Obiwankenobi (talk | contribs) →Additional sources that cover the topic of gender-based violence against men: bold certain quotes |
|||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
*'''Delete''' per comment in "Massacres of men" below. This is Mens' Rights Advocacy, not legitimate categorization that helps organize the project. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 17:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' per comment in "Massacres of men" below. This is Mens' Rights Advocacy, not legitimate categorization that helps organize the project. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 17:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep -- with a speedy close''' Violence against men is not an academic topic? Well, let's see. A Google Scholar [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22violence+against+men%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= search] 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 propaganda by some radical feminists to suggest that is isn't. [[User:Memills|Memills]] ([[User talk:Memills|talk]]) 17:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
===== Additional sources that cover the topic of gender-based violence against men ===== |
===== Additional sources that cover the topic of gender-based violence against men ===== |
||
Line 85: | Line 87: | ||
*"It argues that gendercide -- inclusively defined as gender-selective mass killing -- is a frequent and often defining feature of human conflict, and perhaps of human social organization, extending [186] back to antiquity. I contend as well that gendercide is a regular, even ubiquitous feature of contemporary politico-military conflicts worldwide...'''That the gender-selective mass killing and "disappearance" of males, especially "battle-age" males, remains a pervasive feature of contemporary conflict is not open to dispute. Indeed, its frequency across cultures and conflict types marks it as a possibly definitional element of contemporary warfare, state terrorism, mob violence, and paramilitary brigandage...''' 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."<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.gendercide.org/gendercide_and_genocide.html|title=Gendercide and Genocide|author=Adam Jones|journal=Journal of Genocide Research|year=2000}}</ref> |
*"It argues that gendercide -- inclusively defined as gender-selective mass killing -- is a frequent and often defining feature of human conflict, and perhaps of human social organization, extending [186] back to antiquity. I contend as well that gendercide is a regular, even ubiquitous feature of contemporary politico-military conflicts worldwide...'''That the gender-selective mass killing and "disappearance" of males, especially "battle-age" males, remains a pervasive feature of contemporary conflict is not open to dispute. Indeed, its frequency across cultures and conflict types marks it as a possibly definitional element of contemporary warfare, state terrorism, mob violence, and paramilitary brigandage...''' 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."<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.gendercide.org/gendercide_and_genocide.html|title=Gendercide and Genocide|author=Adam Jones|journal=Journal of Genocide Research|year=2000}}</ref> |
||
*"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.”<ref>{{cite journal|author=Buchanan, David|year=2002|title=Gendercide and Human Rights|journal=Journal of Genocide Research|url=https://clg.portalxm.com/library/keytext.cfm?keytext_id=214}}</ref> |
*"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.”<ref>{{cite journal|author=Buchanan, David|year=2002|title=Gendercide and Human Rights|journal=Journal of Genocide Research|url=https://clg.portalxm.com/library/keytext.cfm?keytext_id=214}}</ref> |
||
===== References ===== |
===== References ===== |
Revision as of 17:46, 25 June 2014
June 24
Category:LGBT models from Canada
- Propose deleting Category:LGBT models from Canada - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:LGBT models by nationality - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:LGBT models from Canada - Template:Lc1
- 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)
- 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)
- Propose renaming Category:People related to Plato to Category:Family of Plato
- Nominator's rationale: Just a really weird category name that doesn't seem to fit with category conventions. pbp 22:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Category:Lepidoptera of Metropolitan France
- Propose deleting Category:Lepidoptera of Metropolitan France - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Odonata species of Metropolitan France
- Propose deleting Category:Lepidoptera of Metropolitan France - Template:Lc1
- 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)
Category:India justices of the peace
- Should be renamed Category: Indian Justices of the peace in line with other subcategories in same group; "Indian", not "India" and with capital "J". Quis separabit? 21:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Category:Beetles of Metropolitan France
- 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)
Category:Violence against men
- Propose deleting Category:Violence against men - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Violence against men in North America - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Violence against men in Europe - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Violence against men in Asia - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Violence against men by continent - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Violence against men in Africa - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Violence against men - Template:Lc1
- 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)
