Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Sexual abuse law in the article - Canadian law

There has been a brief conversation about the introduction of sexual assault law to the current Domestic violence#Sexual content, now with a high-level summary for both the U.S. and Canada.

There is a question regarding whether the full content should stay in the article from [this version of the Sexual section]. How do others feel about this?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Elder domestic abuse

might be an idea for a section on this. see for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/23/police-domestic-abuse-older-couples?CMP=twt_gu --Penbat (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Gender aspects of abuse - 2nd revert

This paragraph (slightly reworded from the 1st attempt), sites a Spanish source for the material.

This minimization of feminine violence as self-defensive is increasingly refuted by many recent studies that compare the levels of unilaterality and reciprocity of aggressions. In a spanish compilation of 400 international studies on intimate partner violence, spanning more than 40 countries, it has been found that a soubgroup of 84 studies analyze the reciprocity and initiation aspects of aggressions between partners and that most of the studies in this subgroup (60 studies) report higher levels of non-reciprocal violence and initiation of physical aggressions by women. [106]:Alvarez Deca, Javier 400 razones contra un prejuicio.

Two concerns: 1) It's adding specific information to a paragraph that hits the highlights of the concerns about gender aspects of violence. If there is going to be an insertion of specific information, then it should cover both sides of the topic (WP:POV). 2) I'm confused about why, if the Javier Alvarez Deca study was so ground-breaking and significant, I'm unable to find mention in English language websites or news.

Since we've had two attempts to add this I thought I'd bring it to the talk page to determine:

1. How best to address the gender aspects of abuse
2. With a neutral point of view
3. Using reliable, verifiable sources

Any thoughts?--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I looked for Javier Alvarez Deca on Google Scholar and found his study La violencia en la pareja: bidireccional y simétrica cited by two others, one in German and one in Spanish, but nothing in English. The above cited paper, 400 razones contra un prejuicio, does not show up. My Spanish is not sufficient to determine whether Deca has a doctorate in sociology. If we are to insert a whole paragraph dedicated to Deca's conclusions, Deca should be more prominent in mainstream discussion on the topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Deca cites 400 studies at http://www.escorrecto.org/la_violencia_en_la_pareja_anexo1.pdf from scholarly journals, which might be better sources for the individuals looking to add gender aspects of abuse content. I'm not sure to what extent Deca picked the studies that supported his conclusion, or came to a conclusion based upon the sources. --CaroleHenson (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Have tried to incorporate SigGoddard's references

The two references that SigGoddard used - improperly, such as via minor edits - do have value, and should be incorporated into the article, especially given the second one's containing analyses of the implications for male dominance models. I've made a first attempt at this, but suspect that those with more knowledge in this area than I will do a better job, so don't plan on continuing editing this (still less am I interested in "defending" my edits, although I have to admit that the edit conflict I ran into when I was initially copyediting the references irritated me; could people please use the {{cite journal}} and similar templates, or the {{citation}} template, or something?). Allens (talk | contribs) 18:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the references he inserted was a paper presented at a conference, which likely means it's lacking peer review and thus not an appropriate reference. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

SigGoddard seems to be stretching a number of sources to make broader claims than what the sources themselves actually assert. I would encourage others to review the citations that have been added and confirm that they actually verify the claims that are being made with them. Kaldari (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

SigGoddard's 2006 Straus source, which is a paper that was presented at a conference (i.e. not peer reviewed) looks like it wasn't even finished. Here's a sample of text from the paper [emphasis mine]:

Of the ?? students who completed the questionnaire, those who were not in a dating relationship were excluded from the analyses reported in this paper. The questionnaires of these ??? were scanned for aberrant response patterns such as an implausibly high frequency of rare events, for example, 10 instances of attacking a partner with a knife or gun in the past year; or inconsistent answers, for example, reporting an injury but no assault. Based on this screening method, 6.2% ?? of the respondents were dropped from the sample, leaving ?? cases,

This seems well short of our standards for a reliable source. I would recommend removing it as well as discussion of the cited study from the article unless a peer-reviewed version of the paper can be located that doesn't include such glaring problems. Kaldari (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the source and the sentence it was cited for. Kaldari (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

History section and POV-pushing

SigGoddard has reinserted a section in the history section about the women's shelter movement "suppressing data" about domestic violence. I don't see at all how this is central to the history of domestic violence. Also, this is a significant exaggeration of the sources provided. The sources state that (1) some academics have criticized gender symmetry theories because they threaten women's shelters, and (2) Erin Pizzey has accused the women's shelter movement in Britain of being hostile to her work. There might be a case for material about this in the Women's shelter article or Erin Pizzey's article, but it is a violation of WP:UNDUE to present this as central to the history of domestic violence. As SigGoddard's only edits to this article have been to promote a men's rights perspective of domestic violence, I would like to direct his attention to WP:NPOV. Kaldari (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is blatant "mens' rights" pov pushing. I have reverted the latest batch of edits per due weight.--Expsychobabbler (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's POV for sure. Binksternet (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

More POV-pushing and exaggeration of sources

SigGoddard added the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph of the Violence against women section (in italics):

Although the exact rates are widely disputed, especially within the United States, there is a large body of cross-cultural evidence that women are subjected to domestic violence significantly more often than men. In addition, there is broad consensus that women are more often subjected to severe forms of abuse and are more likely to be injured by an abusive partner. However, this is not the consensus of the scientific domestic research community and this consensus is not born out in the of body of national government surveys and scientific research on rates of domestic violence.

However, this addition is contradicted by SigGoddard's own source (and numerous other reliable sources). Specifically, his Dutton source includes the following:

• "... four large sample government victim surveys in the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. have found women to be more victimized, to use violence less, and to be injured more than men."
• "Felson (1996) found... [m]en were much more likely than women to injure their adversaries, and women were more likely to be injured"
• "Regardless of the variations in the studies, two conclusions seem reasonable: (1) women are injured more than men, and (2) men are injured too, and are not immune to being seriously injured."

SigGoddard also cites Fiebert for this conclusion, yet Fiebert himself disagrees with it: "My take is that women are more likely to be more injured, but not a lot more."[1]

I think SigGoddard's addition should be removed as it does not accurately reflect the majority of reliable sources and is yet more POV-pushing. Kaldari (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

If no one has any opinion, I'm going to remove it. Kaldari (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Editors might be interested in this discussion

Whether article Violence against men should be deleted. [[2]]2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is only the Violence Against Women template included in this article?

This suggests that domestic violence is primarily a crime targeted towards women, which is already a very common perception.

The section "Situation in the United States" also only mentions female victims. --Squirtlekin (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the Violence against women template seems highly prejudicial and should be removed. Perhaps this should be turned into an RfC? SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 05:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in here as well and say that the "Violence Against Women" template would be more appropriate and better-reaching as a "Civil Violence" template, reaching to include Elder Abuse, Child Abuse, et al. Agreed with SGMD1: This should be written up for an RFC. Tohuw (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add my input that the "Situation in the United States" section should include both male and female statistics, to remove bias and to facillitate comparison between the two genders. Cstanford.math (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed reference

I removed a reference which does not discuss reporting patterns or possible under-reporting by men or women.

There is also the problem that the information used from the remaining source appears to be cherry-picked. Dutton writes that "Men grossly underreport both perpetration and victimization by severe violence" (note on p. 686) and that "both sexes tend to over-report minor acts they commit, under- report serious acts they commit, and over-report serious acts they suffer" (p. 685). Despite this the sentence in our article says that men are less likely to report being victims. Dutton's argument that they are also less likely to report being perpetrators is not mentioned. The other thing is that Dutton does not mention stigma. He assumes that some men may under-report on crime victim surveys because they do not view female violence against them as a crime but, again, he does not mention stigma or elaborate on the reasons that may lead some women and men to under-report their own and their partner's use of violence. Lots of WP:OR happening in one sentence. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Splitting Management section

Section is much too long, it should be split into a new article, I think.86.121.66.131 (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. For one, I think it's important enough that it deserves its own article, and also I think a well-written summary is more likely to be read by more casual viewers of this page. Ashleyleia (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Done.Skydeepblue (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

1998 article in Reason magazine

I removed a paragraph based on a Cathy Young article that was published in Reason (magazine) in 1998 [3]. The article consists of a collection of anecdotes about the effects of so-called "must arrest" laws. Young tells the stories of Susan Finkelstein, John Manning, Joel Gehrke etc. to make her case that people were arrested although their partner claimed that nothing had happened. She does not cite any sources or statistics or representative data. If there is up-to-date research on the subject, it might be worth including. A 1998 article in Reason magazine in not it. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Image is not representative

This image is the first appearing in the article, featuring prominently in the section "Physical". This is not by any means a representative image for domestic violence. Statistically, most domestic violence is male on female (especially at a global level), plus that image depicts a historical scene (1875), and it's definitely not representative for that period (when male on female DV was rampant). There's nothing wrong with that image, but it can't stay in the article on its own, as it is now; either more images are added for balance, or for now it has to go. 5.12.221.158 (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree this not a very representative image for domestic violence. I support removing the image for now. Hopefully a better one can be found in the future. Kaldari (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Support removal per reasons given. heather walls (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support I agree. After browsing the domestic violence category on Commons, I don't see anything representative outside of the white ribbon. SarahStierch (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, it seems completely unclear to me whether or not this image is actually portraying violence. The man seems to be kneeling as if in prayer rather than defending himself or cowering as one would expect if the woman were actually inflicting violence. It's entirely possible the woman is blessing him or performing some ritual that we have no understanding of. Without some sort of context for the image it is impossible to know. Kaldari (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Western/American bias in this article

I have tried to amend this article to globalize it. This article is called "Domestic violence" not "Domestic violence in the US" or "Domestic violence in the West". Therefore, it has to explain the global situation, not focus on just a few industrialized countries. DV as conceptualized in West (Europe/US) is very different than the way it is understood in most of the world. Research has shown that in most parts of the world (most of Asia, Africa, and to a lesser extent some parts of Latin America) a husband using "moderate" physical violence to keep his wife from "straying" or to "punish" her, is not seen as abusive, by either men or women. In most parts of the world, the autonomy of a wife (going out without asking permission from husband, arguing with the husband, wearing "inappropriate" clothes, refusing sex - the standard questions asked for years in these surveys) is not considered as the right of a wife - if a woman does these things, this is seen by most members of the society as justifying violence by husband/relatives. This has to be clearly explained in this article, which is supposed to present and explain a global issue. This is especially more so, as most people who read this article (probably youth in the West) may not be aware of and not understand the worldwide situation.188.25.171.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Murray Straus Abuse

There are two paragraphs regarding Murray Straus in the "Violence Against Women" section which someone had decapitated. The paragraphs are:

In their study of severely violent couples, Neil Jacobson and John Gottman conclude that the frequency of violent acts is not as crucial as the impact ...

In 2007, Murray Straus explored some of these problems, and he outlined several processes by which the data have been distorted by researchers. These processes include direct suppression of evidence, manipulating survey research questions to avoid unwanted data, selective and biased citations, misinterpreting or overinterpreting data to acquire the desired conclusion, manufacturing the appearance of evidence through repeated citation (the "woozle effect"), obstructing the publication or funding of potentially contradictory research, and finally, harassment, threats, and penalties against researchers who produce contrary evidence.[165] Nicola Graham-Kevan, whose research was the spark for Straus' commentary, concurred with Straus' conclusions and noted that another tool used to suppress evidence is the manipulation of numerical and statistical data to distort the public presentation of domestic violence research.[166]

In 2009 Straus explored the reasons for the public misperception and the academic denial and suppression of evidence for gender symmetry in domestic violence research. He listed several possible factors, including assumptions based on the fact that males perpetrate more crimes in general, cultural stereotypes about male and female behavior, the belief that recognizing gender symmetry in domestic violence could undermine the protection of women, and several others.[167]

there is clearly a paragraph missing before "In 2007, Murray Straus explored some of these problems," because it's hiding the actual problems. What are "some of these problems". The problem is right here visible on Wikipedia, isn't it? Where is the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project ever mentioned?

Can someone please point me to and work with me to find the head leading to Murray Strauss paragraphs? And then work on rectifying some of this stuff by using actual research evidence as in PASK? Gschadow (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

More misrepresentation of sources

There were two sections of the article claiming that domestic violence was most often perpetrated or initiated by women. These statements were supported by two different sources, Whitaker 2007 and Straus 2008. Let's look at what these sources actually said:

• Straus: "The results in the section on prevalence rates add cross-national evidence to the already overwhelming evidence from North America which has found that about the same percentage of women are physically violent toward their partners as men, and for young women, the percentage is higher than for men."
• Whitaker: "All participants were part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health)... Add Health used a multistage stratified cluster design to identify a nationally representative sample of adolescents."

Both of these studies were primarily of young dating couples. (In the case of Whitaker's study, as young as 12.) Neither represents a study of IPV prevalence among the general public. Kaldari (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Not so. The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project -- a huge meta-analysis, has found this to be confirmed world-wide. ~60% of DV is mutual, where it us unidirectional >50% are perpetrated by woman on man, and <50% perpetrated by man on woman. Gschadow (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Lede; gross misrepresentation of Commentaries on the Laws of England, by William Blackstone

The lede was modified to include, among other inaccuracies, a gross misrepresentation of Commentaries on the Laws of England, by William Blackstone, in regard to common law and civil law. Here is the text of William Blackstone:[4]

"THE husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction.57 For, as he is to answer for her misbehavior, the law thought it reasonable to entrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his servants or children; for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases to answer. But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds;58 and the husband was prohibited to use any violence to his wife, aliter quam ad virum, ex causa regiminis et castigationis uxoris suae, licite et rationabiliter pertinet [other than lawfully and reasonably pertains to the husband for the rule and correction of his wife].59 The civil law gave the husband the same, or a larger, authority over his wife; allowing him, for some misdemeanors, flagellis et fustibus acriter verberare uxorem [To beat his wife severely with whips and sticks], for others, only modicam castigationem adhibere [with moderate punishment].60 But, with us, in the politer reign of Charles the second, this power of correction began to be doubted:61 and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband;62 or, in return, a husband against his wife.63 Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exert their ancient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty, in case of any gross misbehavior.64"

2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AAC3 (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And more on DV history in the US - In 1824 the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the RIGHT of husband to use moderate discipline

CALVIN BRADLEY vs. THE STATE.[5]

The ruling:

"Family broils and dissentions cannot be investigated before the tribunals of the country, without casting a shade over the character of those who are unfortunately engaged in the controversy. To screen from public reproach those who may be thus unhappily situated, let the husband be permitted to exercise the right of moderate chastisement, in cases of great emergency, and use salutary restraints in every case of misbehaviour, without being subjected to vexatious prosecutions, resulting in the mutual discredit and shame of all parties concerned." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AAC3 (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Changes to the lede without seeking consensus on talk and by adding misleading information

An editor is trying to change the lede to make it appear that DV in most Western countries was already considered a serious criminal offense in the 18th century, and that there was no problem and everything was just fine for women. ARE YOU BEING SERIOUS?? What you're writing borders on vandalism!

