Talk:Violence

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MNSteinig.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CuriousCorvid.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Violence against children: UN Secretary-General's study (2006) and UNICEF report (2014)

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)

• Pinheiro, Paulo Sérgio (2006). World Report on Violence Against Children. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Secretary-General's Study on Violence Against Children. ISBN 92-95057-51-1.
• United Nations Children's Fund (2014). Hidden in Plain Sight: A statistical analysis of violence against children (PDF) (Report). New York: UNICEF. ISBN 978-92-806-4767-9.

Statistics in the Introduction

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)

Acknowledge disagreement in the definition of violence

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)

--67.170.146.172 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC) I agree that the encyclopedia should take a neutral point of view, this article is heavily slanted towards a left point of view, which views violence to include nebulous non violent acts like "economic violence" in an attempt to hijack the english language for political purposes, if we allow this sort of tripe into the encyclopedia why not include "eugenic violence" or "white genocide", and every other thing a person is harmed by into the definition of violence.

I (Alweth (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)) am suggesting that the definition for violence be changed to the following:

Violence is "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy." Less conventional definitions are also used, such as the World Health Organization's definition of violence as "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

References

--Right, so this is an odd edit war. The citation they tried to use to argue that the definition doesn't need to include "physical force" was this guy: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/violence. Which lists multiple definitions. All of which but one includes "physical force". The vast majority of definitions of violence include "physical force": https://www.google.com/search?&q=violence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/violence https://www.britannica.com/topic/violence https://www.dictionary.com/browse/violence The WHO's definition comes with it's fair share of caveats, like "Defining it is not an exact science but a matter of judgement", and "There are many possible ways to define violence, depending on who is defining it and for what purpose." EVEN THEN, their stated definition is: "The World Health Organization defines violence(4) as:The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual...". Only after that do they talk out the other side of their head and say: "The definition encompasses interpersonal violence as well as suicidal behaviour and armed conflict.It also covers a wide range of acts, going beyond physical acts to include threats and intimidation.Besides death and injury, the definition also includes the myriad and often less obvious consequences of violent behaviour, such as psychological harm,deprivation and maldevelopment that compromise the well-being of individuals, families and communities." I'm not in favor of redefining words and changing the meaning of well established words. There's a lot of good citation in favor of this stance. Arguing otherwise loses you credibility. 97.122.93.217 (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

--The addition of "slow violence" falls under this issue. It's interesting and insightful in parts, but it's not really a type of violence. More like societal reactions or perception of violence. Case in point "post-traumatic stress" and "the collapse that visited upon glaciers as a result of long-term climate change effects." ...Those do not meet the definition of violence. If you expand the scope and definition of violence as to include the destruction of glaciers, then bulldozers are violent machines made specifically to do violence. Which is nuts. And there's no need for this. Climate change is bad (and a good example of slow violence) in the sense that it's subtly and very slowly leads to wildfires, floods, hurricanes, droughts, and very destructive forces of nature (where they were not previously accustomed to). These are violent events where people die. The cause of which is real slow. But stress, and glaciers melting, are not themselves any sort of violence. It's all bad stuff. But call it what it is: abuse of power, corruption, propaganda, pollution, and social manipulation. And I'm against the sort of social manipulation like redefining violence. The section needs to be cleaned up and moved to the factors section. 71.211.175.77 (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

-- Is there a reference for the value judgement that the WHO definition is "less conventional", less conventional to who? The WHO is an organisation representing almost very Ministry of Health on earth so it is pretty conventional, and I certainly know most doctors see it as being an important source of definitions. Describing the WHO's definition as "less conventional" does not seem neutral to me unless the person who wrote it as being less conventional has a reference to support that? The differentiation between definitions of violence as being only referring to harm done to living beings rather than property is very topical right now and this article seems to start with bias towards the idea that violence is not only limited to violence against living beings and not-inclusive of psychological/structural violence, by devaluing the WHO definition. Would appreciate an editor weighing in to correct this bias, but if not I plan to change this in 2 days. Geelong 1985 (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

---Yes the other references would be most of the other dictionaries:

- merriam-webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld
- dictionary.com: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/violence?s=t
- wiktionary.com: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/violence 
- google dictionary: https://www.google.com/search?q=google+dictionary&oq=google+dictionary&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.2038j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#dobs=violence
- oxford: https://www.oxfordreference.com/search?q=violence&searchBtn=Search&isQuickSearch=true
- Collins: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/violence

Cambridge is the only one to have "actions or words". Collins goes with "behavior" and mentions "If you do or say something with violence...", but notes that that's literary. And yet somehow Cambridge's definition is the one that has weaseled it's way into the lead. And as noted right above you, the WHO goes all over the places when defining violence and includes physical force as part of their definition. If 7/8 of the top authorities agree on an aspect of a definition, wikipedia probably shouldn't go out of it's way to harp on the half of one definition. Psychological violence, economic violence, spiritual violence, metaphorical violence, and imagined violence are not real instances of violence being done. They are flowery poetic usages of the word as hyperbole. It diminishes and dilutes the meaning and detracts from people who have actually been hurt. This is encoded in law and I don't want the definition changing out from under me. (Although I agree that the use of physical force against things still falls under the definition. If you nuke a mountain with no one on it, that's still pretty violent.) Replacing the "less conventional" note and removing cambridges definition. (or I can simply cite the 7 places that agree with "physical force"). The real definition is there, as well as a shout-out to the people who want it changed. A good compromise. 97.122.95.30 (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

* Dictionary lesson: The "Collins COBUILD" dictionary is a unique dictionary in that it is geared for those learning English as a Second Language (ESL). (If I remember my numbers precisely,) it utilizes a core vocabulary of 2,000 of the most common English words to describe a total of 10,000 otherwise-common words in its dictionary. It also uses the word within its own definition (which is almost unheard of in all other dictionaries), so that each definition is also an example. By using only a core 2,000 words, the ESL learner need only learn these basic words to then be able to use the dictionary to learn the other 8,000 words. Another feature of dictionaries is that they have multiple definitions for each word, and most dictionaries (Webster, Cambridge, Oxford, etc.) have several "levels" of dictionary (beginner, school, intermediate, collegiate, unabridged) and each higher level has more and more definitions for each word. For example, a school dictionary might have a single definition of one word, whereas the unabridged might have fifteen! So while you're arguing "which meaning to use", keep in mind that you might want to consult several dictionaries to see which uses are more common and which are archaic, obsolete, or just not as common. (Of course this is just a simplistic explanation about COBUILD and dictionaries. End of lesson!) Normal Op (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

--- I don't think WHO represents heatlh ministries. That's sort of like saying a hypoethical motorvehicale safety consortium represents tesla; or the c++ standards committee represents microsoft. The WHO is an forum for *international* issues of health, within an organization, the UN, whose aim is partly to prevent violence. Journals and guidance bodies will more accurately represent the academic views of medical fields. --Talpedia (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

-- An interesting lesson, but not that useful here. Complex or simple, Collins is still a dictionary. And telling me to use several dictionaries? There's 7 right there. AND, yes of course words have multiple uses. Some have multiple meanings. Some have multiple and entirely opposite meanings. But when it comes to "violence", in all these dictionaries, in all the meanings, only oxford throws in half a definition that lines up with the WHO's "less conventional" expanded definition that includes non-physical psychological harm.

