Talk:Violence

message: I am placing citations to these sources here in the hope that some editors will find the material useful for working into the article. I haven't had time to go through them myself, but may add material later. In the meantime, I have placed links to the source Web pages in the External links section. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violence against children: UN Secretary-General's study (2006) and UNICEF report (2014) 

message: I recently made two minor edits in the introduction to re-word statements that included statistics (mortality due to violence). Though the new wording isn't ideal it does a better job of reflecting the fact that the statistics are both estimates, and temporally based.
While the use of statistics is helpful in providing context for the subject matter, care must be taken to avoid making the numbers come across as exact and unchanging. This is especially true for global mortality estimates of a subject as important, broad, and contentious as violence.
ibykow (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics in the Introduction 

message: I believe we should revisit the idea of how violence is defined. One of the key things to know about violence is that the definition is not agreed upon. It seems as important as cataloguing types of violence. 
I think the biggest area of disagreement is the idea of violence being physical. The current page does not acknowledge what many if not most people believe, which is that violence is physical. People/sources can make the argument that verbal, psychological, or structural things should be seen as violent, but that should be labeled as subjective on a Wikipedia article. If you look at the talk page discussion from years ago, the main definitions of violence used to focus on its physicality. That now seems to be almost completely absent from the page, and it should not be. I think this is because the World Health Organization source is being used as though it were objective or the only source that matters. Content from other sources should be added that illustrate disagreement in the definition.
Secondly, people have brought up the idea before and nothing has changed regarding the page being too anthropocentric. Violence against animals does not have a small section of its own and is barely included. Again, part of this is that the WHO source is relied on heavily, and animals do not fit into its frame. Just mentioning that some people and organizations (humane societies, SPCAs, other nonprofit organizations) believe that violence against animals is a social problem would be an improvement.
174.65.74.44 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I (Alweth (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

text: As an example, my own favorite dictionary (Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition) has SEVEN definitions for the word "violence". See photo image of definition. If you want to focus on two styles of "violence", such as physical/bodily versus economic or whatever, then Wikipedia suggests that we consider splitting the page to accommodate both types. Normal Op (talk) 03:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acknowledge disagreement in the definition of violence 

message: We should probably have a section on extensions to the meaning of this word in leftist subculture, e.g. deadnaming, microaggressions, non-violent communication, etc.  People are going to come here looking for historical background on this (when did it start? by whom? for what stated reasons? what has been the reaction of lexicographers, grammarians, linguists, educational systems, regulatory bodies, the media, etc.?)  I did, and it's not here.   There seems to be a lot of material "out there" on it, but starting with the fact that, say, The Huffington Post has adopted this usage  and various groups right now are advocating it doesn't tell us much; someone with academic journal search site access should probably look into the origins.  We can crib a little from those other articles, but there's probably journal material out there on this redefinition movement .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded definition among the far left 

message: See Murder 'comes naturally' to chimpanzees
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29237276 Zezen (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological: chimpanzees 

message: This page has a lot of historical charts and data that could be used to expand this article; many are licensed CC-BY. -- Beland (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  More data for history section 

message: First-time editors  and (edit warrior) : explain your problems please. Wolfdog (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is easy, two schools of thought about violence and it should be represented both, neutral and balanced since there is debate and not consensus. Content should be made not by personal feeling who is right or personal views of some user, that is for blog or own website. Checked content what I put and what stays now, sourced, easy, talk about some scholars opnion and also about the other ones, mention evidence. Clear and easy for intro in history. Cheers.178.221.252.44 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to provide counter-evidence or sources that show there is still some debate. These are scholarly sources and not the personal views of any user. Please read the sources carefully before deleting them. The burden of proof lies on you for deleting sourced information. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Also, take a look at Prehistoric warfare#Paleolithic:
 Wolfdog (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Content in reliable source "The Verge" mostly explain it all. It is easy if someone support one school of thinking to make original research and combine sources or give more weight to one side,  and to put summary as he or she think to will push own personal views. But at Wikipedia as I understand it is not done like that. Neutral point of view is one of the main pillars and especially important if there is some debate and not consensus in academia circles. Also content should be in normal language, to be easy to understand and to cover all. Again, content what I left is reliable sourced, and made as more balanced and recent and neutral. Sorry to say, but one group of scholars says one, the other group says the other and researchs are still on the way and there is debate.178.221.252.44 (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Verge" is one article. Meanwhile, I provided several other sources pointing to the fact that large-scale Paleolithic violence was not widespread. How do you prove that I'm giving more weight to one side? I could just as easily argue that you're stressing a middle-of-the-road neutral view at the expense of actual evidence. The only way we can actually settle this is if you (a) specifically show how my sources are skewed/invalid/unscientific (which you haven't done) and/or (2) specifically provide several more credible sources of your own demonstrating that there is in fact rigorous  (which you haven't done either). Wolfdog (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Also, the only two sources you left in place of my sources that you deleted quote the same exact person: Mirazón Lahr. This even more suggests we need a wider range of experts (if the neutral view is so fair)! And again, I present a wider range of experts, while you continue not to. Wolfdog (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming there's no further sources you can bring up, I'll be restoring mine in the next few days. Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History: edit war 

message: >The "violent male ape" image is often brought up in discussions of human violence. Dale Peterson and Richard Wranghamin "Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence" write that violence is inherent in humans, though not inevitable. 
This line and paragraph doesn't actually go anywhere. The two shout-outs to males being violent is is needlessly sexist. If it built up to a point or argument about sexual dimorphism like later in the article, it'd have some merit at least. If you want to make a section that covers that topic, go for it. But speaking of which, why is wikipedia hosting blatantly sexist talking points?  Distributed undertones of sexism aren't a viable alternative. --75.166.137.201 (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need to inject sexism into the topic 

message: The article fails to mention how words, sometimes, and the things that people say can also be violence. After all, you wouldn’t like it if someone misgendered you, right? 50.196.7.86 (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no commonly accepted definition of "violence" which includes the use of words to cause harm in the absence of physical assault or injury. General Ization Talk   05:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

text: Because that's abuse, not violence. It's annoying how this is a recurring attempt to dilute the meaning of the term. 2601:282:4780:8480:EE44:D3DF:502C:B88B (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic definition 

message: Seems to me links to Antifa and police brutality would be in order.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.228.63 (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We do have an article on political violence. Dimadick (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Political violence

message: The redirect Coordinated violence has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Coordinated violence]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]