In Britain, US, Canada, most judges subscribed to the common law principle of moderate discipline until mid 19th century- early 20th century. Of course different judges had different views, but to argue that DV was already seen criminal as a general rule in the 18th century is ridiculous. And about Massachusetts - it is well recognized as an exception. Even when courts did rule that a husband had no right to discipline at all, they made it clear that in practice the law would not interfere unless strictly "necessary" - ie. in the most severe cases.

Here is an example from North Carolina in 1874 (the court did rule that a husband did not have a right to discipline, BUT made it clear that public policy would be non-prosecution in "trivial" cases.

The ruling:[6]

"We may assume that the old doctrine, that a husband had a right to whip his wife, provided he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not law in North Carolina. Indeed, the Courts have advanced from that barbarism until they have reached the position, that the husband has no right to chastise his wife, under any circumstances.

But from motives of public policy,--in order to preserve the sanctity of the domestic circle, the Courts will not listen to trivial complaints.

If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty nor dangerous violence shown by the husband, it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forget and forgive.

No general rule can be applied, but each case must depend upon the circumstances surrounding it.

Without adverting in detail to the facts established by the special verdict in this case, we think that they show both malice and cruelty.

In fact, it is difficult to conceive how a man, who has promised, upon the altar to love, comfort, honor, and keep a woman, can lay rude and violent hands upon her, without having malice and cruelty in his heart.

Let it be certified that the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AAC3 (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, the punishment for the severe beating that the husband gave his wife in the case above was a fine of $ 10. Let's cut the nonsense here and be serious when editing.

It is well recognized that before the 1970ies, there were, in practice, in most cases, no real legal consequences for perpetrating DV, except in the most extreme cases (death/permanent disability). And it was only in the 1990ies when DV has truly become a public policy issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AAC3 (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Article gender bias

The section on women's domestic violence, versus the men's, shows an enormous amount of gender bias on behalf of the contributors. Half of the woman's section had been composed of arguments "against" the numbers of abuse reported against them (the Strauss study). If that part is removed (which really should be in the Gender-study difficulties section), the section about abuse against women seems to almost be an afterthought. The men's, however, is written in length, fleshed out, and picks topics/sources that go well out of their way to try and argue that men are the 'real victims'.

I am reminded of the survey that Wikipedia did in 2011, that showed that 80-90% of the contributors were male:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians

So I guess you mean size matters?

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Survey_2011

I think "bias" is different for different people. You're reference to women under-representation on Wikipedia seems to serve for you to claim minority / victim status. But it's a good point to show that the "under-representation" often complained about by feminists is simply due to women's choices. Gschadow (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And to this dude goes the internet. should have just said, yes we see you're trying tobe a victim.

The domestic violence section needs a giant look-over. The section as a whole really isn't about DV against men or women either - it's mostly attempts that try to make any sort of claim of DV against women as somehow unsubstantiated. It's laughable, and further perpetuates the notion that Wikipedia really isn't a serious source of information, as well inflates the stereotype that most of the information is written by young males with no real experience in the real world/with females.

It's not at all laughable, actually it's pretty sad. You see that the article goes out of its way to absolve women's violence as self-defense for instance. The bias goes exactly the other way around Gschadow (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

For starters, I included the recent UN study of violence/rape against women in their section: http://www.partners4prevention.org/about-prevention/research/men-and-violence-study — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.216.187.117 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an example of a very bad study. Have you actually read it? I did, and this study simply excludes looking into male victimization and female perpetration from the outset. So, this study does nothing to shed any light about gender proportions. I hope you can realize that. It is understandable that you may feel that women are primarily victims and not perpetrators, but it is not factual. And nobody in DV research can avoid Murray Straus. He is a real respected scientist. You can argue about the methods and conclusions (and this article does a lot of that) but you can not cut out Murray Straus and be objective about the subject. Gschadow (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I can totally understand what you are talking about. I also think the same-sex relationships seems even worse. They are correct in saying that men are victims of domestic violence but it is disproportionally about women. And LGBT people are definitely mentioned in a fairly tokenizing "they have it too" kind of way. What do you propose we do about theses issues. I'm behind you.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing from feelings. But you need to use facts. And facts emerge from unbiased studies, not from studies whose authors want to prove a point. Murray Straus and the PASK project -- including many women and men scientist -- is serious about truth, not about proving points. If you really care about violence, you should be interested in learning the real facts, not continue feeding your gender stereotypes. Gschadow (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If you want to look at unbiased studies, I would suggest large national studies conducted by government agencies like the United States Department of Justice and the UK Home Office, not Straus's cherry-picked studies of dating college students. You may find the "real facts" don't support what Straus and others claim (or rather what the Men's Rights Movement clumsily argues that Straus and others claim). Kaldari (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear Kaldari, you speak of "cherry picking" and you do exactly that. DoJ has highly politicized bias in their DV sections. Have you read the PASK meta-study? Have you read the recent Lancet paper that came out in June 2013 on DV homicide? Gschadow (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

DV homicide is a tiny, tiny fraction of DV. Care to elaborate on the DoJ's politicized bias and how that would affect their data? Kaldari (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Just quickly, here is a glimpse into the blatant use of gender stereotyping and then crying "gender bias" (when it's not against men) http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/practical-implications-research/ch3/gender.htm. DoJ has feminist DV zealots too, mandatory arrest policies all that. Law enforcement is never good source of statistics because it comes in late and does not look at the causes. Law enforcement only cares about convictions. A scapegoat is just as good. Much better are health-oriented sources, such as the CDC NISVS, http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nisvs/. But again, you are avoiding the massive PASK meta-study like the plague, don't you ;) Gschadow (talk) 06:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I just read the conclusions of the PASK meta-study and their statement regarding male vs. female rates is rather short on details: "rates of physical IPV perpetrated by men and women generally were more similar than they were different, with slightly rates for women than for men (pooled prevalence for female perpetration = 28.3% and male perpetration = 21.6%)." (Yes, the word "higher" is missing in the original.) There is no explanation as to whether "pooled prevalence" means pooled percentages or pooled totals, and no description of what the aggregate demographics of that pool actually look like. According to the criteria for inclusion, studies of specific populations are included (which means the dozens of studies of college students that Fiebert and Straus are so fond of citing). Not to mention all the studies that use the original Conflict Tactics Scale, which doesn't include sexual violence, but does include self-defense. As has been shown in the papers criticizing "gender symmetry", those factors make a large difference in the numbers. Kaldari (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Also the DOJ study that I'm referring was not law-enforcement based, it was a survey (Details in the article). Law enforcement based studies show an even more extreme skew, but as you rightly point out, they are not completely reliable. Kaldari (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As a start, the Domestic violence against men section needs to be summarized. The entire article domestic violence against men should not be reproduced here, per Wikipedia:Summary Style. One or two paragraphs with a link to the full article should be sufficient. Kaldari (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

It is accepted, internationally, by human rights organizations, and by the UN, that most DV is perpetrated against women. For instance the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence states:[7]

Recognising that women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender-based violence than men;

Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately, and that men may also be victims of domestic violence;

Do you have a problem with this??2A02:2F0A:502F:FFFF:0:0:50C:DCB5 (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Situation in the United States vs. Epidemiology

I removed a large portion of text from the Epidemiology on United States and added a section on Europe from the main article. Disproportionately much of the entry is focused on the United States with a "Situation in the Unites States" entry as well apart from being mentioned in epidemiology. I will try to clean it up.CFCF (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Esquivel-Santovena study

Text removed for discussion:

However, more recent research has called into question the notion that sexism and patriarchy are the sole or even primary causes of domestic violence. A 2013 review of studies from five continents found no correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence as measured by general population or community studies and found that gender inequality explained the variance for only 17% of male abuse and 19% of female abuse as measured by dating samples. The authors conclude that "partner abuse can no longer be conceived as merely a gender problem, but also (and perhaps primarily) as a human and relational problem, and should be framed as such by everyone concerned."

There are a couple problems with the section recently added on the 2013 Esquivel-Santovena study (which I've moved here for discussion). First, it says "five continents", which doesn't appear to be accurate (the 5 regions in the study do not correspond to continents. Secondly, the way it presents the statistics about gender inequality correlation is confusing. The results for general population and the results for dating samples should at least be divided into two separate sentences, otherwise it sounds like they are talking about the same data. Another possibility would be to remove the part about dating couples entirely, although this would necessitate narrowing the claim about the scope of the study (since the majority of the studies were on dating couples). Kaldari (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

My intent was not for the five regions to be perceived as continents. If you look through the countries in the table of studies, you'll find that they include all the continents except Australia and Antarctica. I will redo it and split the second sentence into two in order to address your concern. DGAgainstDV (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Another type of domestic violence

Domestic violence can also include violence, including threats, between people who live together, such as a person renting a room in someone's house, or roommates. This is the case in the state of Washington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:9D80:2B5:E452:75CA:CAA5:EA00 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

DV/IPV?

Why are these acronyms necessary? Surely it's not a space concern, nor a case of editors being lazy. These acronyms can confuse people who skip to a section in the article, and simply spelling out 'intimate partner violence' each time would hardly be detrimental to anything. --71.116.235.10 (talk) 23:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Anger Management

In the article, under Counseling for Offenders, it says: "Anger management is recommended as a part of an offender treatment curriculum". It is my understanding that many Batterer Intervention Programs no longer see Anger Management as an effective tool, for the the simple reason that batterers already have their anger well managed. When they are in private and their partner does anything they don't like, they can instantly turn it ON as a tool to control their partner. When they are in public and someone else does something they don't like, perhaps a police officer giving them a speeding ticket or a supervisor correcting them, they can turn their anger OFF. To compare the two, see this page from Oregon: or this one from Massachusetts: . — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaKine (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)DaKine (talk • contribs) 05:46, 20 September 2011‎ (UTC)

Template Ordering

Would it be possible to have the 'Violence against women' box moved above the 'Violence against men' box? Considering that, statistically, many more women are abused in this situation than men, it leaves a sour taste that 'Violence against men' is the first one that you see of the two. --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not quite as simple as you make it out to be, as least in Western countries such as the United States where the best data are available. Women are more likely to be injured as a result of domestic violence and the rate of intimate partner homicides against women is higher. Women may or may not be somewhat more likely to be the victims of severe physical violence, depending on which study you look at. However, total rates of physical violence are about equal, and men are more likely to be subject to verbal and emotional abuse. Regarding the ordering, I personally don't care, but let's get out statistics straight and not oversimplify things. DGAgainstDV (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The United States is not the only country in the world. If rates in other countries are considered, women make up the majority of victims of domestic violence. If sexual abuse is considered, the rates for women vastly exceed those for men. Finally, and most importantly, domestic violence against women is more often discussed by reliable sources than domestic violence against men. Thus I would support the 'Violence against women' template appearing first. Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Even if we look at studies primarily in the United States, statistics overwhelmingly state that most American victims of domestic violence are women. Women make up higher percentages of physically injured victims, emotionally abused victims, ALL victims. Studies citied within this very article state these facts. I will be taking a long look at it when I have time this week, and correcting any misinformation I find. Ongepotchket (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sources you're looking at, but the NISVS data found that victims of physical violence were about evenly split between men and women for both lifetime and 12-month prevalences, with men actually having a marginally higher rate for the latter. PASK, which reviewed the research literature on domestic violence, reached the same conclusion. DGAgainstDV (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ongepotchket, I agree with DGA, and I have seen similar studies DGA refers to recently released in the UK and Sweden...without looking for them. The title of this article is "Domestic violence" - not "Violence Against Women". The term "Domestic" is neutral, and the tone of the article should focus on that, before highlighting what groups bear the violence. Currently, the article is heavily oriented to "Violence Against Women", which you seem to want to reinforce. There already is an article "Violence Against Women". barking (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitions

There are so many definitions that it is no longer illuminating, but is confusing. For instance, why are there three definitions for US, UK and Malta government definitions? Do they somehow represent a world view?

For now, I moved these over here:

US, UK and Malta definitions

Broad definitions of domestic violence are common today. For instance the Act XX on Domestic Violence 2006, in Malta, defines DV as follows: "domestic violence" means any act of violence, even if only verbal, perpetrated by a household member upon another household member and includes any omission which causes physical or moral harm to the other" The US Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) defines domestic violence as a "pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner". The definition adds that domestic violence "can happen to anyone regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, religion, or gender", and can take many forms, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional, economic, and psychological abuse. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service in the United Kingdom in its "Domestic Violence Policy" uses domestic violence to refer to a range of violent and abusive behaviours, defining it as: Patterns of behaviour characterised by the misuse of power and control by one person over another who are or have been in an intimate relationship. It can occur in mixed gender relationships and same gender relationships and has profound consequences for the lives of children, individuals, families and communities. It may be physical, sexual, emotional and/or psychological. The latter may include intimidation, harassment, damage to property, threats and financial abuse.

Options:

1. If we're looking to report governmental definitions, do we want to have an article such as "List of governmental definitions of domestic violence" or "Governmental domestic violence definitions"?
2. Alternately, perhaps these could go down in the country sections at the bottom of the article, if it's just a few.
3. Other?

Thoughts?--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Intimate partners and/or family members

This start of the article says, which is pretty much in synch with what had been and is in the first section of the definition section:

Domestic violence, also known as domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence, dating abuse, and intimate partner violence (IPV), is a pattern of behavior which involves the abuse by one partner against another in an intimate relationship such as marriage, cohabitation, dating or within the family.

But, then, in the Dynamics classification there's a distinction between intimate partners and family members:

The term "intimate partner violence" (IPV) is often used synonymously with domestic abuse or domestic violence. Family violence is a broader definition, often used to include child abuse, elder abuse, and other violent acts between family members.