Here's we go: the use of physical force, injury, intense turbulent or furious and often destructive action or force, undue alteration (ok, that one is pretty open), swift and intense force, rough or injurious physical force action or treatment, an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power as against rights or laws, a violent act or proceeding, rough or immoderate vehemence as of feeling or language, damage through distortion or unwarranted alteration, Extreme force, Action which causes destruction pain or suffering, Widespread fighting, (figuratively) Injustice wrong, behavior involving physical force intended to hurt damage or kill someone or something, Violence is behavior that is intended to hurt injure or kill people, If you do or say something with violence...[literary], Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt damage or kill someone or something. I most certainly do NOT want to focus on two styles of the term when there is clearly a consensus of the authorities on a single style (at least when it comes to physical force or non-physical things like words and psychology and economics. If someone does want to make about about psychological abuse, that page already exists. Psychological violence is an oxymoron. 97.122.95.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

The responses that were made after my edits were reverted do not address the problem that calling the WHO definition "less conventional" is clearly a Point of View (I don't see value judgements of how conventional a definition is included in any other similar wikipedia entries), the WHO represents the Ministries of Health of 194 countries so who exactly is it less conventional than? If you can show me 195 other more conventional countries than happy to keep that wording. Geelong 1985 (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Obviously there are many different dictionary definitions, that cover many different nuances, insisting that only one very specific and quite narrow definition that differs from many other dictionary definitions - especially to the extent it refers to damage which could be implied as property where other definitions specify that violence is directed at humans is problematic. Geelong 1985 (talk) 06:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

-- Well, alright, I guess I'll cite all the dictonaries. But it's not a point of view, it's basic math. Of the first 6 dictionaries with their 19 definitions, one includes a rather broad "or" clause. 0.5 vs 19 is "less conventional". If you want to put in the work of digging around for more dictionaries, go for it. But the WHO is in charge of health issues and is not an authority on definitions. AND ALSO, come on, it was right up there: The WHO's definition comes with it's fair share of caveats, like "Defining it is not an exact science but a matter of judgement", and "There are many possible ways to define violence, depending on who is defining it and for what purpose." EVEN THEN, their stated definition is: "The World Health Organization defines violence(4) as:The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual...". Only after that do they talk out the other side of their head and say: "The definition encompasses interpersonal violence as well as suicidal behaviour and armed conflict.It also covers a wide range of acts, going beyond physical acts to include threats and intimidation.Besides death and injury, the definition also includes the myriad and often less obvious consequences of violent behaviour, such as psychological harm,deprivation and maldevelopment that compromise the well-being of individuals, families and communities." Which includes a whole lot of language which is nowhere in the definition of the word. Since then, it's shown up in a glossary in some of their material, so that's a bit of development. But the point stands that they're using a less conventional definition than the traditional usage, and than the definition per the authorities on the topic. 97.122.95.30 (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Expanded definition among the far left

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 [1] 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 en toto.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is related to the reducing range of situations in which violence is acceptable. For instance, it used to be acceptable for a master to beat his servant: my impression, from nothing more than reading novels, is that that was over in the UK before the end of the 18th century. However American masters were allowed to beat their slaves, even to the point of killing them, until abolition in the 1860s. A husband was entitled to beat his wife: I recall seeing a report of an English judge saying he could use a rod no thicker than his thumb in the 1890s - but that ceased to be legal during the 20th century in the UK, though it seems to be acceptable in Russia, the Islamic world and in much of the Western underclass as well as in hyper-religious subcultures. Beating children is currently starting to become unacceptable in the West, but again not to the religious right. There used to be a category overlap for servant boys and lady's maids, who as adolescents remained subject to corporal punishment well into the 20th century after adult servants became exempt: foreign servants in the West seem to fall into this category. Criminal subcultures retain both corporal and capital punishment, as do their mirrors in the world of entertainment (e.g. gangsta rap lyrics). This may be why surveys show that many Western teenagers feel that a boyfriend is entitled to beat his girlfriend. NRPanikker (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Biological: chimpanzees

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

More data for history section

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)

History: edit war

First-time editors 93.87.197.222 and (edit warrior) 178.221.252.44: explain your problems please. Wolfdog (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

Also, take a look at Prehistoric warfare#Paleolithic:

According to cultural anthropologist and ethnographer Raymond C. Kelly, the earliest hunter-gatherer societies of Homo erectus population density was probably low enough to avoid armed conflict. The development of the throwing-spear, together with ambush hunting techniques, made potential violence between hunting parties very costly, dictating cooperation and maintenance of low population densities to prevent competition for resources. This behavior may have accelerated the migration out of Africa of H. erectus some 1.8 million years ago as a natural consequence of conflict avoidance.

Some scholars believe that this period of "Paleolithic warlessness" persisted until well after the appearance of Homo sapiens some 315,000 years ago, ending only at the occurrence of economic and social shifts associated with sedentism, when new conditions incentivized organized raiding of settlements. Wolfdog (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

"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 debate and not consensus in academia circles (which you haven't done either). Wolfdog (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

References

No need to inject sexism into the topic

>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)

Defining violence in the lead sentence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd been at this article before, but I followed this IP to the article minutes ago. And I see that it begins with a dictionary definition of violence and places the World Health Organization (WHO) definition of violence in the context of "less conventional definitions." There has been edit warring over this. Considering that violence is a broad term (as is clear by the Wikipedia article), but it is especially relevant to the medical/health area, how to define the term in the lead sentence needs discussion. I will contact WP:Med and the other WikiProjects that the talk page is tagged with to the definitional matter for discussion. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that WHO's expansive definition is "less conventional", or at least less traditional. It appears that under the WHO's definition, purely non-physical coercion is considered violence ("Do this, or I'll tell our parents where you were last Saturday night, and they'll take your phone away"). That is not considered violence under traditional definitions. You might call it manipulative, extortionate, blackmail, normal behavior for siblings, etc., but not plain old basic-or-garden-variety violence.

Under the WHO definition, a threat of violence (which appears in lots of statutes) would be a strange concept, because they says that the threat of violence is the same as violence. I think that under the WHO's definition, you could even have a threat of a threat, which is silly ("Do this by tomorrow, or I'll threaten you with violence!" "You already are threatening me." "No, this is the threat of getting a threat of violence. Tomorrow, I won't threaten you with a threat. Tomorrow, I'll threaten you with being pinched if you don't have it done by the next day. I'm trying to adopt a non-violent lifestyle. I used to jump straight into violent behavior, but now I start with regular words, and then the next time I use violent words, and then finally violent actions. So be warned: Do this today, or tomorrow I'll threaten you!").

This reminds me a bit of the WHO's impossibly expansive definition of "health" (which they have defined as an idealized state), but it's not nearly as bad as that one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's circular logic to say that it's clearly a broad term because of the wikipedia article when the debate is over changing the wikipedia article. As in the talk section up above, of the first 6 dictionaries with their 19 definitions, one includes a rather broad "or" clause. 0.5 vs 19 is "less conventional". If you look through the archive, for most of the time the definition was "Violence is the use of physical force against persons that potentially causes fear, injury or death." And while I'm not sure I agree it has to be against just people, that's closer to the real definition. A novel and less conventional definition of "violence" appears to have originated with Norwegian professor Johan Galtung in the 60's: "Violence is any action that harms people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs." Which strays so far from the broadly accepted and technically correct definition from the authorities on the subject, that it's simply a misuse of the word. (Maybe the Norwegian "vold" carries different connotation than the English "Violence"). He even said himself (https://www.jstor.org/stable/422690) that this new definition "will hardly be satisfactory to many readers", and that it's not THE definition or THE typology ... More important is to indicate theoretically significant dimensions of violence that can lead to thinking, research, and action". He was just getting people to think about it. In English, the word "abuse" is much more fitting. This is important due to the fact that violence is codified into our laws. An act of violence will get you felonies while and act of rudeness won't even get you arrested. Furthermore, the WHO is all over the place with their definition (https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/chap1.pdf?ua=1) and they themselves define it (at least here): "The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation." All in all I'm looking to clean up this article (and wikipedia) to either scrape away the bias or acknowledge the division and origin thereof. 97.122.95.30 (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

