Talk:Uxoricide

message: John Emil List doesn't belong on a list of wife murderers even thoug he did kill his wife.  He is classified by forensic psychologists as a family annhilator which has a wholly different dynamic.LiPollis 09:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Emil List

message: I don't think the film Mr and Mrs Smith should really be considered here, as both main characters are professional assassins, so I deleted it.Snorgle 15:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mr. and Mrs. Smith

message: Are either of the lists, "Uxoricide in fiction" or "Known or suspected uxoricides" likely to be useful?  Given the huge number of such cases in fact and fiction can they ever be anything other than woefully incomplete?  There must be dozens of uxoricides in the works of Agatha Christie alone.  Groomtech (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: This is an interesting page that provides a large number of fictional and true examples of uxoricide cases. However, the page lacks a detailed description of the possible reasons a man may choose to kill his wife. There is a pool of literature relating to some of the psychological explanations for uxoricide that are missing from the article. Additionally, there is a lack of reliable citations- adding some further detailed information with citations would improve this article. 
SiobhanEloise (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Improvements 

message: This article looks good so far. This looks like a very interesting topic with a lot of possible further information to add.
I have done a few copy edits - added a few links and corrected some wording.
To improve on this article:
1) Include a few more references, for example in the 'evolved homicide module theory' section, some sentences could be referenced.
2) It would be interesting to have a section on why uxoricide happens from an evolutionary perspective - seems to be your plan from the heading 'possible psychological explanantions'
3) Including a section on uxoricide in different species would also be helpful for further understanding of the topic.
4) Expand a bit more on the lead section once the article has been lengthened. RosieKate13 (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for Human Sexuality 

message: On the whole looks good so far with an overview into a very interesting topic. it will be interesting to see the psychological aspects that you're intending to examine. 
1. There is a possibility for a section regarding factors that leave women at a higher risk of Uxoricide, beyond those explained within the two theories/explanations given.
    - Daly, M., Wiseman, K. A., & Wilson, M. I. (1997). Women with children sired by previous partners incur excess risk of Uxoricide. Homicide studies, 1(1), 61-71.
    - Brewer, V. E., & Paulsen, D. J. (1999). A comparison of US and Canadian findings on uxoricide risk for women with children sired by previous partners. Homicide Studies, 3(4), 317-332.
2. Psychodynamic aspect/explanations of Uxoricide. 
    - Rosenzweig, S., Simon, B., & Ballou, M. (1942). The psychodynamics of an Uxoricide. American journal of orthopsychiatry, 12(2), 283.
3. A look at he historical aspects of Uxoricide and their evolutionary foundations would give increase the depth of the research and potentially give an underlying explanation for the behaviors exhibited.
    - Deacy, S., & McHardy, F. (2013). Uxoricide in pregnancy: Ancient Greek domestic violence in evolutionary perspective. Evolutionary psychology, 11(5), 147470491301100505.
4. The proposed theories seem very similar in their explanations and reasoning fro uxoricide, further explanation of what makes them different would be interesting and a nice addition to the article. 
5. Read through to copy edit, and it seems pretty much in order so thats great. However i did just change the titles so that they are in the correct format for wikipedia. :)  
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psumeb (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review for Human Sexuality (Working)  

message: Looks like a really good start with a few topics that you are writing about. I know it is a work in progress, but here is my contribution:
* "This theory is supported by research statistics that state the rates of uxoricide are much higher for younger men;[9]" - Not sure how the fact that men doing this are young supports this theory - further explanation needed - is it because young men are more likely to kill accidentally? etc
* The heading "Evolved Homicide Module Theory" - is this a contrasting theory to the above theory? If so it may need to be made more clear. "An alternative theory is...", for example. 
* Have just added the tag  to a few things in this paragraph in particular, as it needs a few more (which you guys probably know and are working on!)
Phoebemarplehorvat (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for Human Sexuality 