...but the rest of the article seems to be about intimate partners... and doesn't seem to get into family issues (elder abuse, etc.).

Do we need to address this? Or, just leave it as-is (i.e., readers can clink to child abuse, elder abuse, etc. if desired)--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Violence against women definition

This information is specific to Violence against women... although I like that it's from an international organization.

The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women classifies violence against women into three categories: that occurring in the family (DV), that occurring within the general community, and that perpetrated or condoned by the State. Family violence is defined as follows:

"Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family, including battering, sexual abuse of female children in the household, dowry-related violence, marital rape, female genital mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women, non- spousal violence and violence related to exploitation".

Shouldn't this go in the Violence against women section? or Violence against women article?

It does bring up points about sanctioned violence, etc.... but it's muddying the waters here for a broad definition of domestic violence that would include violence against men, isn't it?--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it should go in the section 'Violence against women' of this article. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:91EE (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for your input.

I'm really confused by the "Gender aspects of abuse" section. The Violence against women info is sometimes redundant and doesn't really read like an encyclopedia article. It seems to be duelling statistics (with itself). And, the men section doesn't have any stats (but there are some stats about men in the women's section. Any ideas for these sections?--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

IPV types

The following sentence was in the IPV types section:

Types of male batterers identified by Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) include "family-only", which primarily fall into the CCV type, who are generally less violent and less likely to perpetrate psychological and sexual abuse.

Should we get into the statistics and info by type of Interpersonal violence? If so, there's a lot more that could be said (e.g., statistics, prevalence by gender, heterosexual/homosexual relationship differences, other factors)... perhaps splitting off to another article since this is already 3 times recommended length.

Votes for:

• removing this sentence and not getting into statistics
• getting into statistics and more info - and splitting into a separate article
• other?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Name of criminal offense...

Is this uncited bit necessary?

"Domestic violence" may also be the name of a specific criminal offense, in a Criminal Code of a jurisdiction, describing various criminal acts. It may also appear in the context of legislation that is not necessary criminal, but rather civil (providing for civil remedies, protection orders etc.). See, for example, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.

For instance, would a similar block of text be included in articles about murder, assault, etc.?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sexual abuse section

There are many problems with that section.

I'm not sure why my edit was removed.

• It's very important that the section makes it clear that marital rape was throughout much of the history not seen as criminal or even morally wrong. The quote from the book Violence Against Girls and Women: International Perspectives (page 136) that:

"For much of history, nonconsensual sexual intercourse between married partners was not considered a crime or even inappropriate behavior."

was put by me in the reference but it was removed. I think however that it should stay, since it's very important.

• I added:

In 2006, the UN Secretary-General's In-depth study on all forms of violence against women found that (page 113):

"Marital rape may be prosecuted in at least 104 States. Of these, 32 have made marital rape a specific criminal offence, while the remaining 74 do not exempt marital rape from general rape provisions. Marital rape is not a prosecutable offence in at least 53 States. Four States criminalize marital rape only when the spouses are judicially separated. Four States are considering legislation that would allow marital rape to be prosecuted"

Again, I'm not sure why it was removed. I think it should stay, if not in the article normal text, than at least hidden inside a reference. A global overview is important.

I think that a general global overview is much better than the current "Marital rape is illegal in many countries, including Australia, Denmark, England, the United States, Argentina, Canada, and Zimbabwe. There are many countries in which marital rape is legal,[39] including Afghanistan.[40]" I' m not really sure why these specific countries are singled out. I mean if some countries are specifically chosen for discussion, it would be more logical to chose only English speaking ones, not just random countries (as it was in the original version) because this is the English WP.

• I removed "The criminalization of marital rape is very recent, having begun slowly starting in the mid 1990s." because it is not correct (and doesn't appear to be supported by the source either, can you point where does the source say that?) - the criminalization in some countries started decades before the mid-1990s. The Routledge Handbook of European Criminology ([8] - written by leading criminologists from Europe) says at page 195:

"Additionally, while marital rape (also known as spousal rape) was outlawed in several countries in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia before 1970, in other countries in Western Europe this did not occur until the 1980s and 1990s."

In Sweden , for example, marital rape was outlawed in 1965.[9]

And now something different: I think the section on sexual abuse should address in detail child sexual abuse in the family; including lack of proper redress for child victims in many parts of the world; and phenomena such as child prostitution - where impoverished parents force their children to go sell sex (as it happens in some parts of the world). What do other people think? 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't sure why you removed the information that I had edited for the section that I spent some time working on. I was trying to find a way to keep a lot of the type of info that was in the section, but add info about countries other that those related to the US or England (Australia, Ireland, etc.) - and give it a bit more global feel - but without the detail that can be found in the marital rape article.

Did you take a look at the second recently? I added back some of the information and think it may be likely correct now.

If I've got good info, kept the spirit of what had been in the article, have a fully formatted citation, I'm not sure why you're wanting that changed.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I now realized you made a second change - haven't seen that yet in the beginning. My question is: are you opposed to adding this info from the 2006 UN study: "Marital rape may be prosecuted in at least 104 States. Of these, 32 have made marital rape a specific criminal offence, while the remaining 74 do not exempt marital rape from general rape provisions. Marital rape is not a prosecutable offence in at least 53 States. Four States criminalize marital rape only when the spouses are judicially separated. Four States are considering legislation that would allow marital rape to be prosecuted". I think that a global overview is important, not just focusing on a few countries". 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

You know what would be really helpful, if you could help me figure out how to pare this article down. I've only dropped 4k since copyediting, mostly because I've been adding missing citation information.

This article is 3 times the recommended max length. Do you have any thoughts about trimming it down or splitting content to separate articles?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I think that:

• the 'Effects' section should be shortened - summarized; and a new Effects of domestic violence article should be created. The article could include effects on victims, children, communities, gender equality/gender inequality etc.

• similarly, the 'Causes' section should be shortened and a Causes of domestic violence article should be created

• statistics on the prevalence of DV should be kept at a minimum - we already have Epidemiology of domestic violence article. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I like it! Great ideas!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Should the section on sexual abuse also contain info on virginity testing - often forced on girls by their parents in some parts of the world; and about female genital mutilation? And (forced) child marriage? Yes, I realize the article must be shortened, but these important issues are not addressed at all.

The source given in the article includes these in its definition of sexual violence; it says:

"Sexual violence encompasses a wide range of acts, including coerced sex in marriage and dating relationships, rape by strangers, systematic rape during armed conflict, sexual harassment (including demands for sexual favours in return for jobs or school grades), sexual abuse of children, forced prostitution and sexual trafficking, child marriage, and violent acts against the sexual integrity of women, including female genital mutilation and obligatory inspections for virginity." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That's kind of in line with my question at #Intimate partners and/or family members. I would agree that it would be nice to have a short paragraph that provides a high-level summary of some of the more notable issues. There are several other articles that go into more detail for those who which to explore the links.

Do you have a source with a full citation. If you don't know how to format the citation, but have the following information, I can help format it:

• url, if applicable
• title
• publisher
• date published, if applicable
• pages, if a book or pdf
• isbn, if a book

--Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many useful sources. Here are just a few; there are, of course, many more, but I don't have time now.

• Female genital mutilation:

WHO fact sheet: [10]

UN report - Eliminating Female genital mutilation An interagency statement; from OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO,UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO [11]

UNICEF report: [12]

NHS entry: [13]

By the Council of Europe [14]

• Child marriage

by UNICEF: [15]

by Human rights watch: [16]

BBC: [17]

• virginity testing

by Human rights watch: [18]

California law review: [19]

I think a few paragraphs based on these sources would be fine. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm confused. Why is there a list of sources?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I bet this source that you recently used would work for your paragraph and it has all the citation info: <ref>World Health Organization. [http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/summary_en.pdf World report on violence and health.] Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002. pp. 17-18.</ref>... just need the right page numbers I'm guessing--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I listed these sources here because they are useful for editors who may want to expand the section with info about female genital mutilation, child marriage and virginity testing; and you asked about sources. Personally, I don't think I'm going to do the expansion of the section myself - at least not now. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

And I'm also not sure how the section 'Sexual abuse' should look?

Should it have subsections? The section 'Psychological' has 2 subsections...

Should the section 'Sexual abuse' also have subsections? Like these:

• Marital rape
• Child sexual abuse
  • Child marriage
  • Child prostitution
• Forced virginity testing
• Female genital mutilation--unsigned by 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm so confused. One of the biggest issues about this article is that it repeats information in the linked main articles. I was thinking of a short paragraph with links to these articles.

I have been wondering if info about Honor killing, etc. should be rolled up into the physical forms of abuse. There are several places where this information is repeated: Violence against women and the main articles for each of these. There's also the Violence against women template on the page to dive into each of these. I agree that it would be good to mention additional topics, like female genital mutilation which is a huge worldwide issue (affecting women around the world whose family may have moved to England, Netherland, etc....

I guess I'm running on. Thoughts?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the article is much too long. However, while there is information that the article could do without - which is redundant, which could be moved to other articles etc - there are also crucial issues that must be a addressed and not ignored. In my view, discussing forms of DV such as honor killings, dowry violence, acid attacks, female genital mutilation, forced/child marriage, violence against victims of rape/related to loss of virginity, virginity testing, and other such forms of violence is absolutely necessary in order to give a worldwide view and avoid the Western bias that plagues Wikipedia. These forms of violence are extremely common in many parts of the world - but they are ignored while editing articles on WP because they often seem alien to Western editors, which may lead to disinformation and ignorance for our readers. Of course these subjects must be presented succinctly, just summarized; but I do think they should have subsections of their own. The subsections don't have to be long and if edited properly the article will be much shorter than it is now. If the 'Effects' and 'Causes' sections are split, the article will much shorter anyway. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

What should be prioritized in this article

This is a paste of what I wrote in the section 'Sexual abuse section' above; I re-posted here to give visibility to the issue, and to start a new section for discussion (the one above is already very long).

I agree that the article is much too long. However, while there is information that the article could do without - which is redundant, which could be moved to other articles etc - there are also crucial issues that must be a addressed and not ignored. In my view, discussing forms of DV such as honor killings, dowry violence, acid attacks, female genital mutilation, forced/child marriage, violence against victims of rape/related to loss of virginity, virginity testing, and other such forms of violence is absolutely necessary in order to give a worldwide view and avoid the Western bias that plagues Wikipedia. These forms of violence are extremely common in many parts of the world - but they are ignored while editing articles on WP because they often seem alien to Western editors, which may lead to disinformation and ignorance for our readers. Of course these subjects must be presented succinctly, just summarized; but I do think they should have subsections of their own. The subsections don't have to be long and if edited properly the article will be much shorter than it is now. If the 'Effects' and 'Causes' sections are split, the article will much shorter anyway. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Elder abuse

Shouldn't elder abuse be addressed here? A few paragraphs would do. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Useful books

These are some books that could be useful as sources for this article; and could be interesting for many readers - so I think they should be added to the section 'Further reading' of the article.

• Violence Against Women: Current Theory and Practice in Domestic Abuse, Sexual Violence and Exploitation, Nancy Lombard, Lesley McMillan [20]

• Violence against Women under International Human Rights Law, Alice Edwards [21]

• Violence Against Women: Myths, Facts, Controversies, Walter S. DeKesered[22]

2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good! Do you mind getting the ISBNs, year published, etc. for a full citation? Amazon has a place where they put the publishing information on the left hand side of the page, part way down. That would be great!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Legislation

I wonder if this article should have a section on global laws on DV? Which forms of abuse are criminalized and which are not in various countries around the world.

Good source for member states of the European Council:

ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE RESULTS of the Fourth Round of Monitoring the Implementation of Recommendation Rec(2002)5 on the Protection of Women against Violence in Council of Europe member states[23]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Before we add any more, how about if we first tackle the things

• to get it down to a reasonable size (split out causes and effects),
• merge the two sections that you mentioned,
• get the Violence against men and against women a bit more in synch in terms of the type of information included - and summarized better since there are main articles
• and finish the clean-up (see #Under construction?

I think your user name changed, did you see the link I posted about WP:Wikilinks so that information is not duplicated in multiple articles? I think that there's a way to summarize some of the information - have it here in the article and then the reader can read much more in depth information in the main article about this topic.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Structure of the article

I think the sections 'Around the world' and 'Epidemiology' should be merged into a single section - which should be short (a few paragraphs). The rest could go into Epidemiology of domestic violence. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 05:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The 'Management' section is too long and too Western/US centric.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the merging of the two sections.

Regarding the "Management" section - I guess I agree because it links to another article, and that article could be made much more comprehensive. It would seem that this would be one of the most important sections, though, in terms of helping readers who are undergoing abuse.--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done merged the two sections; summarized Management section since a copy of that section was used to create a new article / split it from this article--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Under construction

Hello,

I got started here sorting out some definition issues in the article and realized that there were a number of issues, some of which have been placed on this talk page for discussion.

In addition, I'm also working on:

• Summarizing / eliminating redundant content --  Done as far as I can tell--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Ensuring the right citations go with the applicable content-- better--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Putting slew of citations into further reading where not necessary (and sometimes weren't relevant)  Done for the moment, there's one case where there are four citations, otherwise the max is 3. Still may be overkill in some areas, but better.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Using secondary sources (primary sources were used for Michael P. Johnson info)  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Completing bare link citations as citations (or further reading)  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Trimming down the content when there is a "main" article listed -  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is 3 times larger than the recommended length for most readers... hopefully the edits will help. It may be that a split approach may need to be considered. I see that someone started an article for Management of domestic violence, but it appears to be a duplicate of that section - i.e., the 2nd article was created by the content doesn't seem to have been pared down here. It would seem that this would be the most helpful information to have here... hmmm.... but it may be that there is more content that could be added there that would be helpful and wouldn't require sorting through this large article.

I know I'm a charge-ahead editor, but I haven't seen any updates to the talk page, so I've just been assuming all is well.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

edits above + link--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Updating the ones that are done.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Johnson's typology

There are a number of important errors in the description of Johnson's typology. I'll comment and then paste the current text below my comments.

(1) Common couple violence: Johnson has not used the term "common couple violence" since at least 2000 (Johnson and Ferraro, 2000). He and others now refer to this type as "situational couple violence." Thus, the description of CCV should be labelled SCV with a note that in early papers he used the term CCV. SCV often involves more than one incident. Thus, this description should refer to "arguments where one or both" rather than "a single argument." The sentence on intimate terrorism should be moved to the next paragraph. You probably should move the final paragraph about situational couple violence up into this paragraph. It is not "another type."