A couple of points. In legal contexts you have the concept of assault (causing fear of violence), actual bodily harm (causing harm with violence), wounding (any form of breaking the skin), harrassment (deliberately causing distress or fear), and vexatious behaviour or nuisance behaviour, as well as the tort of negligence in civil cases. There is some distinction between physical harms and other forms of harm in criminal law. Regarding the medical definition: medical workers empathise with those who experience harm, and view themselves as the victims of violence, while being in a position of power and having access to a number of formal responses to the behaviour of others - they do not necessarily see themselves as inflicting harm, but rather they see themselves as the victims of violence and repairer of violence. This may lead them to have quite a broad definition. There is also a little politics involved, for example in the UK the NHS will often declare their zero policy tolerance on violence, they will start off by talking about physical assault, and then proceed to progressively less extreme forms of malicious behaviour, verbal abuse, name calling, suggesting individual responsibility, viewing things as individual failings rather han part of the system that needs to be fixed (I have actually seen all these examples in NHS organizational policies towards violence). The only official policy documents (two memos from the 1990s) clearly do not talk about anything other than physical violence, but medical organizations will interpret violence broadly to control patient behaviour when conflicts occur. This will doubtless apply in other fields, it can be advantageous to equate others actions as "violence" when you want to exaggerate the harm; it is advantageous to define your actions as something other violence if you engage in them, those with formal powers of coercion have little need to engage in behaviour that is considered violent, they have someone else do it for them. Expansion in light of others comments, I am not sure violence is a purely medical topic, the field will tend to only consider the *harm* of violence, a one-sided definition. Even within psychology, aggression is hidden behind the concept of assertiveness - which may as well be called "justified minimal aggression". I would note that political science, ethics, sociology, psychology, law, and criminalogy will deal with violence from a viewpoint that is not purely "harms based" -- though criminology may be one-sided (given that researchers will feel the right to judge), and law is more concerned with providing a system of reasoning than it is with researching what is true or providing useful language. I might specifically point at sociology and "interpersonal" psychology as giving a more balanced view on violence broadly interpreted - since these fields to some degree deal with the harms of a *lack* of aggression and the disempowerment it brings. --Talpedia (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Talpedia, I didn't state that it is a purely medial topic. No one else here has stated that either. Below, I stated that it "is largely a medical topic." And also noted its relevancy to law and social science. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozon. Sure, I definitely accept that the medical fields research some of the effects and causes of violence; is interested in the results of the field; and that their are medics would write on the topic. --Talpedia (talk) 09:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: My issue with how the lead sentence and second sentence are currently set up is this: Violence is largely a medical topic, as is clear by the article and its sources. The "Types" section is even outlined based on what the World Health Organization states. And something like domestic violence/intimate partner violence, which the article covers, is not just about physical violence. At all. Violence is also an academic topic, having a lot to do with law in addition to the medical aspect. The society and culture stuff obviously accompanies that. So, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the sources we should be looking at for the lead sentence are academic sources, whether that's medical sources per WP:MEDRS, legal sources, or social science sources. We should be looking at these types of sources to see how they define violence. Dictionary sources are not the main types of sources we use for medical/health material, or academic topics in general. The IP placed the World Health Organization in the context of "less conventional definitions" when those dictionary sources he added do not state that. Not to mention that Wiktionary is not a WP:Reliable source. The "less conventional definitions" piece is WP:Synthesis. Furthermore, given how much violence is a medical topic, medical definitions of violence are standard. One can debate whether or not the World Health Organization definition in particular is standard, like this section is currently doing, but complex topics such as this should not be relying solely on dictionary definitions for its lead sentence. The IP stated, "It's circular logic to say that it's clearly a broad term because of the wikipedia article when the debate is over changing the wikipedia article." No, we are debating the first and second sentences. Before I start a WP:RfC on this matter, I will allow time for more editors to comment. Maybe a day or two. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think that violence is "largely" a medical topic. I think it's "partly" a medical topic. If most of the sources are from medical journals, then the article may be over-medicalized. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As noted below, I surveyed the literature. Thoroughly. I stand by "largely a medical topic." And the current state of the article is reflective of "largely a medical topic." I'm, of course, not stating that we shouldn't cover legal aspects. The article already does that, but could do could maybe do with a lot more on that aspect. But I don't see that the article should be changed to give as much or equal weight to legal material. The legal material is just something that goes with violence if the violence violated the law in whatever way. Also, if one wants to define that first sentence solely in the context of physical force, or physical harm (which is at least broader than "physical force" when considering something like rape or female genital mutilation), then, yeah, it's no wonder that so much more of the material is going to fall in the medical realm (physical, psychological, public health). And we usually cover "Society and culture" in medical articles. And, currently, even the "Society and culture" section of the article is substantially medical. So, yeah. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment My native understanding of the word violence (which has zero weight with regard to anything here, but what the hell) is that violence is the use of physical force to attack something. I wouldn't necessarily limit it to people, or even to animals - if I fire a cannon at a castle wall, I'd say that's a form of violence, or if I give a door a violent kick in order to bash it in. I agree with Flyer22 though that we should be looking for how scholarship defines the word, and use that to define it in our lead. It might be the case that we need to offer more than one definition - different contexts might use the word in more expansive and less expansive ways - we should tell the reader that, rather trying to find the definition which is most commonly used, or which dictionaries disagree on. I'm on holiday at the moment away from my bookshelves, so not currently in a position to start digging out sources, but I expect I could find some academic historical works covering violence which would probably give a definition of the term to add to the mix. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the first and second sentences in the lead

This RfC is based on two questions:

1. Should the first sentence, whether supported by a dictionary source (as it currently is) or other sources, limit the definition of violence to physical force?

2. Should the second sentence continue to place the definitions of violence that extend beyond physical force in the context of "less conventional definitions"...even while unsourced?

For those viewing this RfC from an RfC listing, see above for more commentary on the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Comment: No to question 1. I looked at a variety of academic sources on the topic of violence since I last commented, and I've so far come across none that solely define violence in such a limited way. For a complex topic like this, scholarly sources are best per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. And this is a complex topic. While dictionary sources will begin with or solely define violence as physical force, we can see that topics such as violence against women are broad with regard to what they define as violence, including definitions such as the Istanbul Convention's "all acts of gender-based violence that result in, or are likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological or economic harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life" definition. Female genital mutilation is usually not by physical force (except for cases where girls, and, less commonly women, are physically held down against their will), but it is categorized as violence by various reputable medical and sociology sources. Domestic violence/intimate partner violence, a widely studied topic (like female genital mutilation), is not limited to physical force when it comes to what violence entails. Knowing all of this, especially how medical sources (which cover so much of this field) define violence, I'm not inclined to support the lead sentence limiting the definition to physical force. While it may be best that the lead sentence is not overly broad, I think it is best that it is also not overly limited. If we do go with the limited definition, the second sentence should at least not downplay the non-force definitions of violence.

No to question 2. It's WP:Synthesis. None of those sources state "less conventional definitions." Not only is it unsourced, I disagree with the assertion per what I stated with regard to question 1. So even if finally sourced, stating "less conventional definitions" for things that are pretty commonly defined as violence by authoritative sources is a no for me. Keeping Girth Summit's commentary above in mind, I recognize that most editors are likely not well versed on the violence literature and may vote to keep the limited definition as the lead sentence, but at least, if that happens, it will be there via consensus. There has been much debate on this talk page about defining violence. So this is my way of surveying opinions and achieving consensus on the matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Tweaked posted. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: Yes to question 1 because violence spans many fields of research it quite difficult to find a broad definition without either engaging in original research or using dictionary sources, so dictionary sources should be followed (in the absence of scholarly literature on the use of words in various fields - though I doubt this exist). Original research, medicalism/scientism/other-ism or dictionary definitions - pick one. The lead should probably discuss the variety of viewpoints on the meaning afterwards. I would note that using a broad definition *does not* capture the meaning of definitions that do not inlcude violence: If we say "violence is the infliction any form of harm, emotional, financial etc etc" this does capture the fact that some definitions of violence explicitly exclude non-physical harm. I guess the definition of might be something like "Violence is the deliberate infliction of some form of harm upon an individual. Some fields only consider physical harm, other fields use a broader definition of harm including..." No to question 2 I agree that "less conventional" is uncited, though note that the ordering of definitions in a dictionary is often meaningful. I would phrase this sentence as "some fields extends the definition of violence..." to avoid value judgments. Looking for the sociological definition of violence, if one googles "sociology violence", then oxford bibliographies refers to this https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-0-306-48039-3_2.pdf which is an interesting read. It it's study of the etymology of violence it is quite clear that violence means physical violence, but it them goes on to create a general framework of violence that can encompass both violence and "non-violence" in terms factors like justifiation, and goes on to comment that "In the social protest movements, for example, attempts were made to politicize the concept of violence and push it toward structural violence, thus allowing a wide range of social ills and problems to be labeled, discredited, and set upon. At the same time the attempt was made at militant demonstrations to define the concept of violence as narrowly as possible, so that forms of civil disobedience, resistance to state authority, and damage to property did not figure as violence at all." I would comment that part of what is going on here is that in order to understand the *boundary* of violence and non-violence, one needs a framework that describes this boundary, not just one side so the field of violence naturally become the field of the use of force. --Talpedia (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