message: Great start to this article - very interesting! I have done some copyediting and have a few points for suggestions:
* You talk well about how uxoricide occurs, but maybe you could explore the psychological mechanisms behind this. Exploring these could involve looking at mate retention strategies, paternal uncertainty and mate jealousy could really add to these sections. Looking at uxoricide as a potential adaptation (or maladaptation!) to cuckoldry and preventing adultery could be useful.
* I notice the first section 'Possible Psychological Explanations' is empty - maybe including some of the above information would fill this out and act as a nice introduction to the topic. Possible studies to look at are Daly and Wilson (1988), Buss (1988), and Wilson et al (1995).
* It may be worth linking your new section to other pages on Wikipedia to prevent it being an orphan! Links to mate jealousy etc would add to this.
* You could briefly explore other mate guarding strategies such as emotional manipulation.
* Evolved Homicide Module Theory talks about killing a partner to prevent the other male from gaining a reproductive advantage. Maybe exploring this in more detail will help to differentiate your two theories a bit better!
MattConnell94 (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: This is a great start to a fascinating topic! I appreciate this is not the finished product, but heres some suggestions as to edits to make as you progress with the article:
* In the section of the "slip up theory" there are frequent mentions of technical terms, for example "mate guarding" "sexual jealousy" and "reproductive value". It would be beneficial to readers with a novice background in sexuality research to provide links to their respective Wikipedia pages.
* Numerous citations are needed to support claims made in the 'Evolved homicide module theory' section.
* There are also additional sources which could be used to support and strengthen the theory that younger women are at an increased risk of partner violence. Such as:
- Shackelford, T. K. (2001). Cohabitation, marriage, and murder: Woman‐killing by male romantic partners. Aggressive Behavior, 27(4), 284-291.
Overall, you have made a good start at developing a comprehensive overview of the topic and have began to explain evolutionary and psychological theories involved. I look forward to seeing this page develop!
EmmaOrton (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Human Sexuality Peer Review

message: For one thing this section is not even referenced. So who's half-baked opinion is this? For another, the "homicide" paragraph that follows cites ONE reference from two guys down at a university in Texas; some sort of dissertation about crime. We don't know where it was published, it says it's "under review" by a journal(?) called "Brain Science" and doesn't give a year for publication. So, your "theory" doesn't hold any water. It's all conjecture. It is also extremely biased, as it is written from the point of view of a man/men who clearly think(s) that violence towards women has an excusable and rational basis. Essentially the article can be distilled to this: it's all about some poor fuck who can't control his fertile woman. LOL. You need to clean this shit up. Because that's what it is. A stinking pile of excrement and a pack of lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.92.237 (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your "slip up" theory is utter crap 

message: This article's POV seems to privilege patriarchal dominance and undercut facts pertaining to violence against women. It blurs the line between encyclopedia entry and argument.
The "Rates of Uxoricide" section suggests that IPH is not a gendered crime, citing research that 
:for every 100 husbands who killed their wives in the United States, about 75 women killed their husbands," and that "wives were more likely to kill their husbands than vice-versa in some US cities.
While some studies and arguments do insist that IPV and IPH are perpetrated by equally by women as by men, more studies and arguments demonstrate that men are the primary offenders.
Additionally, addressing why men murder their intimate partners, the article frames the issue biologically, not socially or culturally:
:The male is more likely to kill his mate before she has had the chance to form a new relationship with another man as he fears she will then devote her reproductive resources to a male rival's offspring.[22] Therefore, by killing his partner he will avoid the reputational damage associated with intrasexual competition and will eliminate the chances of another man having access to a high value mate.
 
It's unclear whether this article seeks to define the problem or minimize it. The biological focus reads as an implicit justification of the crime, that IPH is more a matter of biological imperative than injustice. 
Four years ago, a user said that the page "lacks a detailed description of the possible reasons a man may choose to kill his wife." I'm interested why this question seemed important. Does a man need a reason to kill his wife? Are some reasons better than others? We're not always interested to know the reasons that criminals offer to justify themselves. What about asking for detailed description of the possible reasons a police officer may choose to kill an unarmed black man?
Amanuenski (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: POV (Global)

message: This article makes claims that children are more likely to be killed by a step-father than a biological father. This claim is based on evolutionary psychology theories which are not, it turns out, supported by data, a fact that is clear in the criticism section of the Wikipedia article on the Cinderella effect. In his paper "Materialist, cultural and biological theories on why Yanomami make war" anthropologist R. Brian Ferguson notes that the claims of Daly and Wilson, that Yanomami men demand, when they take a new wife, that her children be killed, are based on a misrepresentation of the work of Napoleon Chagnon.http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.143.4339&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Nancymc (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are incorrect. Step father presence is a robust risk factor for child abuse which has been replicated numerous times. The following book chapter by Daly and Wilson offers refutations to various criticisms of their theory: Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (2007). Is the “Cinderella effect” controversial. Foundations of evolutionary psychology. Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Abingdon. Gandalf 1892 (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolutionary Psychology Theory in This Article Unsupported by the Data

message: Sudden switch from "spouse" to "mate", etc. leads to it sounding like a biology lesson from a psychology theorist. Needs a rewrite. Needs to attribute interpolations to an individual so these things are not said in Wikipedia's voice. Needs to present statistical data that backs up these assertions made. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone of partner separation section