(2) Intimate terrorism: It might worth adding a note here that in early papers Johnson referred to this as "patriarchal terrorism," and that recently he and others have suggested "coercive controlling violence" as a less inflammatory term for use in courtroom settings (Kelly and Johnson, 2008). Also, intimate terrorism is not more common than situational couple violence. On the contrary, it is much less common. The writer here might be misunderstanding "frequency," which refers to number of incidents in a single couple's experience. So, I would edit that sentence to fix that, and start the sentence with "On average, intimate terrorism involves more violent incidents per couple, ...." The "on average" is important because this is merely a correlation, not a definition, and some intimate terrorism can involve few incidents, little escalation, and less severe violence. Then I would add, "By definition, intimate terrorism involves a general pattern of coercive behavior, often including emotional and psychological abuse."

(3) Violent resistance: because this is not always self-defense, I would change this a bit. Perhaps just cut the reference to self-defense from the original sentence, and add a sentence such as "Sometimes violent resistance meets the legal definition of self-defense, sometimes it is simply an immediate reaction to violence, sometimes it involves carefully planned acts of retribution." ≈≈≈≈Michael P. Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commitmpj (talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 February 2011‎ (UTC)

ORIGINAL TEXT

Distinctions are not based on single incidents, but rather on patterns across numerous incidents and motives of the perpetrator. Types of violence identified by Johnson:[23][24][25][26]

• Common couple violence (CCV) is not connected to general control behavior, but arises in a single argument where one or both partners physically lash out at the other. Intimate terrorism is one element in a general pattern of control by one partner over the other. Intimate terrorism is more common than common couple violence, more likely to escalate over time, not as likely to be mutual, and more likely to involve serious injury.[23][25][27]
• Intimate terrorism (IT) may also involve emotional and psychological abuse.[28][29][30]
• Violent resistance (VR), sometimes thought of as "self-defense", is violence perpetrated by victims against their abusive partners.[25][31][32][33][34]
• Mutual violent control (MVC) is rare type of intimate partner violence occurs when both partners act in a violent manner, battling for control.[23][35]

Another type is situational couple violence, which arises out of conflicts that escalate to arguments and then to violence. It is not connected to a general pattern of control. Although it occurs less frequently in relationships and is less serious than intimate terrorism, in some cases it can be frequent and/or quite serious, even life-threatening. This is probably the most common type of intimate partner violence and dominates general surveys, student samples, and even marriage counseling samples.

This seems to be a set of old comments, but seem important to pick up on. This might be a good source for this info (http://books.google.com/books?id=cFNphTlIVw4C&pg=PA5) - or, is there a better secondary source. Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting a separate article Intimate partner violence to explore this topic in greater depth and will use the more recent terms, starting with the source I provided just above this posting, which was published in 2010. Any input there would be greatly appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Distinction: "Social views" and "Custom and tradition"

Should the Social views and Custom and tradition sections be merged?

Aren't they really the same thing?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Spliting sections

Aren't the sections on 'Causes' and 'Effects' going to be split? I tagged them. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:B4C8 (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the tag you added to the Causes section, I see nothing there that needs to be split. That section is relatively short and only looks long due its excessive, unnecessary subheadings. Same goes for the Effects section. We should only create a WP:Spin out when needed, not needlessly have readers go to another article for information. I suggest that editors of this article keep in mind that articles can look bigger than they are, which is why WP:SIZE is based on readable prose, excluding all the other things that can add to an article's kilobyte size. Try reducing unnecessary subheadings for a start. For example, MOS:PARAGRAPHS states, "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading; in such circumstances, it may be preferable to use bullet points." You can also combine the really short sections, so that the subheadings are combined or not, as in "[Fill in blank here] and [fill in blank here]." Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Domestic Violence in South Korea

http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=2088

http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/11/511_125655.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/05/world/do-korean-men-still-beat-their-wives-definitely.html

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19961208&id=1DsdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SKYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3945,1384138

http://www.talkvietnam.com/2012/10/vietnamese-wife-beaten-to-death-by-south-korean-husband/

http://talk.onevietnam.org/til-death-do-us-part-foreign-vietnamese-bride-killed-in-south-korea/

http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/society/53366/vietnamese-woman-in-south-korea-commits-suicide-with-two-children.html

Rajmaan (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

LGBT domestic violence

Nothing on LGBT domestic violence.--Penbat (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The gendered nature of DV (and editors who seek to change this in the article)

The fact that most DV is perpetrated by males against females is recognized by international conventions, human rights organizations; by the UN; by the WHO, and so on. It is clearly the accepted mainstream position; dissent comes mainly from MRAs.

Examples:

• Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence says:[24]

Recognising that women and girls are exposed to a higher risk of gender-based violence than men;

Recognising that domestic violence affects women disproportionately, and that men may also be victims of domestic violence;

• Directive 2012/29/EU (a European Union directive):

See paragraph 18. It defines violence in a close relationship and then says:[25]

"Women are affected disproportionately by this type of violence and the situation can be worse if the woman is dependent on the offender economically, socially or as regards her right to residence".

• The fact that violence against women is the result of inequality between sexes is the mainstream position.

The very definition of violence against women by the UN says:[26]

"Recognizing that violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men,"5.12.145.117 (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You've nicely described the problem some editors would like to address. Domestic violence is generally thought of as male against female, leaving male victims of domestic violence feeling ashamed and without recourse. By deliberately phrasing the problem in terms of male aggressors and female victims, abused men may be less likely to report abuse for fear of being seen as less 'male'. While its fine to mention the relative rates of violence in the article, presenting domestic violence as an exclusively male on female problem and becoming defensive towards any comments to the contrary is akin to presenting violent crime in America as an exclusively black on white problem because of the relative rates of incarceration. It's an incomplete biased view that certainly misses some key facts and can harm others from its presentation. Besides, what harm does it do to present domestic violence as something that can happen to anyone? Why is it offensive to suggest woman can be as variable as men? Is there a reason to emphasize that women are overwhelmingly victims? 2605:E000:1609:8022:E988:7885:DCE4:3F92 (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both points. Domestic violence against women is disportionatly men against women and much more severe - and that is especially true in some third-world countries, where there is genital mutilation of women, dowry murders, and legislatively approved violence against women (and not against men).

I also agree that violence against men is under-reported and men have fewer remedies than women - and it can be harder for them to find redress because of these issues.

There does seem to need to be some editing, additions of citations, and it seems the definition of domestic violence section is so involved it becomes confusing.

What specifically could help make the article clearer that both men and women can be subject to domestic violence - but that women across the globe are subject to more forms of domestic violence with social, cultural and legislative approval of that violence - if that's the agreed net-net.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with what you say that "men have fewer remedies than women - and it can be harder for them to find redress because of these issues." That is not true; at least not outside the West. The laws in many countries discriminate against women in regard to divorce (different grounds of divorce for men vs women, different legal procedures etc - making it quite easy for men to get out of an abusive marriage, but not for women). Also, a divorced woman in many parts of the world suffers extreme social stigmatization (not to talk about extreme poverty, since women have very few opportunities to support themselves in those parts of the world). All of this does not apply to men in those cultures. In many of those societies after a woman/girl gets married, she moves in with her husband's family, and, in effect, becomes their property - often treated like a servant, especially if she is very young. The husband has his family on his side, the wife is virtually unprotected and subject to whatever they want to do to her.2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:91EE (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer... I agree with your points about violence against women... but I think that when a man is the victim of domestic violence, it is harder for him to have it taken seriously (socially, perhaps legally), find shelters and find resources than it is for women. For instance, domestic violence shelters are generally for women and children and exclude men, right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"Domestic violence against women is disportionatly (sic) men against women and much more severe" For the West, aside from murder and extreme injury, recent studies in the USA, UK and Sweden contradict you. However, in the Third World, I suspect you are correct. Regardless, this article is entitled "Domestic" violence ( and I am well aware of the "PC" nature of the term ) and thus a key focus of this article should be on neutrality. As the article currently reads ( and some contributors focus on - see immediately above ) it would appear it's an article on Violence Against Women. Well, there already is an article entitled "Violence Against Women". barking (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm just trying to sort out how to make things better / more neutral. I guess I should not have tried to summarize first.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

UserBarking: I really don't understand what your problem is. This article focuses on DV against women because most reliable sources (which are presented in the section 'Violence against women') state that most DV is perpetrated by males against females. Here on Wikipedia we go with what reliable sources say - we report what they state; we don't attempt to 'prove' whether they are 'right' or 'wrong'.

You say: "For the West, aside from murder and extreme injury, recent studies in the USA, UK and Sweden contradict you." I think you have forgotten about sexual violence - most sexual abuse in marriage/relations (marital rape) is committed by men against women. And it's worth repeating that this form of abuse was not even legally recognized for most of the history; and it still isn't in many parts of the world. Also, most of the sources cited on the gendered nature of DV are not about third-world countries, but about policies and strategies in the European Union and Council of Europe member states - which are in the West; and these sources say clearly that most DV is perpetrated by males against females and that it's both a result and cause of social structures which subordinate women to men. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:50C:91EE (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

While I cannot be certain, it seems to me that you are arguing that the proportion of male victims of DV/IPV in countries such as the US is not (statistically) significant. It took me less than a minute to find this[27], solidly supporting the claim that they are. It's a survey by the NVAW, which might reasonably lead one to believe that it was administrated by people primarily concerned with finding female victims (a prejudice I find supported by actually reading the survey questions), and yet it estimates that 40% of IPV victims are male. I am not certain how the history of acknowledgement of DV-related crimes is relevant to this issue. It is rather clear, from examination of the facts as opposed to the accepted mainstream view, that men and boys make up a portion of DV victims not extremely off from the general population gender ratio, even without getting into evidence on causes for under-reporting. NotARusski (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of good resources for this here. While it definitely happens, it is statistically much less frequent (that is, physical abuse) [28] --80.193.191.143 (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Per the WP:Due weight policy, we go by what the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources state; in other words, we give far more weight to what the majority of sources state than we do to what the minority of sources state. We also adhere to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) on medical topics -- what high-quality sources state. The editing by this IP is unacceptable, which is why he has been reverted by NeilN and is why I reverted him. If men's rights editors (MRAs) are editing this article, that also needs attention, per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. It looks like WP:MED needs to be alerted to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)

And if you are that IP, Casusbelli1 (talk · contribs), as indicated to me by my reverting you here, see WP:Sock puppetry; scroll on down to its Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts section. Flyer22 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated below (in the #Neutrality Issue in Gender Aspects of Abuse Section section), I have alerted WP:MED to this discussion. Casusbelli1 has also replied below. Flyer22 (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Gender Symmetry and IPV

My attempts to include information that demonstrates gender symmetry in IPV have been called out for giving the issue too much weight, and for citing less than reputable sources. How many peer reviewed studies published in reputable scientific journals must I cite before my contribution is considered legitimate? An overwhelming body of research spanning decades points to gender symmetry in IPV, just as there is research that suggests IPV is overwhelming male to female. I feel neutrality demands all of this information is presented, and I will continue to include it unless someone is able to demonstrate that it is 1) a minority view (particularly within the field), and 2) that the sources I cite are invalid. Casusbelli1 (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Casusbelli1, and welcome to the confusing world of Wikipedia.

One of the most common ways that people get confused about MEDRS is about "reviews". A peer-reviewed study is not the same thing as a review article. Ideally (and commonly), the review article will also be peer-reviewed, but most peer-reviewed articles are original reports of experiments (not review articles). For a quick show of the difference, go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=domestic+violence+gender and click (in the left-hand sidebar) on "Review" (under "Article Types") and "5 years" (under "Publication Dates"). That should give you a list of recent review articles that might make useful sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you WhatamIdoing. Can I use both peer reviewed research and review articles as sources, or just one but not the other? Is it important to have a variety of sources or may I lean on just one? There are sections of this and other Wikipedia articles that rely so heavily on a single source that it is almost like reading a abridged version of the source. Is that ok, or should I avoid that? Casusbelli1 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ideally, you'll use only peer-reviewed review articles and upper-level/grad school textbooks for biomedical (including epidemiological) information. Ideally, you will use a moderate variety. You might look over a dozen or so good sources, and then pick a small handful to focus on. Trying to manage dozens or hundreds of sources is difficult, because you spend so much time thinking, "I know I read that, but which one was it in?!" Having a couple hundred sources is usually a sign that the article needs some serious work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue in Gender Aspects of Abuse Section

The "Gender Aspects of Abuse" section begins by pointing out how IPV and gender is a controversial subject, but then includes the following statement: "Sociologists Michael P. Johnson and Kathleen J. Ferraro argue that the rate of domestic violence against men is often inflated due to the practice of including self-defense as a form of domestic violence." Inclusion of this statement without presenting it as an example of the controversy within the field gives the impression that female to male perpetrated IPV is mostly explained as self defense on the perpetrator's part. This is a point of contention within the field, and should either be presented as such, or removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.67.26 (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Where are your sources that dispute this statement? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

For one, this: "The findings from the present study did not support the male control view of IPV, in the following ways. First, we found, as in many previous studies using unselected samples (Archer, 2000; Straus, 2011), that men were not more physically aggressive to their partners than women were. Indeed, we found the opposite, that women reported being more physically (and verbally) aggressive to their partners than men were." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21499/full#ab21499-sec-0004

For another, this: "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B10E:28D1:CC44:3E41:52E3:E3E7 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated in the #The gendered nature of DV (and editors who seek to change this in the article) section above: Per the WP:Due weight policy, we go by what the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources sate; in other words, we give far more weight to what the majority of sources state than we do to what the minority of sources state. We also adhere to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) on medical topics -- what high-quality sources state. The editing by this IP is unacceptable, which is why he has been reverted by NeilN and is why I reverted him. If men's rights editors (MRAs) are editing this article, that also needs attention, per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. It looks like WP:MED needs to be alerted to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)

And if you are that IP, Casusbelli1 (talk · contribs), as indicated to me by my reverting you here, see WP:Sock puppetry; scroll on down to its Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts section. Flyer22 (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, since having this article on the watchlist, there seems to be some edits by IPs and by a brand new user who's admitted to being that IP. That's alright, and after all, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The user just registered, and does not have more than one account, and did not mean any ill intention by registering. Now, if they were to have lied about being that IP they would have the illusion of support, but that's not the case. Therefore, does not qualify for WP:ILLEGIT reasons. Additionally, please assume good faith with this user, and unless there is a reason to assume that the editor is an MRA and may have a conflict of interest, please do not continue to bring it up. I see no reason to think such a thing and the way that you bring it appears to be in the way of intimidation, especially since the user is so new. WP:BITE may also be of relevance here. So let's get into the substance of the dispute, that you assert that there are more RS to support the notion of what the other user opposes. To indicate the probability that there are more reliable sources for your viewpoint Flyer22, please state them. Here are the two RS that the new user implemented. You appear to not be questioning their reliability, but the notion of due weight.