My response to Talpedia/our discussion was moved to the "Discussion" section below. Please see what is discussed there for more thoughts and information on the literature. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sort of yes on 1, mu on 2. Question #2 depends upon what happens to #1. If we decided that violence is anything that hurts anyone or anything, then the WHO definition would be more restrictive, not less. For the first sentence, I wonder whether JSTOR 173428 might be helpful. It discusses categories of definitions, e.g., ideological definitions used to call attention to a social problem, or evaluative definitions developed for a specific research context. Look for the section that begins "In political analysis and commentary the basic meaning of "violence in virtually all its usages, is "harmful action" but that base supports a great many different detailed definitions whose nuances seem to depend on whose ox is being gored." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

My response to WhatamIdoing/our discussion was moved to the "Discussion" section below. Please see what is discussed there for more thoughts and information on the literature. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Question 1: Follow the best sources according to due weight. The definition will require hashing out via discussion, but if the WP:WEIGHT of academic secondary and tertiary sources does not limit it to physical force, then neither should we. To determine what to do, we need to look at a reasonably broad selection of sources that are representative of the total literature on the topic. Focusing on a small corner of the literature and building only off of that could cause us to end up with a definition that is undue weight.
• Question 2: No. It's definitely WP:Synthesis as it is. If certain definitions are later stated by sources to be less conventional, that's a separate matter, but regarding what's there now, it's synthesis and has to go. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC) updated Crossroads ^-talk- 04:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Noting that it's been suggested to go with "physical harm" rather than "physical force", which seems quite reasonable to me. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

    Crossroads, I've been thinking about this, and I think it's difficult. If "physical harm" is the key point, then if an angry man runs towards someone, screams that he's going to kill him, and slashes at his intended victim with a knife but accidentally misses. Should we really describe that attempted murder as a non-violent action, just because there was no significant physical harm in the outcome? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment regarding 2 I started trying to do a literature review and found the following comment on the who definition "The inclusion of the word ‘‘power’’, in addition to the phrase ‘‘use of physical force’’, broadens the nature of a violent act and expands the conventional understanding of violence to include those acts thatresult from a power relationship, including threats and intimidation." in whos report on violence [2]. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and replace the dictionary sources with this quote. It is to be noted that this source is quite old, this broader definition may have now become standard in certain fields. --Talpedia (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be better if you reverted yourself regarding this edit. It makes the RfC confusing (i.e. the basis of the questions) and it's not established yet that "less conventional" is WP:Due. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads. Sure. I've just do that now. Commentators should bear in mind that it is acknowledged by WHO themselves in their report on the issue that their definition was not conventional and extends the definition of violence. So "less" conventional is neither original research nor synthesis (given this new quote) and can be sourced. Do you think the RfC should be clarified given this? --Talpedia (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I think that's too confusing for the closer and commentors. People's comments and the closer will sort it out. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Crossroads. I'm always flabbergasted when an editor thinks it's a good idea to alter an aspect of the article that an RfC concerns, affecting the RfC question(s), while the RfC is going on. It's not that hard to wait until the RfC is over (well, in many cases anyway), and it's best to wait until there is consensus on the matter, which is why the RfC exists to begin with. This RfC is about the current state of the article. And "less conventional definitions" is WP:Synthesis in that current state. The RfC needs no clarification. It asks editors if "less conventional definitions" should be there. When it states "even while unsourced", that's clearly asking if it should be there whether sourced or unsourced. I commented that even if sourced, it shouldn't be there. And you brought up the possibility of sourcing it. So editors are aware of possibly retaining that piece with a source that supports it.

Yes, limiting the definition of "violence" to physical force is outdated. Somewhat anyway. But, of course, editors not familiar with the literature and speaking in hypotheticals rather than reviewing the literature, aren't going to know that. The lead does not need that 2002 source to support "less conventional definitions" when anyone surveying the more recent literature, as we are supposed to do (as even noted in WP:MEDDATE), can see that extending the term "violence" beyond "physical force" is very common. The Wikipedia Violence article even shows that. Legal sources don't even limit the definition to just physical force (as in use of physical force), as is clear by this 2017 "Legal Definitions of Violence and Aggression" source. When one looks at the 18 U.S. Code § 16. Crime of violence defined, it clearly states, "(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." So attempted use or threatened use are included, not just actual use. And not all dictionary sources limit the definition of violence to physical force. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the fact that WHO considered their definition less conventional is very relevant to the discussion don't you?

... but it's worth considering whether the definition has broadened since then.

Sigh, fine, let's try to take the high road. Lots of this looks like personal jabs including talking about procedure as personal jabs. I think they are probably irrelevant to the discussion so I should ignore them for the benefit of other editors. The only points I'll make i. that these personal jabs are there and i. I think Flyer22 is well versed in related literature related to violence against women and this may be coloring some of this discussion and causing a little original research to take place, and that's fine, I just wish it wasn't accompanied with all the commentary on other people and their behavior. --Talpedia (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Last reply to you in this RfC: I've briefly commented on you. It was more so to let you know why I would rather not discuss further with you. Don't try to make this about me focusing on others, as if I'm just being bitter because they are voting a certain way. It was in very bad taste of you to mess with a portion of the lead that is in dispute while this RfC is going on. That is why Crossroads asked you to revert yourself. I briefly commented on that...before again focusing on the content/issues at hand. As for "I think Flyer22 is well versed in related literature related to violence against women"? I am well versed in different (usually overlapping) subjects, and am very familiar with the literature on violence, not just violence against women. And as many know, I do not put my personal feelings ahead of what is best for our Wikipedia articles. I do not engage in WP:OR. That is why I linked to SilkTork's comment in this post. You have been the one engaging in hypotheticals, and stating "maybe so and so" stuff, instead of actually reviewing what the literature states. It is you and others supporting a very limited definition of violence that doesn't even hold up when looking at the article as a whole. It is you and others supporting a dictionary definition instead of an academic source per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. The lead even quotes the dictionary, which is not standard for any of our Wikipedia articles when it comes to the lead. And since it seems you are trying to imply that I'm some biased feminist, let me be clear, like I was before on my talk page years ago when some guy who doesn't like that the lead of the Sexism article (and article as a whole) gives the appropriate weight it does to women dropped by, I do not identify as a feminist. The medical weight of the violence literature couldn't be clearer. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Adding this in: I already responded to the 2002 WHO source matter regarding "unconventional." You stated, "It is to be noted that this source is quite old, this broader definition may have now become standard in certain fields." My "06:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)" post has a response to that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't change the wording of the text only improved the sourcing. I'd note that it's very difficult not to engage in a little original research - brains natural generalize. The argument that I thought to be slightly originally research is such and such is sexual violence, so the definition of violence must be broadened to include the term. I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with this sort of argument. I think a reader might come to different conclusions to you about the "jabby" nature of some of the comments. Regarding questions of familiarity with literature, I would note again that the very first source I found from the WHO about violence said that their definition was broader than conventional. --Talpedia (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• No to both Yes to 1. The first portion (in other words, the lead) of the article should deal with the first definition given by dictionaries.[3][4] Adoring nanny (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Adoring nanny, I'm not clear on your vote. Part of the RfC asks: "Should the first sentence, whether supported by a dictionary source (as it currently is) or other sources, limit the definition of violence to physical force?" The lead sentence states that "Violence is the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy." The source you linked to gives the following first definition for violence: "Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something." That's pretty much the same as the current lead sentence. And by "first portion of the article", I take it you mean the lead? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Note: As seen above, Adoring nanny changed his vote. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to question 1. It's the basic definition of the word, and expanding the definition dilutes the original meaning. Only the WHO, and only some of their published material, places such overreach upon the term. (Which is self-serving on their end as doing so expands their authority over the topic). The only good argument I've heard is that as a medical issue, the WHO is the leading authority on it's definition. But when put up against warfare, the medical aspect seems small. And the efforts to understand it and explain the source cause of violence is more a function of sociology than medicine. No to question 2. If one of the WHO's definitions stays in the lead, then it should be clear that it is different from the common vernacular. Although I'd support giving this it's own section to explain what's going on and what spawned this discussion. 97.122.95.30 (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I commented above and below on the fact that defining violence as simply physical force, even though the second sentence of the Wikipedia article would note other definitions, is overly restrictive. So I'm not going to repeat myself on much of what I stated before. But I will note now that there are many topics that we could provide a dictionary definition for, and we do so in some of those cases, especially for articles that are about the word. That stated, per the "Good definitions" section at WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions. Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics, but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) than linguistic concerns." We commonly forgo dictionary definitions sources for our lead sentences (or use them as an adjunct to a better quality source) because, unless they are specialist dictionaries, they are not nuanced or diverse for the topics at hand. And it's clear by medical, sociological, and legal sources on the topic of violence that the basic definition of physical force just isn't enough. Again, using "physical harm" would at least be better. I was clear that we don't have to use the WHO for the lead sentence. Of course we don't. And it's not good practice to quote a source for the lead sentence. But using that very limited definition? I disagree with that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to 1;

