it is a word, but people don't use it because we as humans skirt around words now to show no responsibility. DEATH is the word. Or as other's would say "I'll threaten you with "blank" if you don't do what I want." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.248.158 (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted; we go by the WP:Reliable sources, not personal opinion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

________

Self Deprivation

Would things such as depriving oneself of food or inducing vomiting in oneself (anorexia or bulimia) be considered violence against self?184.60.31.237 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"Prevention": biased summary

The most significant factor for reducing violence in a society is the guidance and discipline of children as they mature.  The effectiveness of physical punishment at this level is much debated, but if it is used, it should be as a last resort and never done in anger. More important preventative measures are showing children love and understanding which is described further in the sections that follow.

Whether true or not, this information is presented, essay-like, as someone's opinion without attributing it to its source. I removed it mainly because the effectiveness of physical punishment for reducing violence in children has been disproved in the scientific literature for years; any "debate" on this topic is chiefly occurring among misinformed members of the public. Elizabeth Gershoff (2010) wrote an informative summary of the relevant research:

• Gershoff, Elizabeth T. (Spring 2010). "More Harm Than Good: A Summary of Scientific Research on the Intended and Unintended Effects of Corporal Punishment on Children". Law & Contemporary Problems. 73 (2). Duke University School of Law: 31–56. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

My outline for what I want to contribute to this Wikipedia article on Violence.

In this article on Violence I hope to bring an updated look to the section on how violence affects the youth. I want to talk further about how it impacts them emotionally and physically. There are lots of sources I can use like the book "There Are No Children Here" and the documentary "Last Chance High" which gives examples of what life is like. I would like to talk about Alex Kotlowitz and other journalists, authors, and filmmakers who advocate for those affected by violence. I want to talk about organizations that help stop the violence in neighborhoods and help the communities. There is a documentary called "The Interrupters" which is about a group who sets out to stop the violence. If anyone has any suggestions about my ideas if I should change or add anything, as it is much appreciated. ––Mysearch15 (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Mysearch15 8:12, 4 November 2018