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/
• http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21499/full#ab21499-sec-0004

Let's all try to resolve this. Tutelary (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, I explained the WP:Sockpuppet matter below; it is very clear about how editing as an IP should be done. If I had not pointed out that the IP is Casusbelli1, it could be taken that they are two different people, especially if Casusbelli1 had continued editing as an IP and as Casusbelli1 intermittently. "The gendered nature of DV (and editors who seek to change this in the article)" section brought up the MRA matter; and, yes, that matter should be addressed if MRA editing is taking place at this article. And, no, I don't need to see WP:AGF; as is shown on my talk page that you watch, I have significant understanding on whether or not an editor is new. If I have any suspicion that an editor claiming to be new is not new, my response to that editor might reflect that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I am not engaging in sockpuppery. Yes, that was my ip. I have only ever before made occasional edits to Wikipedia articles, but yesterday decided to finally register. Hence, all of my edits will be under this account. Secondly, I am fairly certain that the gender symmetry data is not a minority view, but rather that it is as well represented in the literature as is the gendered view. Demonstrating this, however, seems an impossible task. Are you saying I have to come up with a comparison of the number of peer reviewed articles that argue for a gendered view vs the number that argue for gender symmetry? I am genuinely confused as to what the criteria is here, especially as the most respected researchers of IPV fall on either side of the divide, and acknowledge that gendered/gender symmetry is one of the most contentious subjects within the field. Not including this information in the article essentially turns it into a polemic. Casusbelli1 (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Read what the "Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts" section states about editing as an IP and editing while logged out; that is my point. As for you never having had a registered Wikipedia account before, that is your word and I can see that you will be sticking to it. Read the WP:Due weight policy I pointed to; it is an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy. Wikipedia has different views than you do on what is neutral. Also read WP:MEDRS. Peer-reviewed research by itself is not good enough. WP:MEDRS states, "Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content." I have alerted WP:MED to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that Medrs only applies to biomedical material, rates of DV are not biomedical. Also, did you alert any of the other wikiprojects interested in this article? --Kyohyi (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Kyohyi, rates of domestic violence most assuredly concern WP:MEDRS, just as rates of cancer do. That is an epidemiology matter. Ask at WP:MED if you question my word on that. Take a look at the Cancer article, and see how that is handled. And you are obviously more than welcome to alert other WikiProjects. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you consider non-biomedical about the number of people who might be physically injured by domestic violence. WP:MEDRS even covers psychological matters, whether one considers that biomedical or not. Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Except we're not dealing with the psychological, nor the physical injuries portion. We're dealing with the social-science portion of how it is defined. Injuries derived from an action would be medical, but the action itself is not. Driving a car causes accidents which involve injuries, does driving a car fall under MEDRS? How about Assault? How about Murder? Aspects of this article would fall under MEDRS, but not the article in the whole. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think that we are not dealing with "the psychological, nor the physical injuries portion" when reporting on rates of domestic violence. As someone who watches and weighs in at WP:MED and WP:MEDRS, I am well aware that WP:MEDRS does not cover social factors, so I don't need to be told of that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Because in some studies, what the study takes as self defense is not recorded as domestic violence. As such they are not using a medical definition, but a socio-political definition. As such DV rates are not medicaly nor psychologically based, but socio-politically based. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Make that case in the section at WP:MED that I started about this topic, and we can see what, if anything, editors there state about it -- whether or not they agree with you that rates for domestic violence can or should do without WP:MEDRS sourcing. Flyer22 (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I should plead my case to the group that you canvassed [29] --Kyohyi (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and my alerting that WikiProject passes the WP:CANVASS guideline; it's an acceptable form of WP:Canvass. Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think so, but WP: Votestacking, and you're reliance on WP: MEDRS suggest otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyohyi (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I clearly do think so. And as for your arguments of "WP: Votestacking, and you're reliance on WP: MEDRS suggest otherwise," nah and meh. But seeing your involvement with men's rights topics, looking at your edit history, explains to me all that I need to know about your involvement at this article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I am reviewing those policies now. I still contend that my sources are reliable as required by Wikipedia's standards. A cursory review of those standards also seems to support my position that exclusion of opposing voices within the field violates the neutrality policy. However, I will review the policies more closely, re-check my sources, and edit with respect to those findings in the future. Casusbelli1 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, do you think that perhaps the Domestic violence article needs some sort of sanction with regard to Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation? Or no, since there is no evidence to suggest that is necessary? Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Those portions of the article that involve men's rights, broadly construed, are subject to sanctions - not the entire article. Although the probation sanctions clearly encompass "related" articles, some of the procedures are not well parsed to accommodate those articles that aren't entirely subject to sanctions. It's also very difficult to monitor edits to these kinds of articles. Based on what I've seen, I alerted Casusbelli1 to the existence of the sanctions as related to this article. Other editors are going to have alert me or another administrator if they feel there's been a violation of the terms of the sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Those portions of the article What part of the article specifically is related to Men's Rights and therefore subjec to sanctions? Tutelary (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor conduct

The above is an astonishingly misdirected discussion of editor conduct, on a page that is supposedly dedicated to discussing edits to an article. Please comment on wp:Edits not editors. Conduct issues are best addressed on user talkpages, or if that fails, on various noticeboards. Not here, in other words. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Dynamics Classification

I have two questions about the dynamics classification subsection. 1) What does dynamics classification even mean? It seems like the heading could be deleted while all the information below it is retained under "definitions." 2) There's a definition of family violence immediately followed by, in the same paragraph, a UN definition of violence against women and girls. I feel like the UN definition should be moved to the violence against women section, but would like to get some sort of consensus before doing so. Casusbelli1 (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed the heading. I think that the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women definition should remain in the Definitions section, no matter its focus on girls and women. I think that all of the definitions, except for what is summarized in the lead (introduction), should be in the Definitions section; that's what it's there for. Then we move on to other matters past the definitions. Flyer22 (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I think that the U.N. definition should get a different paragraph though. The U.N. was defining violence against women in general, not only within the context of the family. Casusbelli1 (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with you making that change. Flyer22 (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Children

I am confused about the role(s) of children in this article. Most of the article is actually about (domestic) violence between/among adults, and in many cases I feel that it should be clarified if a statement or section does or does not include children. In most cases here it seems that only female children are included, and the violence against them is sexual. There are boys who are sexually abused, and there are many other forms of abuse/violence aimed (probably equally) against boys and girls. --Hordaland (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes as far as i am concerned DV is any abuse in a domestic context and that may include:

• elder abuse (if living under the same roof)
• parental abuse of children
• parental abuse by children

This article actually has disproportionate emphasis on intimate partner violence. It also annoys me that this article is called DV when IMO "domestic abuse" is much more apt. Why should we refer to it as violence even if there isnt any actual physical violence and probably only occurs in a minority of cases ? --Penbat (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the title of this article debated at this talk page before. The title of this article should adhere to the WP:Common name policy. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles is also something to consider. I don't think that physical violence only occurs in a minority of cases regarding this topic, but the term violence does not only concern the physical (which you also indicate by stating "physical violence") and is why the term sexual violence doesn't only concern physical violence. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, just forget my last two sentences and address my other points.--Penbat (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Marital Conflict Disorder

I think the source in this section may violate WP: MEDRS, as it is over a decade old, was written as an argument for the inclusion of new pathologies in the DSM V, and would in any case be better represented by a summary of the actual content of the DSM V. I would like to delete this section and replace it with information from the DSM V. Casusbelli1 (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

On further review, it appears that the cited source is a minority voice that argued for inclusion of relational disorders in the DSM V. I also haven't been able to verify to what extent, if any, those views made it into that volume. I feel that the section on marital conflict disorder should be removed from this article on the grounds of WP:MEDRS and WP:Due weight. Casusbelli1 (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Gender Aspects

I feel that Kaldari's removal of the Straus statement obscures what the majority of sources make quite clear is one of, if not the, largest debate between IPV researchers. The introductory sentence states, quite correctly, that gender and IPV is highly controversial. Frankly, this entire section needs a rewrite in which the controversy, which has spanned several decades now, is better explained. In the mean time, however, Chan's criticisms of the CTS juxtaposed to a concise but clear statement from Straus (or some other leading family violence researcher) will serve to present the controversy to the reader in a neutral manner. I would like to make this edit, unless there is some compelling reason not to. Casusbelli1 (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The Straus statement replaced a previous statement which had the opposite POV: "Sociologists Michael P. Johnson and Kathleen J. Ferraro argue that the rate of domestic violence against men is often inflated due to the practice of including self-defense as a form of domestic violence." If we're going to present the controversy, it needs to be presented neutrally. This tit-for-tat POV pushing is ridiculous. There shouldn't be any statements by individual researchers in the first paragraph (especially not inflammatory ones). The first paragraph should just give an overview which is elaborated on in the subsequent paragraphs. Kaldari (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, FWIW, I think that particular statement by Straus is quite inflammatory, and not especially helpful to presenting the issue in a neutral tone. He's basically accusing other researchers of dishonestly pushing an ideological agenda. That is certainly not a mainstream view of the current body of research. Kaldari (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement that this section has suffered from poor edits, and I feel that it could still use a rewrite. I think you're right that the introductory paragraph reads better in its current iteration, except that Chan's criticism of the CTS should be removed or contextualized because whether or not the CTS is sufficient to measure IPV is a central part of the gender symmetry controversy. The whole section might read better if the issues researchers like Johnson have with the findings of researchers like Straus (and vice versa) were covered in some clear fashion (e.g., differing definitions of IPV, measurement tools and methodology, etc). Also, that last paragraph is terrible. It's hard to make sense of it, given the preceding paragraphs. I may rewrite it, but I think it would be better to scrap the entire section and start over. Casusbelli1 (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Management

Flyer22, I have no idea why you reverted an edit that fixed grammar, of all things. Is the following even defensible?

Management of domestic violence to reduce the rate of victimization and promote the well-being of the affected individuals can include: Participants in domestic violence may required medical treatment, such as being seen by a by a family physician, other primary care provider,[220] or emergency room physicians.[221]

Frankly, that's not English. I am going to re-edit this, although I will wait to see if anyone else would like to weigh in. Casusbelli1 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

When I reverted you here and here, I was focused on what I stated in those edit summaries; I was not focused on grammar. I was not interested in partially reverting you by editing in any good edit you may have made. Feel free to correct any grammar mistakes, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

violence against men

I removed the last sentence about same sex male violence because it violates wp:medrs. It is old research (2004) that is a single study. More than that, the authors call it a preliminary study and highlight possible issues with its findings. In sum, this is not up to date evidence and is a primary source, and thus does not comport with wp:medrs on at least those grounds.

Incidentally, I think holding this article to the wp:medrs standard risks eliminating wide swaths of it. I have not been applying that standard to the clearly socio-political aspects of domestic violence, instead reserving it for dv stats, which I believe can be construed as falling within the purview of wp:medrs. Casusbelli1 (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You made this, this, this and this edit very recently. This and this was my response. While reverting you, I was focused on one line you removed, and felt that editors might want to discuss some of your removals. Just like when you deleted the line as an IP, you deleted this line as Casusbelli1: "Although the exact rates are widely disputed, especially within the United States, there is a large body of cross-cultural evidence that women are subjected to domestic violence significantly more often than men." That line is supported by a 1992 source, a Compton 2010 American Psychiatric Publishing source and a Brinkerhoff 2008 scholarly book source (Thomson Corporation). While the first source can be considered outdated because it is so old, the latter two sources are certainly WP:MEDRS-compliant. Also take note that Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence should not be taken as strictly as you may be interpreting it; strict interpretation of that guideline is the reason it states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published.", and mentions other exceptions. And a matter that has not changed in the medical field does not need a 2014 medical source, as opposed to a 2008 medical source, to support it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Something else you should consider is instead of removing poorly sourced material, replacing the poor source with one or more quality sources; this is per the WP:Preserve policy. It is all too easy to remove something that one does not like. Flyer22 (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So we agree that the first source is outdated. The Compton source itself cites studies that are decades old. I am quite sure it is not WP:MEDRS compliant. The third source is a college textbook that brings up the gender difference in victimization rates as an example of how a conflict theorist might view domestic violence. It references no data, no studies, and refers to the possible viewpoint of a subset of domestic violence researchers. As I said before, there may well be sources that back up that sentence, but these are not them. Casusbelli1 (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The Compton source is WP:MEDRS-compliant, even if citing decades old research; there is obviously a reason that it is citing decades old research. Like I stated above, "And a matter that has not changed in the medical field does not need a 2014 medical source, as opposed to a 2008 medical source, to support it." Unless there are WP:Reliable sources contradicting the statement that "there is a large body of cross-cultural evidence that women are subjected to domestic violence significantly more often than men," and consensus among researchers has changed on that matter, there is nothing wrong with citing the old research. We are not supposed to contest well-established matters simply because those matters are not presented in newer sources (not that the "women are subjected to domestic violence significantly more often than men" aspect cannot be supported by newer sources; surely, there are an abundance of newer sources on Google Books and Google Scholar stating similarly); we are supposed to contest matters that have been discredited, significantly discredited, by newer research. The vast majority of our WP:Due weight goes to what the vast majority of sources state on a topic, per the WP:Due weight policy. And I am certain that when it comes to which sex is affected more by domestic violence, the vast majority of sources state that females are. As for the third source, it is also WP:MEDRS-compliant, although not a great source to use for the line in question.