As for 2, the WHO definition should be deleted entirely or moved from the lead. The WHO does not have power over the English language. In fact, the WHO's definition is an act of violence, according to the WHO's definition. It is the use of their power, as a well known international agency, to deprive us of clarity in our language, thereby resulting in deprivation. WHO would commit, such an act of violence?Truth Is King 24 (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Further observation - dictionaries both reflect and help to set the conventional meanings of words. Authors of dictionaries research how words are actually used, and users of words reference dictionaries. Therefore, if a definition does not appear in any dictionary, I think the term "less conventional" is quite apt. It may be synthesis, but in this instance an overly strict application of the rule against synthesis would result in undue weight being given to the WHO definition. Between the two, given that it is not a great leap from a definition failing to appear in any dictionary to that definition being "less conventional" (I would say "non conventional"), it is better to avoid the undue weight outcome. Just as an aside, the WHO definition, obviously cobbled together to encompass a whole-lot-a-things those WHO folks don't much care for, is insanely over broad. A changing of the routes in a bus system would be an act of violence, as it is the use of power that deprives those who were advantaged by the old bus routes of the bus route(s) that advantaged them. "I just burned down the offices of the local transit authority." "Wha ... !!!!????" "Well, they committed an act of violence by rerouting the number 5, so we and our neighbors are deprived of the nearby bus stop, and must walk two blocks further, so I responded in kind." Imagine that.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• No to 1, yes to 2 - explicitly, it needs to made clear that threats of violence, even if not acted upon, are violent in and of themselves and the essential underpinning of many other coercive and unequal relationships in society and personal life. I am reminded of violence as 'The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived' in Starship Troopers - in the same sense, it is the supreme threat from which all power in an abusive relationship or social dynamic derives. I understand the dictionary perspective above, but I think it's vital we reflect this point in particular - partly, if I'm frank, for the sake of readers who may not realise this otherwise and so suffer the effects. Possibly too sentimental of me, but my point stands. VeritasVox (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to 1, no to 2: It seems to me that the "standard" definition and the "unconventional" definition are nearly identical, except for the inclusion of threats. I agree with Whatamidoing above that including threats in the definition of violence is odd for WP:BLUESKY reasons. But it's also odd because all the sources we have for the "unconventional" definition except the WHO actually agree with the "conventional" definition on this point and do not include threats in their definition of violence. So, like usual, we should go with the balance of sources and not include threats at all: the WHO is pretty clearly outmatched here by a ton of dictionary entries. Loki (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

My above "06:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)" post shows that what you've stated isn't accurate. And that includes the fact that some dictionaries (for example, legal dictionaries) list "threat" in some way in their definition of violence. I've also mentioned the limitations of dictionary sources. Given, like me, your involvement with certain gender topics, you are well aware of their limitation. So I wonder why you champion them here in this discussion. Academic sources on violence, and some legal sources on violence, do not limit the definition to just physical force. When we look at academic sources, such as this 2016 "Developmental Psychopathology, Risk, Resilience, and Intervention" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 46, they note that violence is not only defined by physical force or physical harm. And they don't usually call definitions that go beyond physical force "unconventional," "outliers," or "odd." The "Developmental Psychopathology, Risk, Resilience, and Intervention" source states that "while some definitions restrict violence to imminent threat of harm, others expand it to include direct attempt to oppress or coerce, and others go further, including where it might be implicit or would be considered so by an outside observer. These boundaries have been debated most when violence is occurring in a relationship and there is differing power and ability to cause harm (e.g., domestic violence, child abuse)." It even has a subsection asking if threat of physical harm and/or intent is necessary for an act to be violent. It explores this. It also states that "most would agree that threatening to hit someone unless he or she does as you demand is violent." And despite Zoozaz1 stating "a few scholarly articles" below, it's not a "few" matter. As for Zoozaz1 mentioning WP:COMMONNAME, I don't see what that has to do with this. But that is all that I will state on that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to 1, no to 2 The first sentence should offer an answer to the question "What is x?" Therefore, the question here is what is violence. The meaning of a word is not defined from above, but from below as is recognized in a specific example in WP:COMMONAME. The citation of a few scholarly articles unconnected from the wider world is unconvincing in that regard. Common usage is preferred over academic terminology. The concept is used to mean a specific thing, and dictionary definitions, most attuned to how a word is actually used, reflect that clearly, not a specific subset of academia. Zoozaz1 (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

And just real quick: Zoozaz1, common usage is not automatically preferred over academic usage, especially on academic topics or medical topics specifically. For example, in the Pedophilia article, we would never go by the dictionary definition of pedophilia, which often doesn't even include the important criteria prepubescent. As noted in the Pedophilia article, the common use meaning of pedophile is wrong. We go by academic usage/expert consensus when defining it. And it's not like we build articles on dictionary definitions anyway. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

In addition to the WikiProjects I already alerted to this matter, I will also alert Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources since the matter partly concerns verifiability and what sources are best to use in context. And I will alert Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women per what I stated about the violence against women topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I also alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's Health. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Talpedia, you stated that it is "quite difficult to find a broad definition without either engaging in original research or using dictionary sources." I don't agree with that. The WHO has given a broad definition, and so do other sources, that cover all of the fields. I'm not saying that we should use the WHO definition, but in what way does it not cover anything that a legal source would state about violence? I mean, above, you stated, "In legal contexts you have the concept of assault (causing fear of violence), actual bodily harm (causing harm with violence), wounding (any form of breaking the skin), harassment (deliberately causing distress or fear), and vexatious behaviour or nuisance behaviour, as well as the tort of negligence in civil cases." The WHO definition covers all of that. You also keep stating "physical harm", but the lead sentence states "physical force". It should at least state "physical harm" instead; this is because, for example, rape is violence, but it doesn't have to be by force. Many rapes are not committed by force. And I've noted female genital mutilation. It usually is not a physical force thing (although that can depend on one's definition of physical force when involving children). Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