- (Note - I combined these since the rationale was the same).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Keep -- with a speedy close Violence against men is not an academic topic? Well, let's see. A Google Scholar search 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 propaganda by some radical feminists to suggest that is isn't. Memills (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Additional sources that cover the topic of gender-based violence against men
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)
- "Sexual violence is committed against men more frequently than is often thought. It is perpetrated at home, in the community and in prison; by men and by women; during conflict and in time of peace...It is not limited to any particular part of the world. It is not confined to state forces, armed opposition groups or private contractors. It is not limited in its age of victims, or its place of commission. The range of sexual violence committed against men in armed conflict crosses the full gamut of possibilities; all permutations and combinations are present...Sexual violence against men has been chronicled as taking place in conflicts in the more distant past, for example in Ancient Persia, and the Crusades, as well as by the Ancient Greek, Chinese, Amalekite, Egyptian and Norse armies. It has occurred in the conflicts in El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, and Argentina. It has been perpetrated in the conflicts in Greece, Northern Ireland, Chechnya, Turkey, and the former Yugoslavia. It has been a feature of the conflicts in Sri Lanka, Iraq-Kuwait, Coalition-Iraq, and the Sino-Japanese war. It has been present in the conflicts in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Sudan, the Central African Republic, Burundi, Uganda, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe, and South Africa."[1]
- "The great reluctance of many men and boys to report sexual violence makes it very difficult to accurately assess its scope. The limited statistics that exist almost certainly vastly under-represent the number of male victims. Nevertheless, in the last decade, sexualised violence against men and boys – including rape, sexual torture, mutilation of the genitals, sexual humiliation, sexual enslavement, forced incest and forced rape – has been reported in 25 armed conflicts across the world. If one expands this tally to include cases of sexual exploitation of boys displaced by violent conflict, the list encompasses the majority of the 59 armed conflicts identified in the recent Human Security Report."[2]
- "Sexual violence against men as a constituent element of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes often goes under noticed, under prosecuted, and ultimately, under punished."[3]
- "In this article, I argue that gender-based violence against men (including sexual violence, forced conscription, and sex-selective massacre) must be recognized as such, condemned, and addressed by civilian protection agencies and proponents of a ‘human security’ agenda in international relations. Men deserve protection against these abuses in their own right; moreover, addressing gender-based violence against women and girls in conflict situations is inseparable from addressing the forms of violence to which civilian men are specifically vulnerable."[4]
- "As Das shows, the targeting of the men was not only to eliminate them physically, but also to humiliate the men of the entire Sikh community, who could not defend themselves, or their homes, unless they ran and hit or shamed themselves by dressing as women...To be sure, this targeting of men specifically is itself a form of gendered violence."[5]
- "Given the socially constructed notion of paternity and building of nations through male descent (rather than female), sexual violence against women, including rape to impregnate women and sexual violence against men to damage their genitalia and reproductive capacities, may be based on the same war tactic for ethnic cleansing. Similarly, the mass assassination of men and boys served this ethnic cleansing purpose. Therefore, although the rape of men may have been less prominent, it is problematic to assume that gender-based violence was mostly directed at women when other forms of sexual violence including castration and damage to reproductive organs were more prominent forms of violence against men. Without undermining the need to pay attention to the experiences of women and girls during conflict, discourse on gender-based violence should also start examining the specific needs of men for three reasons: (1) the rationale and symbolic meaning behind gender-based violence during war, especially during ethno-sectarian conflict, is often the same: ethnic cleansing, whether the victims are men or women; (2) the impact of violence, including sexual violence, on health may be different for men and women and may require distinct therapeutic approaches; and (3) because perpetrators are often men, an extra level of stigma is added when heterosexual men are sexually abused by men that may lead to underreporting and shame in accessing services if they are at all available."[6]
- "Media and service provider reports of sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) perpetrated against men in armed conflicts have increased. However, response to these reports has been limited, as existing evidence and programs have primarily focused on prevention and response to women and girl survivors of SGBV. This study found that SGBV against men, as for women, is multi-dimensional and has significant negative physical, mental, social and economic consequences for the male survivor and his family. SGBV perpetrated against men and boys is likely common within a conflict-affected region but often goes unreported by survivors and others due to cultural and social factors associated with sexual assaults, including survivor shame, fear of retaliation by perpetrators and stigma by community members."[7]