And regarding your re-removal of this text, did you even try to look for quality sources supporting it, after I just pointed out the WP:Preserve policy? Unlike WP:MEDRS, WP:Preserve is not simply a guideline; it is a policy. Flyer22 (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I did in fact look for an appropriate source (i.e., review of the research) and did not find anything. I suppose I could continue to search, but it really shouldn't be that difficult if there is academic consensus on the matter. And regarding Compton, this is still a terrible source for the "large body of cross-cultural evidence" statement, but I am significantly more optimistic that some editor here will find a more appropriate source to support it. It's still not clear to me why this sentence is so vital to the passage. Its exclusion obviates the entire gender symmetry debate (which is quite real) and focuses the paragraph on the next sentence that talks about the severity of violence women suffer, about which there is no debate. Regarding due weight, as near as I can ascertain, the majority of recent sources (in the past, say, 8 years) are divided in their findings of gender symmetry/asymmetry in domestic violence perpetration and victimization. I think because of this, the gender aspects section should be rewritten in a way that this contention is made clear, and then all statements related to those figures could live there. Regardless, however, that "large body of cross-cultural evidence" phrase should be removed, as it is ripped directly from Hamel's 2007 work. Casusbelli1 (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the "Research has suggested that gay men are at higher risk of domestic violence than their heterosexual counterparts." line, there are scholarly sources stating that domestic violence among gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals might be higher than among heterosexual individuals, that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are less likely to report domestic violence that has occurred in their intimate relationships than heterosexual couples are, and/or that lesbian couples experience domestic violence less than heterosexual couples do. Other sources state that gay and lesbian couples experience domestic violence at the same frequency as heterosexual couples. See for example, this scholarly source (from 2010, page 49, citing older research from the 2000s) and this scholarly source (from 2009, page 255). I'll look further into the argument that gay male couples experience domestic violence more than heterosexual couples do; my belief is that it's a suggestion that needs to be given WP:Due weight if we include it, just like the other LGBT material, given that so much of domestic violence material focuses on heterosexual couples. For example, this source (Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention, Volume 1, 2010, page 312) states, "For several methodological reasons – nonrandom sampling procedures and self-selection factors, among others – it is not possible to assess the extent of same-sex domestic violence. Studies on abuse between gay male or lesbian partners usually rely on small convenience samples such as lesbian or gay male members of an association." Contrary to that first source (the other 2010 one) I cited, this one states that researchers commonly assume that lesbian couples experience domestic violence at the same rate as heterosexual couples, and that researchers have been more cautious regarding reporting domestic violence among gay male couples.

As for the Compton 2010 source, it can obviously be replaced by what you would consider a better source, though a 2010 American Psychiatric Publishing source is a good source in my opinion; if they had felt that citing newer research was needed, they would have cited it. As for the statement, whether we include the "large body of cross-cultural evidence" aspect of it or not, I think it's clear why the "women are subjected to domestic violence significantly more often than men" part is important; not only is that aspect presented in the lead and is clear by a lot of sources in the article, it is a common presentation regarding domestic violence. There is no consensus, or anything close to consensus, among researchers that it is an inaccurate statement. As for your statement that "the majority of recent sources (in the past, say, 8 years) are divided in their findings of gender symmetry/asymmetry in domestic violence perpetration and victimization," I don't think this can be proven. Should the gender symmetry/asymmetry aspect be given weight in the article? Of course. But I don't that it's a mainstream scholarly view that men are affected by domestic violence as much as women are. The "broad consensus that women are more often subjected to severe forms of abuse and are more likely to be injured by an abusive partner" text that you don't, at this time, seem to have a problem with is also supported by the Compton 2010 source, but it only focuses on severe forms of abuse and injury. As for plagiarism, like I noted in this edit summary, that is easily taken care of by rewording. Flyer22 (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: same sex IPV, the last source you cite nicely captures the problem I've had in finding a source to support the statement I deleted (which is honestly a backwards way of going about things). Re: symmetry, we clearly have our personal differences as to how that may best be portrayed in this article. I'm not sure we'll find resolution here on the talk page (which is sort of ironic, because as I'm sure you know, and as I've mentioned previously, it is one of the most controversial issues within the dv field). And to be clear, it's not that I personally don't have a problem with the "severe forms of abuse" text; my personal feelings on the matter, of course, do not matter. No, it's that no major (or minor) dv research reveals anything but an unambiguous consensus on this particular point. Casusbelli1 (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

violence against women

I deleted the following: "Although the exact rates are widely disputed, especially within the United States, there is a large body of cross-cultural evidence that women are subjected to domestic violence significantly more often than men.[97][98][99]"

This sentence plagiarizes a similar passage in a work by John Hamel (cited in my edit). Even though that could be fixed by a simple rewording, the cited sources still violate wp:medrs as they depend on research that is at least a decade old. This is true even of the Compton work (2010), which references studies conducted a couple of decades ago. While the rates are no doubt disputed, and while women may in fact be subjected to domestic violence significantly more than men, the cited sources do not back the statement according to the wp:medrs standard.

About not fully removing the references, sorry about that, I'm still new to this. Casusbelli1 (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

For others, see the #violence against men section below. Flyer22 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

DV/IPV and cannabis

Couples who smoke cannabis together less likely to engage in domestic violence http://ind.pn/1nCO7cv --Penbat (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:Class assignment

Hello, Lyoh (talk · contribs). I see that as part of a WP:Class assignment, you are with Education Program:Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis/Advanced Mental Health for the Occupational Therapist (Fall 2014) and have been expanding the article (as seen here and here). Well, with a WP:Class assignment, the student editor(s) should attempt to communicate with the regular editors of the article so that these sides can collaborate more efficiently, and so that the more experienced editors can guide the student editors if needed, and address any concerns with their additions. For example, the Domestic violence article is big enough as it is, so WP:SIZE is an issue. Seeing as domestic violence is largely (but not solely) a medical issue, making sure that sources added to the article regarding health information are up to the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) standards is also a concern. I'm pinging Doc James via WP:Echo to see if he perhaps has any opinion on the sources you've added to the article. Lyoh, what is everything you are looking to add to the article? And will others from your course be assisting you? Flyer22 (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22:. Hi, Lyoh and myself are the only two IUPUI students that were assigned to actually add information to this article. We didn't know to first communicate with the regular editors because this is our first attempt at adding information to Wiki but would appreciate any help. Thanks for contacting DocJames about our article sources. Can you explain further what you mean by domestic violence being largely a medical issue? In terms of what we are looking to add, the information that Lyoh has already added is all that we were assigned to do for this WP:Class assignment at this time. Thank you for your feedback and edits. SWhit2014 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, SWhit2014 (talk · contribs). Thank you for responding. The WP:Class assignment page addresses the best approaches for student editors interacting with regular editors of an article. I'm not sure what you mean by your question pertaining to the medical aspect. Health is a medical matter. And domestic violence is undoubtedly a medical matter; it concerns social aspects as well, but the additions that you and Lyoh are focused on concern health and social aspects. When it comes to sourcing health information on Wikipedia, the WP:MEDRS guideline is the one to follow. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Student assignments#Editing medicine and health topics (a section of the WP:Class assignment page). Flyer22 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

Extended content

Occupational therapy can impact the health and well-being of survivors of domestic violence by enabling participation in occupation and addressing a diminished skill-set caused by a prolonged situation of occupational apartheid. Occupational therapists work with individuals to develop the skills needed to acquire desired occupational roles and satisfactorily perform everyday tasks. Occupational therapy practitioners can provide services through direct or indirect treatment, advocacy efforts, consultation, or group sessions. They may work with survivors of domestic violence and their families in a variety of settings such as hospitals, skilled nursing and rehabilitation centers, outpatient clinics, mental health facilities, schools, homes, and in shelters or other community programs. Within any of the practice settings, occupational therapists may encounter victims or survivors of domestic violence including individuals who have not reported abuse. Occupational therapists are in a position to uncover information that leads to suspicion of violence or identification of abuse that has occurred. As health care professionals, occupational therapists follow state mandated requirements to report abuse. They may provide specialized treatment for individuals who have: Sustained injuries or disabilities as a result of domestic violence Chosen to remain in or rebuilt a relationship in which abuse has occurred, or Decided to leave the abusive relationship and reconstruct their lives Domestic violence survivors have experienced trauma and abuse leading to a loss of empowerment and poor self-worth. These consequences of domestic violence may impact the ability to perform occupations. Occupational therapy contributes to recovery by enabling survivors to create new roles, develop satisfying and productive routines, and gain the self-efficacy necessary to overcome the effects of domestic violence.  Occupational therapy interventions for this population include: Self-care (hygiene) Decision-making skills regarding employment opportunities Assertiveness skills training Stress management and calming techniques Time and money management Home management Community mobility Parenting skill-building Coping and interpersonal skills Self-esteem and self-efficacy Identification of leisure activities Social participation Lifestyle modification to establish healthy routines for eating, exercising, and sleep OT interventions with children who are exposed to domestic violence are focused on promoting age appropriate academic, play, and social skills to facilitate proper development and success in school activities. This may include activities to improve organization, study habits, or attention.  Adolescents who have seen or experienced domestic abuse may also benefit from occupational therapy to work on relationship and life skills and learn coping strategies.

Have moved the text here. These words "Sustained injuries or disabilities as a result of domestic violence, Chosen to remain in and rebuild a relationship in which abuse has occurred, or Decided to leave the abusive relationship and reconstruct their lives." Are exactly the same as this copyrighted work [30]. Have not investigated the rest of it yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Other paraphrasing looks close " Domestic violence survivors have experienced ... a loss of empowerment and self-esteem." from [31] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this and helping out, Doc James. I saw that you had moved the content to the Management of domestic violence article, but then removed it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes needs to be more paraphrased before going live. And should be on the subpage IMO rather than here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Doc James and Flyer22 for all of your help and feedback. We will make the necessary edits, contact the regular editors for the subpage you mention, and hopefully move this content there. SWhit2014 (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision of Same-sex relationships sections

I am a student charged with creating or revising a Wikipedia article to better reflect the goal of my class: social justice, inequality, and the capabilities of humans to make meaningful changes. I have chosen the topic of intimate partner violence as it applies to LGBT communities. This article covers little to do on the subject as I believe it should. This article has developed into a general overview of types of domestic violence, causes, and even some social implications surrounding the topic. However, I have found significant information on the topic in the realm of LGBT relationships. Consequently, I will be adding an article on this specific topic under the current headin of “same-sex relationships”. This section, I feel, I lacking in statistical data and reference. My small section will detail the significance of IPV in the LGBT community, ways that this type of violence occurs, and implications for LGBT individuals. Under the headings of “social view” and “intergenerational cycle of violence” I will also insert a few sentences on the LGBT community, as these topics are relevant beyond what has already been included. I will include data on the prevalence of the issue and donate a few sentences to the efforts of those who are working to bring this issue to light.

With that being said, I need your help Wikipedians. I will be posting a draft of my proposed sections within two weeks. I would appreciate constructive criticism, especially as it applies to organizations of the material and use of citations. Additionally, i will be creating a sub article with greater detail on the topic. If it interests you, please take the time to provide feedback or suggestions on that page as well. Especially on what information should be used in the subsection of this article.

Ratilley (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Ratilley (talk · contribs). Welcome to Wikipedia. More coverage on domestic violence among LGBT people definitely needs to be in this article, and I welcome it. Problems with covering it, however, are the limited and conflicting research aspects of it. In the #violence against men section above, I stated the following: Regarding the "Research has suggested that gay men are at higher risk of domestic violence than their heterosexual counterparts." line, there are scholarly sources stating that domestic violence among gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals might be higher than among heterosexual individuals, that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are less likely to report domestic violence that has occurred in their intimate relationships than heterosexual couples are, and/or that lesbian couples experience domestic violence less than heterosexual couples do. Other sources state that gay and lesbian couples experience domestic violence at the same frequency as heterosexual couples. See for example, this scholarly source (from 2010, page 49, citing older research from the 2000s) and this scholarly source (from 2009, page 255). I'll look further into the argument that gay male couples experience domestic violence more than heterosexual couples do; my belief is that it's a suggestion that needs to be given WP:Due weight if we include it, just like the other LGBT material, given that so much of domestic violence material focuses on heterosexual couples. For example, this source (Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention, Volume 1, 2010, page 312) states, "For several methodological reasons – nonrandom sampling procedures and self-selection factors, among others – it is not possible to assess the extent of same-sex domestic violence. Studies on abuse between gay male or lesbian partners usually rely on small convenience samples such as lesbian or gay male members of an association." Contrary to that first source (the other 2010 one) I cited, this one states that researchers commonly assume that lesbian couples experience domestic violence at the same rate as heterosexual couples, and that researchers have been more cautious regarding reporting domestic violence among gay male couples.

I will contact WP:LGBT about this topic in case anyone there wants to weigh in on it. Keep in mind that you should use WP:Reliable sources for the content that you plan to add to the Domestic violence article, and especially Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant sources. Read those guideline pages for what I mean; you have probably already read the WP:Reliable sources guideline since you are with this course. Ideal sources for this topic, like WP:MEDRS states, are literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. You can, for example, use the book sources I cited above for material about LGBT domestic violence. And regarding your plan to create a sub-article on this topic, keep in mind that a sub-article should generally only be created when needed; this is per the WP:Spinout guideline. A WP:Stub article is often not the best way to go. In short, we should generally only split content into a separate article when covering it in the main article is a WP:SIZE issue, and/or when the intended split content can make for a valid standalone article and can be improved beyond a WP:Stub. Flyer22 (talk) 01:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You've beaten me to alerting WP:LGBT. Okay, I will now point them directly to this section. Flyer22 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: This is what the Same-sex relationships section looked like after Ratilley's expansion of it. I tweaked/added to the section here and here, and am likely to tweak it or add to it in the future. Given the limited data out there on domestic violence in same-sex relationships, you did a decent job with the text, Ratilley. I would stay away from using university sources for this information, however (not that you added those sources; they were there before your additions). Use of primary sources are seemingly unavoidable in this particular case (domestic violence in same-sex relationships). Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it would be very useful to have a new page dedicated to the topic of “LGBT Domestic Violence.” This article could be re-organized to share the same subsections as in the general “Domestic Violence” article. Having a section of “Triggers” and “Family Dynamics” in your new page would be interesting! Although it will be difficult to get this article started because it covers so many arenas, there will be many people to help and support you, as evidenced by this thread. I know this is a recent issue and thus I don’t know how many scholars are looking into it, but just make sure there are academic journals and also statistics to back your claims. Keep up with the good work and I look forward to reading your new contribution!