By broad I mean "representative of a number of fields" rather than "covering a lot of cases". A definition is as much something *isn't* as what something is. The WHO definition may be representative of the medical study of the effects of harm, but it probably won't doesn't cover the field of political science, which may have a concept of justified force. I don't think all these legal concepts, rather I was trying to give a feeling for the distinctions that law makes regarding the infliction of harm (threat versus actual, physical versus psychological, deliberate versus negligent versus nonneglient.). Noted regarding "physical force" versus "physical harm". I might equate rape with torture rather than violence, but I don't know if this will show up in any literature. I don't know FGM if is violence, rather than the cultural infliction of harm, I wonder how it compares to do psychosurgery like lobotomies, or the forced adminstration of antipsychotics (which is known to cause brain damage, and may cause permanent movement disorders), I suspect the medical field with be hesitant to call either of these activities violence. --Talpedia (talk) 10:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The WP:Lead sentence is not meant to cover every possible thing under the category of violence. It is meant to define/summarize the topic with WP:Due weight. You stated "representative of a number of fields" rather than "covering a lot of cases." The WHO definition is representative of every definition of violence. That is why it's broad the way it is. It does not need to represent every field that may approach the topic of violence. Same goes for the lead sentence. It's not like the WHO needs to state "something that will get you arrested if [so and so happens]." You stated that it "probably [...] doesn't cover the field of political science." Huh? Political science is a social science. As we know, social science addresses the topic of violence. But it, including political science, does not define violence in any way that is not covered by the WHO/that conflicts with the WHO definition. Look at the "Religion and politics" section in the article. The core of that topic is harm, which the WHO covers. Rape is characterized as violence/sexual violence by many, many sources. And as made clear in the Rape article, it is not always by force. Torture? Rape may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability or is below the legal age of consent. So, no, not just torture. Torture usually is not the goal of rape. What matters is what the sources state rather than our personal feelings, including on the topic of female genital mutilation, or hypotheticals. And topics such as violence against women, recognized by all sorts of authoritative medical, human rights, and other other types of organizations, do not limit violence to physical harm and certainly not to just physical force. The legal aspects regarding violence against women also show that it's not just about physical harm and certainly not just about physical force. The literature on violence indicates that it's best to go with a broad definition for the lead sentence, or a broader one than what is currently there for the lead sentence. I already stated, "While it may be best that the lead sentence is not overly broad, I think it is best that it is also not overly limited." In this case, I don't just think; I know.

I didn't recognize you at first, but now I see that you are the same editor who recently challenged the very WP:Due definition of sexism at the Sexism article. It's interesting to compare your approach to dictionary use their to your approach to dictionary use here. Still, because of what I saw of your arguments there and now here, I won't be continuing this violence discussion with you. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

* "The WHO definition is representative of every definition of violence." but it differs from other definitions in its breadth

* "The WP:Lead sentence is not meant to cover every possible thing under the category of violence" vs "The WHO definition is representative of every definition of violence. That is why it's broad the way it is"

* "But it, including political science, does not define violence in any way that is not covered by the WHO/that conflicts with the WHO definition." but the who list does define violence more broadly than other fields.

* "What matters is what the sources state rather than our personal feelings"... that's an interesting statement. I wonder if this could apply more generally to other people in this discussion.

* "So, no, not just torture." Fine.

* "And topics such as violence against women, recognized by all sorts of authoritative medical, human rights, and other other types of organizations, do not limit violence to physical harm and certainly not to just physical force.", "The WP:Lead sentence is not meant to cover every possible thing under the category of violence" , "It is meant to define/summarize the topic with WP:Due weight."

* "The literature on violence indicates that it's best to go with a broad definition for the lead sentence" does it

* "do not limit violence to physical harm and certainly not to just physical force" other sources do "It is meant to define/summarize the topic with WP:Due weight."

* "In this case, I don't just think; I know." ""What matters is what the sources state rather than our personal feelings""

* "challenged the very WP:Due definition of sexism" No, I challenged the use of 10 quotes about the definition of sexism to cite something like "Sexism can affect everyone but primarily effects women." in the sentence next to the lead Irrelevant to the discussion much... I wonder why you bring it up. Is it because you are assuming good faith, trying to find consensus, and creating a discussion based on facts, sources, and the principles of wikipedia? I guess so.

* "Still, because of what I saw of your arguments there and now here, I won't be continuing this violence discussion with you" I'm not sure it has much to do with the arguments really... but oh well. Umm feel free to not respond to anything I write if you like. I imagine it might impair the quality of the debate. I don't quite understand how you expect shunning someone from a discusson to work if there are other participants in the discussion and everyone can edit... --Talpedia (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

It's probably best I not perpetuate this sidetrack, but regarding the second bullet point, being representative doesn't contradict that it won't cover all definitions. It has to represent that which is most common in the best sources. Regarding your 6th bullet point, yeah not every definition need be covered, but violence against women is one of the biggest subtopics, so it will have a heavy influence. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• I spent a little time at Google Books, with violence definition as my search string. Before the 1970s, almost all the sources I saw that tried to define violence were legal journals. It was mostly criminal law, with the occasional bit of military law. It's harder to make a good summary of the modern sources, but there's still a strong contribution from the law, more from sociology, and some from medicine, although the medical field is more concerned with cleaning up the aftermath than with deciding where to draw a line between, e.g., non-violent coercion and violence. I'm not sure that we're best served by taking a medical POV here. The MeSH definition is "Individual or group aggressive behavior which is socially non-acceptable, turbulent, and often destructive"[5], which doesn't require physical actions, but excludes most Structural violence and most Use of force by law enforcement and military (because all of that's "socially acceptable"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You state that you're "not sure that we're best served by taking a medical POV here." Like I commented above, though, the current state of the article is mostly medical. Look at it. That's also what I saw. That lines up with what I saw when thoroughly looking at the literature on the topic. I did more looking today. To reiterate what I stated above, we should obviously not just cover medical material in the article. But something like the legal aspect is just something that goes with violence if the violence violated the law in whatever way. And if the first sentence is going to continue to define violence solely in the context of physical force, or physical harm (which is at least broader than "physical force" when considering something like rape or female genital mutilation), it is obvious that so much more of the material will fall in the medical realm (physical, psychological, public health). Even the "Society and culture" section of the article is substantially medical. See what the first paragraph in that section, above the "Economic effects" section, states. And the "Economic effects" section is more about health than anything else. I would feel better about the lead sentence if we at least went with "physical harm" instead of "physical force" and weren't going with a dictionary definition/quoting it. As for the second sentence, we shouldn't be meh on the "less conventional definitions" aspect. It's unsourced POV -- POV that I feel is inaccurate per what I've argued. I'm open to seeing sources for it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What is your method of "thoroughly looking at the literature on the topic"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Though perhaps not your intention, I find that question patronizing, as if I just looked but did not thoroughly examine all of the relevant fields and actually read beyond abstracts or the first page of the sources. I mean, when statements like this exist about my research practices, I'm not used to being questioned about my method of thoroughly looking at the literature on the topic. Editors usually know that I'm not just skimming sources. They know that I will conduct research via Google Books, Google Scholar, and other means. Google Scholar may lead me to PubMed, for example. Editors usually know that I have access to a variety of academic sources. I may have some of the books at home. In cases where we are trying to determine WP:Due weight with respect to a definition or relaying an aspect, I often list a number of sources (including from different fields when relevant) and quote parts of them. The sources are placed in a collapse box. I did not feel like doing that in this case, especially given how time-consuming it would be to list and quote the various sources I read and organize them as "Medical/health sources", "Legal sources", "Social science/sociology sources," etc. The collapse box (or boxes) would be longer than what is seen at Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 8#Discussion. But maybe I still will, if no one else does. One can also take the approach seen at Talk:Sexism/Archive 7#Is sexism typically defined as discrimination against women?. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Added a bit near the beginning of the post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

All right, it sounds like we started in the same place. As I said, I started at Google Books the other day. The most interesting pattern I saw was that nearly everything for violence definition before about 1970 (and that actually contained some sort of definition of violence) was a legal source. In the more modern sources, I found a lot more sociology texts (compared to their near-non-existence in older sources). Is that what you found? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I did sort of notice that pattern. I mean that I saw an evolution of sorts. But, in terms of modern sources, I came across more medical sources than legal sources and more sources (including sociology texts) referencing medical aspects than other types of sources. So many sources refer to the WHO, and that includes this 2007 "Violence: a glossary" source, from the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. It takes the time to very briefly address the legal aspect before focusing on "definitions and concepts of violence within the public health field." It states, "Definitions of violence depend upon their purpose. For example, legal definitions of 'assault' are more narrowly defined than the use of 'assault' in hospital morbidity data collections, which is narrower than the meaning of assault in general parlance. Defining violence in different ways has implications for policy and practice. We use definitions and concepts from a range of sources that can be applied to identify public health consequences and preventive strategies." Although it has an "An overarching definition" section, it doesn't categorize "overarching" as "less conventional." What it does state is that the WHO definition in the WRVH "emphasises that a person or group must intend to use force or power against another person or group in order for an act to be classified as violent. Violence is thus distinguished from injury or harm that results from unintended actions and incidents. This definition also draws attention not only to the use of physical force but also to the use of threatened or actual power. Such power or force may be used against oneself, against an individual or against a group or community, as in gang violence or repression of ethnic groups. Violence is here defined not only as resulting in physical injury but as being present where psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation occurs; acts of omission or neglect, and not only of commission, can therefore be categorised as violent. The WRVH divides violence into three categories according to who has committed the violence: self‐directed, interpersonal or collective; and into four further categories according to the nature of violence: physical, sexual, psychological or involving deprivation or neglect (fig 1​1). Many forms of violence may occur simultaneously, so they are not mutually exclusive. For example, intimate partner violence may involve psychological, physical and sexual abuse, and collective violence often includes the use of rape as a weapon of war.6,7."