- "Sexual violence against men in armed conflict has been documented for thousands of years under the various guises of war, torture and mutilation yet it is often neglected mainly because of overwhelming stigma and shame surrounding it. Based on academic and grey literature on sexual violence against men in conflict, this article discusses the complex reasons for lack of quality data on this important topic. The motivations of sexual violence against men are also explored through applying causal theories that are largely based on female victims of sexual violence. Finally, interventions for the management of sexual violence against men in conflict are discussed. This study concludes that gendered binaries and strict gender roles are primarily responsible in accentuating sexual violence against men in terrorising and humiliating victims, and must be addressed."[8]
- "This book examines the influence of gender ideas on the international regime protecting war-affected civilians. It asks: why did BSA fighters execute civilian males while allowing women and children to flee Srebrenica, and then claim to have complied with the civilian immunity norm? Why did international agencies mandated with the protection of civilians in the former Yugoslavia leave civilian men and older boys in the enclaves, while evacuating besieged women and younger children? Why, while the international community still agonized over Srebrenica, did delegates to the Security council invoke the protection of every category of civilian except "adult male" in their moral discourse? I argue that to understand the way in which the laws of ware are implemented and promoted in international society, we must understand how gender ideas affect and, I argue, ultimately undermine the principle of civilian immunity....First, we can look at whether actors actually treat civilians differently depending on sex and age, and if they do, we can look for clues as to why this is the case. Are male civilians more likely to be killed?... The historical record from Vietnam, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia provide evidence of the way that gender has long informed belligerent's understandings of their responsibilities towards civilians and continues to regulate their actual patterns of restraint."[9]
- "It argues that gendercide -- inclusively defined as gender-selective mass killing -- is a frequent and often defining feature of human conflict, and perhaps of human social organization, extending [186] back to antiquity. I contend as well that gendercide is a regular, even ubiquitous feature of contemporary politico-military conflicts worldwide...That the gender-selective mass killing and "disappearance" of males, especially "battle-age" males, remains a pervasive feature of contemporary conflict is not open to dispute. Indeed, its frequency across cultures and conflict types marks it as a possibly definitional element of contemporary warfare, state terrorism, mob violence, and paramilitary brigandage... 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."[10]
- "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.”[11]
References
- ^ Sandesh Sivakumaran. "Sexual Violence Against Men in Armed Conflict". Eur J Int Law.
- ^ Wynne Russel. "FMR 27" (PDF). Forced Migration Review.
- ^ Dustin Lewis (2009). "Unrecognized victims: Sexual violence against men in conflict settings under International Law". Ws. Int'l L. J (1).
- ^ R. Charli Carpenter (March 2006). "Recognizing Gender-Based Violence against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict Situations". Security Dialogue.
- ^ Robert M. Hayden. "Rape and Rape Avoidance in Ethno-National Conflicts: Sexual Violence in Liminalized States" (PDF).
{{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires|journal=
(help); line feed character in|title=
at position 53 (help) - ^ N Linos (2009). "Rethinking gender-based violence during war: Is violence against civilian men a problem worth addressing?" (PDF). Social science & medicine.
- ^ Mervyn Christiana, Octave Safarib, Paul Ramazanib, Gilbert Burnhamc & Nancy Glass (2011). "Sexual and gender based violence against men in the Democratic Republic of Congo: effects on survivors, their families and the community". Medicine, Conflict and Survival.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Sarah Solangon & Preeti Patel. "Sexual violence against men in countries affected by armed conflict". Conflict, Security & Development Volume 12.
{{cite journal}}
: line feed character in|journal=
at position 33 (help) - ^ R. C. Carpenter. 'Innocent Women and childen': Gender, Norms and the Protection of Civilians.
- ^ Adam Jones (2000). "Gendercide and Genocide". Journal of Genocide Research.
- ^ Buchanan, David (2002). "Gendercide and Human Rights". Journal of Genocide Research.
Category:Massacres of men
- Propose deleting Category:Massacres of men - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Massacres of men - Template:Lc1
- 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)
- speedy keep - see Androcide and [5] research by Adam Jones into this topic. 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 [6] 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)
- 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. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- if you don't like jones you can also read Buchanan here [7]: "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Proposed rename of two categories
- 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. ANDROS1337TALK 17:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Category:Telenovelas set in Rio de Janeiro
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Obsolete and unnecessary. NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Category:Telenovelas set in Rio de Janeiro (state)
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Obsolete and unnecessary. NeoBatfreak (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Category:Exhumed people
- Propose deleting Category:Exhumed people - Template:Lc1
- Propose deleting Category:Exhumed people - Template:Lc1
- 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)
- Delete Not defining and another weird death cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
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)
- 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)