Appleangel11 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Appleangel11, like I noted above, there should first be an adequate reason to create a WP:Spinout article; like WP:Spinout notes, there is no need for haste when splitting content into an individual article. Right now, the same-sex content in the Domestic violence article does not need its own Wikipedia article. And, like it notes, domestic violence is not well studied among the LGBT community. Flyer22 (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

AVR22 (talk · contribs), I reverted you here because you added far too much detail, detail focused exclusively on lesbian relationships. See the WP:Due weight policy to help understand why I reverted you. As you seemingly noticed, we already have the Domestic violence#Gender aspects section; this is the section where the Same-sex relationships subsection is placed. The reason that it currently does not show up in the table of contents is because of this edit that Doc James made a couple of days ago. That section adequately addresses the topic of male and female same-sex relationships. With your addition, why should lesbian relationships be given so much focus regarding the topic of same-sex relationships? I understand that I noted above that one of the sources states that researchers have been more cautious regarding reporting domestic violence among gay male couples, but I still don't see why this article should give as much detail to lesbian relationships as you gave it. Not only is that a WP:Due weight violation, this article already has WP:SIZE issues (meaning it's big enough as it is). This might be a good time to create a Domestic violence in same-sex relationships article, and then your content about lesbian relationships can go there, though it might still need to be cut down so as to not make that article too disproportionately about lesbian relationships. I don't yet see that there is a need to have a Domestic violence in lesbian relationships article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: It does not appear that AVR22 truly considered my comments above, and was only concerned with getting a grade with regard to WP:Student editing. This is why the poor Domestic violence in lesbian relationships article currently exists; I commented on the matter there at its talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Correction to my "04:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)" post (also see here): Actually, judging by this and this, AVR22 did truly consider my advice, but did not beef up the article with more content beyond lesbian relationships; so Joe Decker chose the Domestic violence in lesbian relationships title for the article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title)

As seen here, here and here, Penbat and I have disagreed on labeling domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence and intimate partner violence as domestic violence in the first sentence. I changed the "closely related to" wording that Penbat added; I changed it to "also," and I did this because, like the Domestic violence article and an abundance of WP:Reliable sources make clear, all of these terms are often or usually used interchangeably. Intimate partner violence having its own Wikipedia article does not make it distinct from domestic violence; of course, it is domestic violence, and it is currently called such in the lead of its Wikipedia article. And the term domestic abuse, a term that Penbat considers broader than the term domestic violence, as shown in the #Children section above, and therefore wants the Domestic violence article titled Domestic abuse, is even more so used interchangeably with the term domestic violence; they are the same thing. Like I told Penbat in the aforementioned Children section, the term domestic violence, just like the term sexual violence, does not only concern physically violent acts. In other words, the term domestic violence is just as broad as the term domestic abuse. I see no valid reason to describe the aforementioned terms as simply related to domestic violence, as opposed to being domestic violence. It's just that a few of these terms cover specific forms of domestic violence.

I'll alert WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 09:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Alerted. Flyer22 (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am here from WikiProject Medicine. Distinguishing nuance among the terms listed is not easy. In one sense they are equivalent and in another they are different, depending on the level of detail required. I suppose the least surprising thing to do would be to only distinguish terms which have their own standalone Wikipedia articles, and to say that any time without its own article must be equivalent for the purposes of the article lead to the subject of the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• In the first sentence we should state "Domestic violence (also domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence and intimate partner violence)" as we do. In the definitions section we can then discuss how some use them the same and others use them slightly differently. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Bluerasberry and Jmh649 (Doc James). Both of your approaches are reasonable. I obviously prefer Jmh649's approach, but I can be fine with leaving "intimate partner violence" out of the parentheses of the first sentence, since it is addressed/linked to in the same paragraph; however, since it is domestic violence, I don't think that we should refer to it as simply closely related to domestic violence. Like I stated above, domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence and intimate partner violence are all domestic violence; it's also why I think that the heading Domestic violence should be first in the Definitions section. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• IMO Flyer22's ideas on this are a complete nonsense. We have half a dozen related terms which obviously overlap each other like as with a Venn diagram - so obviously in quite a few contexts they can be used interchangeably but not all contexts. There is no reason why we should pretend that the terms mean the same thing. It is fairly arbitrary selecting "domestic violence" as the article's name. There is a separate article for intimate partner violence anyway. I think the Domestic_violence#Definitions section as it is laid out is very helpful in explaining that for three of the terms the critical point to explain is it is a matter of increasing scope with "family violence" having the largest scope and it incorporates everything else. It is wrong to put "the term "domestic violence" on a pedestal. I am not advocating it but there is a case for calling this article "family violence" as it is the most inclusive expression in this domain. We also have the confusing use of the word "violence" in favour of "abuse" to include non-physical violence but that is a slightly different issue.--Penbat (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing that is complete nonsense about what I have stated above. You are treating domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence and intimate partner violence as though they are distinct from domestic violence, and that view generally does not hold up when comparing WP:Reliable sources on the matter, especially as far as comparing the term domestic violence to domestic abuse goes in WP:Reliable sources; and not only does the article's Definitions section currently show that, so do an abundance of WP:Reliable sources...easily found on Google Books and Google Scholar. Needless to state, this fact is all in the literature concerning domestic violence/domestic abuse. This is also the reason that creating articles for domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering and family violence would be unnecessary WP:Content forks. The Intimate partner violence article is not even really needed, and that material could be sufficiently covered in the Domestic violence article, especially since so much of domestic violence is intimate partner violence, and since there is quite a lot that could be validly cut from the Domestic violence article. Different types of domestic violence are still domestic violence; that is my point. And I already addressed the "title of the article" matter above (we go by the WP:Common name policy), and that the term violence is not limited to physical violence (not consistently at least); that the term violence is not limited in that way is clear by how domestic violence and sexual violence are broadly defined. If you want to compare sources on these matters, I would be open to doing that. And perhaps Bluerasberry and Jmh649 (Doc James) would be as well. We can also start a WP:RfC on one or more of these matters.

On a side note: There is no need to ping me to this discussion via WP:Echo since this article/talk page is on my WP:Watchlist. The only reason that I pinged you above is so that others can click on your username and get a sense of who you are as an editor, if they are not already familiar with you as an editor. I also want to point out that I respect you as an editor, and I don't mean to upset you. You do good work for the psychology corner of Wikipedia, and there is no other Wikipedia editor as prolific in that corner as you are. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the view that these terms ideally should be distinguished. Practically, though, I feel that they should not be distinguished in a definition until and unless they can be distinguished with a more detailed explanation and backing in sources. The terms are close enough that it is not incorrect to say they are all the same thing, even if it would be most correct to differentiate them. However, I could never ask anyone to make new Wikipedia articles on such a nuanced topic when I would expect even most of the sources cited usually group these things together except when it is useful to deconstruct the terms. Penbat is out of line for saying the ideas are nonsense because they ideas are good, and sometimes differentiation is useful. Without finding sources which define and distinguish these terms and presenting the parts of these concepts which do not overlap, though, as a practical way of presenting something close enough then saying they are the same is good enough until someone does the work to make a solid case that they are different. With taboo topics like this which are not well discussed anywhere and hardly at all internationally (and I see the thorough sourcing - I know a lot is here, but there could be even more) I am not sure if it is worth the time and effort to make these kinds of distinctions when it is so hard to explain differences. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting view, Bluerasberry (pinging you again via WP:Echo because I don't know if you currently have this talk page WP:Watchlisted), that you feel that these terms should ideally be distinguished but that they generally cannot be practically distinguished. I obviously agree with you that trying to distinguish them is not easy, but I can't think of how they could ideally be distinguished, since domestic violence and domestic abuse are very much synonyms and since the other terms are types of domestic violence. I can understand those other terms being distinguished in the fact that they are not domestic violence as a whole and, as stated, instead refer to specific types of domestic violence, but I don't see any distinguishing them beyond that. And battering, like the term violence, is also not a word that only covers physical violence; it covers emotional abuse as well. Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: Bluerasberry and Jmh649 (Doc James), with this edit, Ewawer (Enthusiast) moved "intimate partner violence" out of the first sentence. I'm okay with that, since that term has its own Wikipedia article, but it's still a fact that, as stated above, the term is often used interchangeably with the term domestic violence, and, when people state "domestic violence," it is usually intimate partner violence that they are referring to. I, however, disagree with this edit by Ewawer, which moved mention of intimate partner violence out of the lead; the reason that I gave for reverting is: "[It] should be mentioned in the lead; the lead summarizes the article. And that term is often used interchangeably with 'domestic violence,' as noted lower." Ewawer reverted, stating, "I am try to unclutter the intro." And I reverted once again, adding, "lead material is lead material; it's as simple as that, per WP:LEAD." Flyer22 (talk) 07:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with "intimate partner violence" in the lead? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 Ewawer I put it back. They are often the same, right? If not explain here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

If these terms are used interchangeably, then that is an argument for merging the two articles. Alternatively, the IPV article could be renamed "Intimate terrorism", which is what most of that article is about. Enthusiast (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, Jmh649 (Doc James) and Ewawer (Enthusiast): One point that has been made above is that some of these terms are more interchangeable than others; a few of them (intimate partner violence, spousal abuse and family violence) are aspects of domestic violence, and so are not used as interchangeably as the others. As already noted above, we have the Definitions section for clarification. Bluerasberry, I saw your aforementioned change here, and I tweaked it. Whether intimate partner violence is mentioned in the first sentence or not, I don't mind too much as long as it's mentioned in the lead. Ewawer, as for renaming, like I told you in the edit history of the Intimate partner violence article (seen here and here), intimate terrorism is an aspect of intimate partner violence. Since that article is not solely about intimate terrorism, I don't think, under that circumstance, that your rename proposal is what is best. If there is enough content for that article to be solely about intimate terrorism, then I suppose we could have that article be simply about that, and then leave the Domestic violence article to address intimate partner violence in general. As for merging... Above, I did suggest that the Domestic violence article can sufficiently cover intimate partner violence. But then again, look at how big the Domestic violence article already is; it currently has hidden aspects to its WP:TOC (table of contents) because of its length. Still, domestic violence is usually about intimate partner violence; the Domestic violence article is mostly about that, which makes the Intimate partner violence article seem wholly redundant. One article that definitely needs merging is the Sexual violence by intimate partners article that you recently edited; that is an unnecessary WP:Content fork of the intimate partner violence topic, and it should be merged with the Intimate partner violence article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I would even go further. Article Domestic violence against men contains a large amount of material on "gender symmetry", which really belongs to the general Domestic violence article. I'm reluctant to say that that material should be moved over as it would make this article unmanageably longer, but the fact remains that it is not strictly relating only to violence against men. Enthusiast (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The Gender aspects section (meaning its subsections included) of the Domestic violence article also addresses the gender symmetry topic. Thing is...when domestic violence against men is addressed, the topic of gender symmetry is usually an aspect because so much of the domestic violence topic focuses on women being victims. The gender symmetry aspect is the argument that domestic violence is not as one-sided as the general research on domestic violence leads people to believe. That's why the lead of the Domestic violence against men article currently states: "IPV against men is a controversial area of research, with terms such as 'gender symmetry', 'battered husband syndrome' and 'bidirectional IPV' provoking a great deal of debate. One of the main tools used to find statistical evidence of male victims of IPV, the conflict tactics scale, has been heavily criticized, and just as heavily defended." Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

So, yeah, Ewawer (Enthusiast), seeing you edit that article moments ago, I think you're going to have to be careful editing that topic or any gender symmetry topic. For this discussion, this is my last time pinging you to this talk page, as I assume it's either on your WP:Watchlist or you'll otherwise check back here if you want to read replies. That stated, I might ping you to this talk page in the future if it seems needed to me. Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Biased claims in the lede

I removed this from the lede: "Whereas women who experience domestic violence are openly encouraged to report it to the authorities, it has been argued that domestic violence against men is most often unreported because of social pressure against such reporting, with those that do facing social stigma regarding their perceived lack of machismo and other denigrations of their masculinity.[1][2]"

"Whereas women who experience domestic violence are openly encouraged to report" does not reflect a global point of view. Women may be openly encouraged to report DV in some Western countries, but they certainly are not in most parts of the world. In some parts of the world women can't even legally leave the home without their male guardian (who is often their abuser).

The paragraph was biased and inappropriate for the lede, at least in its current form.2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C3C8 (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust the wording rather than remove. Governement of Canada is a decent source [32]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how it should be adjusted, but the paragraph can't stay in its current form (IMO). The source suggested above by Doc James (talk · contribs · email) - [33] deals primarily with Canada and the US, so it's not very useful for the issue of global context, which is the problem here. Not to say that the document is merely the opinion of its authors: the document itself reads (on the last page):[34]: "Intimate Partner Abuse against Men was prepared by Dr. Eugen Lupri and Dr. Elaine Grandin for the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence. (...) The opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Clearinghouse on Family Violence, Public Health Agency of Canada" so WP:UNDUE must be taken into account if this source is used. 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C3C8 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert/scholar. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated person for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Gender of victims

There seems to be a lot POV pushing around this issue, so this is important to note: in 1993, the UN published Strategies for Confronting Domestic Violence - A Resource Manual, and it says this, at page 4 ( at note ** down the page):[35]

"There is some controversy about the extent to which husbands are victims of violence in their own homes. Most writers in the area of domestic violence have found that although some women may be violent towards their husbands, the violence is not as common as violence against wives: Women are usually acting in self defence. Their violence is rarely repeated and does not cause injury. Also, in households where the husband has been attacked, he does not live in a state of fear."

It is important to understand that on Wikipedia, when we write articles, we report what sources say, we do not search for the "truth".2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:50C:7134 (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality Issue...Citation GREATLY lacking...

This page reads like someone's paper...Not like an encyclopedia page...This is written with the underlying point that it's "accepted by society" and tries to blame different aspects society for it's existence...

I'm simply going to start with one neutrality issue...As I believe it's the most prominant example:

""Disobeying" a husband can often result in violence. These violent acts are not considered a form of abuse by society (both men and women) but are considered to have been provoked by the behavior of the wife, who is seen as being at fault..."

This is not cited... It NEEDS to be if it's going to be presented... Disobeying should not be in quotation marks... You CANNOT say "[it's] not considered a form of abuse by society (both men and women)" because that's not cccurate... You cannot group all people into "society" when that simply isn't accurate... By the mere fact that I consider it to be a form of abuse her claim is now false...

On another note, this page lacks considerable citations...Each of their separate points seems to rely on an individual source...

from that logic I could write a section based around what "Bill from Accounting" said...