What that source states is also what I see in the Wikipedia article, which is why I argued that it is reflective of the literature on violence (being more so within the medical realm). Legal and sociology stuff more so accompanies the medical aspect. Prevention of violence is also centered in medical/health sources, such as this Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) source.

I noted above that legal sources don't even limit the definition to just physical force (as in use of physical force), as is clear by this 2017 "Legal Definitions of Violence and Aggression" source. When one looks at the 18 U.S. Code § 16. Crime of violence defined, it clearly states, "(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or prop­erty of another, or (b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense." So attempted use or threatened use are included, not just actual use. And not all dictionary sources limit the definition of violence to physical force. I'll probably just let this RfC play out and move on since I'm not sure that consensus will result from the RfC (which hasn't produced much traction despite the fact that I advertised it well). And consensus without an RfC? If the definitions debate that has taken place on this talk page times before is any indication... Anyway, I can only hope that when someone comes to this article via the Domestic violence, Sexual violence, or Violence against women articles, they don't think that how violence is defined in those articles is actually less conventional. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It occured to me while reading your comment that the WHO has defined violence in such a way that the famously exemplar of non-violence in Mahatma Gandhi#Fasting was all (self-directed) violence. (For those not quite following, WRVH is the WHO report that published and explained the WHO's new definition.)

The US Code is (which is technically defining a crime that involves violence, rather than violence itself, but still informative for our purposes), is still wrapped up in physical force without respect to the outcomes. Under that definition, simple rape and statutory rape are non-violent crimes. I don't think the WHO definition agrees with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"Under that definition, simple rape and statutory rape are non-violent crimes." Eh? Do you have a reliable source making that assertion clear? It would also be good to know what you mean by "simple rape", like if you were using that wording to differentiate between statutory rape. I'm not aware of any academic source that would state that rape that is not statutory rape is non-violent. Well, unless they are perhaps using "non-violent" and "non-forcible" as synonyms/interchangeably. As for statutory rape? It is categorized as non-forcible. And considering that it often involves sex between two teenagers who say that the sex was consensual and who are only a year or a couple years apart, or non-forcible/non-coercive sex between a person who is 17 and a person who is 20, for example, it's often categorized as non-violent. The complicated statutory rape topic, which delves into "close in age"/mentally mature debates, obviously isn't the same as forcible rape or raping someone via that person being mentally incapacitated or having an intellectual disability that prevents the person from giving valid consent. When statutory rape involves a younger teenager (for example, a 14-year-old) and an adult, there is significantly more concern with regard to the law and the general public. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Simple rape is more or less the opposite of aggravated rape. Here's one definition. The only problem with simple rape is the lack of legally valid consent. There's no "use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force" involved. (When those are involved, then you prosecute under aggravated rape laws.) In fact, that definition can be, and has been, used to prosecute elderly spouses for willingly having sex with each other when one of them has Alzheimer's. A few years ago, the jury refused to convict this legislator for having sex with his wife. Neither physical force (real, attempted, threatened, or even imagined) nor physical harm were alleged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You cited an old Louisiana thing. Like this nola.com source notes, "'Nothing simple about rape': Bill changes terminology in Louisiana's rape laws." Anyway, I stand by what I stated in my 05:32, 1 September 2020/06:16, 1 September 2020 post, which already touches on "non-violent" and "non-forcible" and the terms being used interchangeably. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"'less conventional' is unsourced". This came up back in June, but the WHO's definition comes with it's fair share of caveats. Specifically, it acknowledges their definition is less conventional. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42495/9241545615_eng.pdf "The inclusion of the word 'power', in addition to the phrase 'use of physical force', broadens the nature of a violent act and expands the conventional understanding of violence to include those acts that result from a power relationship, including threats and intimidation". If something is an expansion to the conventional, I think it's fair to call it "less conventional". While everyone is here though, I'd also like to clean up the fact that the article still has references to psychological violence, and now the recent additions of Ontological violence, and Epistemic violence. None of which are the use of physical force. 97.122.95.30 (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Like I stated in the Survey section above, the lead does not need that 2002 source to support "less conventional definitions" when anyone surveying the more recent literature, as we are supposed to do (as even noted in WP:MEDDATE), can see that extending the term "violence" beyond "physical force" is very common. The Wikipedia Violence article even shows that. As for "the article still has references to psychological violence, and now the recent additions of Ontological violence, and Epistemic violence. None of which are the use of physical force." Yes, I'm aware that the article doesn't just limit violence to physical force. That is why I stated "The Wikipedia Violence article even shows that." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The survey was started August 28th, and the sections about metaphorical types of violence were added on August 30th. Your argument that these sections support the new definition is both circular and retroactive. 97.122.95.30 (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Huh? I stated, "Yes, I'm aware that the article doesn't just limit violence to physical force." It's not like I was only talking about the recent additions. I saw that that recent material had been added. I saw that you stated "recent additions." I'm talking about the fact that the article covered violence that extends beyond physical force long before the RfC and August 30th. This August 26th state of the article shows that it already included interpersonal violence, which includes sub-topics that are not just about physical force. It already included "Everyday violence", defining the latter as something that "may refer to the incorporation of different forms of violence (mainly political violence) into daily practices." It already had a "Religion and politics" section that speaks of violence beyond physical force. That is what I meant. Also, ontological violence and epistemic violence are definitions of violence that go beyond what the WHO states and are actual non-standard definitions of violence. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

• Teach the controversy, don’t participate in it. I think the first sentence should state (in Wikipedia’s voice) that there is disagreement over the definition of the term “violence”. We can give a few significant examples of that disagreement in the following sentences (all presented with in-text attribution). Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Blueboar, to help form consensus, do you mind voting in the Survey section? It seems that your vote is "no to both"? As for your proposal, the lead sentence, per WP:Lead sentence, is supposed to give a definition if it can. It can in this case. There are various topics that have more than one definition, but we still give a definition, usually the most common one, in those cases. And then the followup sentences note additional definitions, and sometimes that there is disagreement over the definition. We don't begin leads by essentially stating "we can't define this topic." No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Fixed typo in post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

So, VeritasVox would rerouting the bus system be an act of violence? It is the use of power, and it results in deprivation for those advantaged by the old routes, and now disadvantaged by the rerouting. I thought I'd move my response down to the discussion section - where perhaps I should have put a portion of my survey response.Truth is King^TALK 00:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Truth Is King 24, I think I can answer your question. The short answer is 'probably no'. The longer answer might be more interesting. So, e.g., under criminal law, it's not violent. Under the World Health Organization's definition – which they themselves say is "not uniformly accepted" – changing the bus system is probably non-violent. However, if the actual intent is to harm an identifiable group of people (like "that ethnic group" or "the neighborhood that always votes for my political opponents"), and the effect is to cause some significant harm to them (e.g., the children in the targeted group can no longer get to school), then the WHO and many sociologists would consider that to be a case of collective violence against the targeted group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

So, WhatamIdoing if their was an "intent to harm" limitation in the WHO definition, it would better conform to the more conventional view of the meaning of "violence." The use of power must be intentional, per the WHO definition, but there need not be an intent to harm. Of course, even with an intent to harm limitation, we still have some issues. When a convicted person is sentenced to prison time, it would be a little difficult to argue that there was no intent to harm that person by confining him. If done without a legal justification, it is at least a tort, and in some jurisdictions a crime to imprison a person. I think most would agree that harm results from confinement. And yet, I think that most would not consider this to be violent, because (if you agree with the guilty verdict) it is justified. And I guess, that is part of my concern with broadening the definition of violence: That we enter a world of subjective judgments, and can use the term "violence" to gain a moral edge, and even in the worst case analysis stifle the free speech rights of others, by claiming that some statement is "violence against my community." And then, the societal barrier against violence is actually weakened, because, there is a claim of violence which per a more conventional definition would not be violence, and it is used as a justification to engage in violence which does fit the conventional definition. So, it is true, I'm opposed to an undue broadening of the term, because I believe that harm could result. But, I'm also opposed just on the grounds that an encyclopedia should "tell it like it is," and that is not how most people think of the term "violence."Truth is King^TALK 15:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Truth Is King 24, the WHO definition is this:

The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

So, yes, the use of power has to be intentional (hmm, it's not entirely clear in the definition whether the intent must be to harm, or whether gross negligence is sufficient), and it either has to result in harm or have a high likelihood of doing so. (The latter allows you to define an action as violent before harms happen, e.g., when the violence is only threatened.)

I'm not convinced that introducing an element of intent brings it back a more conventional view of violence. We might speak of a violent natural disaster, but we cannot ascribe intent to forces of nature, or a violent car wreck. It does bring the definition closer to an understanding of criminal law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing To me it seems clear that an intent to harm is not necessary for something to be "violence" per the WHO definition. Nor need it be negligent. Sentencing a convicted person to a prison sentence would be violence, regardless of how well justified. It's an intentional use of power that causes deprivation. I'm not saying that an intent to harm should be added. To me the WHO definition just does not conform to what most people think of as violence, and would so broaden the definition as to justify the use of conventionally defined violence, to counter WHO defined violence. And I think that would be a bad thing. "The tax increase was an intentional use of power that deprived me of some of my money. So I punched the legislator right in the face." No - we don't want that. But, as to your second point, the WHO definition is clearly aimed at human violence. There is a conventional definition, part of the list in the dictionary, that covers the violence of nature. Like forest fires that cause a pall of noxious smoke to descend over city dwellers. Which, by the way, I don't much care for (but its over now for this year [I hope]).Truth is King^TALK 02:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your example of the angry taxpayer suggests that being a victim of violence is a reason to respond with violence. The WHO definition would only allow the angry taxpayer to complain that the tax increase was itself an act of violence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• I should disclose that I'm a British white middle-class straight cismale, I've supported about fifty full-blown social work safeguarding investigations and a much higher number of less serious ones, and even now, I still volunteer as a Referral order panel chair. This means I approach this topic on the basis of professional experience and I have a criminal enforcement perspective. Accordingly, I would never consider editing this article.
  I think the idea that this is a medical topic is a red herring. The medic's role is to treat the injury and give an opinion about the cause; but whether the medic's finding of "blunt force trauma inflicted by a fist" amounts to "violence" is a matter for the law. I think it follows that the definition of violence must be a legal one, rather than a medical one, and therefore the WHO definition should be given a great deal less prominence than it currently is.
  In England and Wales, the law doesn't define "violence", but it does define "violent crime". Broadly speaking, in England and Wales the definition encompasses any crime that causes the victim to fear that the perpetrator might physically harm them. So for example, if A (a husband) rings his wife and tells her he's going to thump her when he gets home, then the offence he commits is common assault and if she contacts the police about it, the matter would be recorded in the police database as a crime of violence. (Yes, in England and Wales you can assault someone over the phone.) However, if (let's say) A is an actor on a film set with the camera rolling, and his words are in the script and his wife knows that, then A has, to say the least, a pretty good defence.
  Or let's say that B (a wife) takes a knife and slashes her husband's throat with it. The offence she commits is inflicting grievous bodily harm, but if (let's say) he's been in a terrible accident and she's attempting an emergency tracheostomy, then B has, to say the least, a pretty good defence.
  In other words: "violence" is not in the act. "Violence" is in the effect on the victim.—S Marshall T/C 12:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall, per the literature on violence, and the very fact that violence concerns bodily harm, there is no way to get around the fact that this topic is a medical topic. No one stated that it's solely a medical topic. Of course, it's also a legal topic. It concerns different fields, which is why this talk page has those different WikiProject tags at the top. But would I state that we should give prominence to the legal aspect...as in more weight to it than to everything else? No. Like I've made clear above, I have thoroughly examined the literature on this topic. Rape is also a legal topic, but it is also undoubtedly a medical topic, which is why the Rape article has the medical aspects it has in it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't generally need pinging either.

My perspective is that rape's primarily a legal topic and secondarily a medical one. I know doctors write reams of paper about these topics. I've often noted doctors' tendency to make pronouncements that stray outside their field of competence; I recall being told on one occasion that my colleague's mental capacity assessment of her client was wrong - by a family doctor. (I might take that from a psychiatrist.)

The fact that medics write a lot of literature means that if you put all the sources on the scales and weighed them, then the bodies on violence and rape might very well be heaviest on the medical side rather than the legal one. But that's just doctors sharing their own perspective with each other.

In practice it is for judges and magistrates to decide whether something amounts to "rape" or "violent crime". I think it's their definition that should come first and be given greatest prominence in the respective articles. We might well have a "medical perspective" partway down, in its own subsection.—S Marshall T/C 09:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe those working on the medical aspects as simply "doctors." As for who gets to define what? There's what the law says. And then there's public perception, which varies by culture. As we know, considering the jurisdiction, state, or country, the law also varies on topics. There are areas where marital rape is not illegal, but marital rape is illegal in many other places. So it's not like one can just apply a "one size fits all" definition when it comes to defining the legal aspect of a topic. For the Rape article, we can't go with any one legal definition for the lead sentence. We have to go with the most common definition. Legal definitions get their due weight in the "Definitions" section. So do medical viewpoints. Also, for the Rape article, we can't just have a single section address the medical side of rape. We must address effects, treatment, and prevention (but especially the first two aspects, which have subtopics). As indicated by Template:Rape, rape (the general topic as opposed to something like marital rape) isn't more of a legal topic than a medical topic. One might state that it's equally a medical and a legal topic. Given what I know of the rape literature, I would state that it's more so weighted toward sociological and medical sources.

As for the Violence article? I'm not stating "go with the medical definition first." Not to mention that the medical definition is not just one thing and includes the "use of physical force to harm" definition that the lead currently uses. It's not like the lead goes with any one legal definition either, considering "intent to harm" or "threat of harm", or similar, is in various legal definitions of violence. So the legal definition is not just one thing either. I'm saying that the lead sentence is overly narrow, given that violence isn't defined simply by "use of physical force" even in legal definitions, and because defining violence beyond physical force is common in the literature. For example, sociological and psychological sources also define violence or go over different definitions of it. Above, I noted that this 2016 "Developmental Psychopathology, Risk, Resilience, and Intervention" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 46, relays that violence is not only defined by physical force or physical harm. And it doesn't call definitions that go beyond physical force "unconventional," "outliers," or "odd." The "Developmental Psychopathology, Risk, Resilience, and Intervention" source states that "while some definitions restrict violence to imminent threat of harm, others expand it to include direct attempt to oppress or coerce, and others go further, including where it might be implicit or would be considered so by an outside observer. These boundaries have been debated most when violence is occurring in a relationship and there is differing power and ability to cause harm (e.g., domestic violence, child abuse)." It even has a subsection asking if threat of physical harm and/or intent is necessary for an act to be violent. It explores this. It also states that "most would agree that threatening to hit someone unless he or she does as you demand is violent."

I noted that we don't need to use the WHO sentence for the first sentence. Of course we don't. But we could validly make the lead sentence a little less strict. At this point in time, though, there is no consensus for that. The RfC just expired today, and I've stated all I need to state on this topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder whether we're right to have separate articles on violence and violent crime. If we are right, then I think we'd best copy quite a lot of content from this article to that one.—S Marshall T/C 22:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problematic definition

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)

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)

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)

Political violence

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)

We do have an article on political violence. Dimadick (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"Coordinated violence" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 24 § Coordinated violence until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)