UsernameTBD (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree on the neutrality issue. Especially with regards to the section Violence against women. Something concrete:

"Although the exact rates are widely disputed, especially within the United States, there is a large body of cross-cultural evidence that women are subjected to domestic violence significantly more often than men. In addition, there is broad consensus that women are more often subjected to severe forms of abuse and are more likely to be injured by an abusive partner."

One of the given sources is given in the Wikipedia article on intimate violence as source for this topic being controversial, followed by a pretty clear statement:

"Numerous other empirical studies since 1975 suggest there is evidence for it [the symmetry between violence perpetuated by men and women]."

, i.e. no cross-cultural evidence and no consensus.

Here a relatively new and useful study/source to offer: http://equalitycanada.com/cause/violenceagainstmen/ and one quote:

"In Canada more women than men report being pushed, shoved or slapped while more men than women report being kicked, bit, or hit with something."

contradiction (?). I think we can agree that this is an emotional loaded dispute and we need more evidence/studies and someone with a NPOV to improve this articleCitogenitor^{[talk needed]} 15:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of studies showing gender symmetry, but those studies suffer from three major problems. Most of them are studies of dating college students, not broad surveys with diverse demographics. Most of them were conducted in the US or UK, and thus predominantly reflect the cultures in those countries. Most of them use the Conflict Tactics Scale, which doesn't include sexual violence, but does include self-defense as a form of domestic violence. This is why it's important that we look at secondary and tertiary sources, rather than primary sources. Sources such as textbooks and NGO reports are going to carry the most weight as references for Wikipedia, and these sources currently do not support the gender symmetry argument. (And even proponents of the gender symmetry argument, such as Murray Strauss, acknowledge that women are more often subjected to extreme forms of domestic violence.) Kaldari (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Seriously?

TWELVE percent of SWISS women suffered sexual abuse? Seriously? That's encyclopedic statistics? Based on a Penguin book? In my modest vocabulary that is called typical feminist BS. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. Unfortunately, the expert who had agreed to review had to decline later on. Our first call for community review was already 6 months ago and since then the article has changed quite a lot. We have identified another expert to help review the article. We would like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before October 31, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! --Anthere (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Claim about male self overestimating

User:Antizepho added the following sentence to the "Gender aspects" section: "However, Straus, designer of the conflict tactics scale (CTS), argues the opposite; that men underestimate their partner's violence and overestimate their own." This was cited to two papers by Straus. Both papers seem to say the opposite of what they are being cited for. The first paper says "Most studies have shown little difference in prevalence rates reported by males and females (Archel; 2000). However, enough studies have shown a tendency for males to underreport both perpetration and victimization to make it desirable to test both partners or if that is not possible, to exercise caution in conclusions based on the report of only one partner." The second paper says "In addition, a meta-analysis (Archer 1999) found that although both men and women underreport, the extent of underreporting is greater for men." This seems to be a serious mis-representation of the sources. Kaldari (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, judging by that edit (which I tweaked and commented on) and this one (which I tweaked and commented on) at the Domestic violence in lesbian relationships article, it appears that Antizepho (talk · contribs) wants to drive home the notion that women are more violent than men. As you know, we get these types of editors from time to time, which is why portions of this article have been placed on article probation: Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. I don't think that Antizepho is a new Wikipedia editor (at least not a completely new one), but he is obviously more than free to explain himself here at this talk page. And it's obviously good that you tackled this matter and fixed this other one. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22: Hello. I added this because it was the same on a different Wikipedia page on the same topic (the claim followed by the counter-claim), and on this page there was only the initial claim, so I thought added the Straus mention was a good idea. I admit I assumed the sources supported the claim but did not check. I don't try to "drive the point that women are more violent than men", I ended up on Wikipedia after reading the CDC's report and felt it was important and relevant to mention the recent findings since they are so counter-intuitive. Thanks User:Kaldari for fixing it, I apologize for the mistake. I'll probably refrain from further posting to Wikipedia from now on, It sounds like too much work (good on you for doing it). Oh and by the way, since the sources don't support the claim that men over-report then there's another page (I can't remember which one) where the mistake still exists, I don't know if Wikipedia provides a tool that would help finding where. Antizepho (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Antizepho (talk · contribs), when you stated "I added this" above, you must have been only talking about the edit Kaldari reverted. Either way, your edits to two different articles under the Antizepho account thus far seem to focus on painting women as the more abusive gender/men as the more victimized gender, which is at odds with what the literature on domestic violence usually reports. That type of editing always gives me pause because it's usually always coming from a specific type of editor, the type Wikipedia has repeatedly sanctioned. And the format of your reply to me has further convinced that you are not a complete WP:Newbie. But I'm not heavily concerned about this matter, and at least you took the time to reply. Flyer22 (talk) 13:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Antizepho is correct. The claim was originally in the Domestic violence against men article, which is full of misinformation. Kaldari (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

How is the article full of misinformation? Does not seem to be misinformation but quite accurate. Interested if you could objectively qualify your statement?Charlotte135 (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte135 (talk · contribs), this addition you made is not WP:Lead material, and I will be removing it unless you can provide a valid reason for why that statistic should remain in the lead, which is meant to summarize the article. And, as you know, I reverted you here, with a followup note about a previous edit you made. You then re-added the material, and I reverted again. This is not the right article to pushing your WP:Valid violations. No Wikipedia article is. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Calm down flyer and be civil. Give me a day and I will provide a source. Don't just delete valid referenced inclusions please. Also you state DV is a gender issue? Why would you say that? Clearly it is not a gender issue.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A fluffy media report about claims made "by the men's rights campaign group Parity" does not satisfy WP:RS for edits which seek to overturn conventional (and sourced) understanding of a topic. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This statistic was reported over a 6 year period by the Home office? What are you talking about? In fact it is often higher than 40%!Charlotte135 (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte135 (talk · contribs), you talk like you are familiar with me. Usually, only those who have interacted with me for a significant amount of time call me "Flyer" as opposed to "Flyer22." Perhaps you know of my frustration regarding editors violating the WP:Neutral policy (including WP:Valid) and other policies all just to present men and women as equally affected by domestic violence? I obviously alluded to that frustration above. Either way, I replied to you at my talk page regarding your editing and the issue of domestic violence being a gender issue. The Gender aspects section of the article and the article as a whole are quite clear that domestic violence is a gender issue. Flyer22 (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I dont know you flyer22! This is not personal. Just trying to represent the 30-50% of men that are also affected by DV. I have changed the wording to appease you both. The current wording seems biased and very much underestimates the large numbers of men also affected by DV. Is this OK?Charlotte135 (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we introduce some actual stats from around the world to support the absolute fact that if at least a third of DV cases are women against men? for neutral point of view?Charlotte135 (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte135 (talk · contribs), being familiar with me is not the same thing as knowing me. The statistic you added will be removed from the lead because not only is it not WP:Lead material, the statistics for domestic violence vary. The current lead is not biased to those who actually adhere to the WP:Due weight policy. The section and other parts of the article have your answer for why the lead is clear that "Globally, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of domestic violence." And because the lead states "although the victim can also be the male partner, or both partners may engage in abusive or violent behavior", your addition about domestic violence affecting both genders is unnecessary/redundant. Flyer22 (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Any reasons we cannot introduce some statistics? to represent the significant percentage of men affected, particularly given the huge under reporting by men in western societies. Please don't remove referenced material either I dont want to edit war. Lets seek some dispute resolution instead. Seem fair flyer 22?Charlotte135 (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed, per what I stated above. Flyer22 (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, you ignored my sincere option of dispute resolution and prefer to edit war it seems. I wont partake in edit warring. Will report it instead. Any response to my questions. currently this paragraph is extremely biased! Charlotte135 (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

If I ignored you, you ignored me, including what I stated about the WP:Due weight policy; you clearly do not comprehend that policy. Feel free to take the matter to dispute resolution; I will not be joining you there unless necessary. My sources would be head-over-heels superior to yours anyway. Also feel free to report me for reverting you. Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Double gosh!! You saying "My sources would be head-over-heels superior to yours anyway." seems a little bit demeaning and belittling to me! Will you apologize please?Charlotte135 (talk) 04:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

This edit also shows that you shouldn't be editing this article, at least in the way you've been editing it. Do you not see the 2013 review (which men's rights activists love to cite) in the Gender aspects section? It states, "if one looks at who is physically harmed and how seriously, who expresses more fear, who has psychological problems following abuse, domestic violence is significantly gendered and women suffer the most; however, going by their broader paradigm, 'partner abuse can no longer be conceived as merely a gender problem, but also (and perhaps primarily) as a human and relational problem, and should be framed as such by everyone concerned.'" Various WP:Reliable sources are clear that women are the more injured gender. How many such sources should I list here at this talk page for you to get the point on that? Flyer22 (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Triple gosh!!!! What type of violence? You are focusing on physical violence! What about all the other types of Domesti9c Violence! That hand picked quote is biased and focuses on physical violence to the detriment of all other forms! Again I probably didnt see the mensrights article because I am not coming from a mens rights perspective! for the last time!Charlotte135 (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It is well-acknowledged in the literature that women are more physically harmed by domestic violence than men are, especially in heterosexual relationships; the source was reporting on that aspect in addition to other material. Common sense should tell you that we are supposed to report on that aspect in the article, and we clearly do elsewhere in the article, including with the aforementioned 2013 review. You removed the quoted material on a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT basis, all to further your goal to make it seem like men and women are equally affected by domestic violence with no known differences. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the sentence and statistic is talking about all forms of DV not just physical....."indicated that rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women." ... Domestic violence can take a number of forms Flyer 22, as you obviously know, including physical, verbal, emotional, economic and sexual abuse why are you focusing on physical violence? that sentence is talking about all forms of DV not just physical. Why then would we include an abstract quote about physical violence and men being bigger? Why are you so focused on the physical? Lets keep this article about all forms of DV balanced please flyer 22. sound fair?Charlotte135 (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm tired of responding to you. It's like you fail to grasp everything. For example, I am not "so focused on the physical." You are wasting my time. I care not that you consider my tone non-WP:Civil; it is what it is. Flyer22 (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please dont keep making this personal flyer22, and just focus on editing wikipedia please. Obviously my edits are sound and based on logic and policy not feminism or mensrights. Anyone can read my reasoning for this edit outlined clearly above.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

In what way are your edits based on policy? You do not understand Wikipedia policy. You cite it, yes, but that is because you are not a WP:Newbie. And do spare me any claim that you are entirely new to editing Wikipedia; you are not. You can also drop the "Flyer22" bit; we both know you simply want to call me "Flyer." Anyway, all inappropriate edits you make to this site will eventually be reverted. Like I stated, you are wasting my time, including by requesting a citation for this bit. That is already sourced lower in the article. Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead does not necessarily need to be sourced if the content is sourced lower in the article. If I am making anything personal, it's because I am focused on your editing, which leaves much to be desired. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and sourced the text anyway. It clearly needs it since certain types of editors will keep challenging it. Flyer22 (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Typo fix here. Flyer22 (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

We should not be citing any statistics in the lead. The lead is a summary of the article, not a place to cite specific claims or counterclaims. Kaldari (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Kaldari, I'm not sure if you mean prevalence information shouldn't be in the lead at all, or if you simply mean specific percentage data. But it's common for prevalence information to be in the lead (including in our medical articles, such as Cancer or Autism), especially if it's summarizing a significant aspect of the topic. As you know, domestic violence disproportionately affecting women is a significant aspect of the topic, and this is clear by the vast majority of the literature on domestic violence concerning women/noting domestic violence against women as a more immediate concern. Readers should know of this in the introduction, which is commonly the only part of a Wikipedia article that readers read. Similarly, the part about domestic violence against men should also remain in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean statistical data from specific studies, not general prevalence information. The lead should paint in broad strokes, which could include generalized trends (as long as they are backed up in the article body). Kaldari (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Archer source taken to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard

For those interested, Charlotte135 took the aforementioned Archer source to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard without alerting this talk page to the matter; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Domestic Violence article. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Didn't want to edit war Flyer22reborn. Another editor advised me of this option, which I appreciated, and followed their objective advice. I also want the larger community to decide, and would rather go through the proper dispute resolution channels on Wikipedia, than be entangled in an edit war with such an experienced editor as you or anyone in the future for that matter. I refuse to do that. I'm sorry. I also genuinely did not realise I was meant to put it here first.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that states you had to alert this talk page to the matter; it's just that I feel that it would have been courteous and more productive if you had. Otherwise, it's similar to WP:OTHERPARENT, and makes it seem as though editors at that noticeboard get to decide what editors here should do...without editors here having known that such a decision was being made. It also deprives the noticeboard editors the context of the dispute. That stated, the top of that noticeboard states, "While we attempt to offer a second opinion, and the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, the above RfC is about the Scientific American as a source. What Charlotte brought to RSN is the Archer study itself - a result of you reverting her attempt to add it to the article, I'm sure. This is not forumshoppimg as you suggest. I mentioned to her above that the RfC was only about the SA article and that there were other venues, including RSN, where she could address the Archer article. I see her RSN post as a proper way to get community input and avoid edit warring. Best .. Minor4th 15:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You clearly do not grasp my initial comment in this section, including the part where I stated "similar to WP:OTHERPARENT", not "is WP:OTHERPARENT." So I see no need to state anything more to you on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

And, as a reminder, Charlotte135 asked about that source at this talk page first (as seen in the #Discussion section above). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

How best to incorporate significant viewpoints into lead of article?

"There is increasing evidence to suggest that women commit as much or more IPV as men" Trauma Violence Abuse. 2008 Oct; 9(4): 227–249.

How can these significant viewpoints that have been published by verifiable sources be integrated into this article's lead? I have asked the question here so as to avoid any possibility of edit warring and to discuss in a civil, respectful manner. Thanks. Charlotte135 (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: With regard to the above question in this section, I've been thoroughly over this matter with Charlotte135, mainly regarding this Archer piece. And as thoroughly noted in this discussion (that's a WP:Permalink) at the WP:MEDRS talk page, there are different aspects of intimate partner violence (IPV), and most of its aspects point to men committing IPV more than women committing IPV...and women more often being victims of IPV. That discussion was started by WhatamIdoing, in an effort to address CFCF. WhatamIdoing's statements in that section were clear that IPV applies more to women as victims than to men as victims, and more to men as the perpetrators. She gave ideas for reporting on gender symmetry in the article, with WP:Due weight. In other words, so that we are careful not to give it the same weight as the majority viewpoint/aspect. She perhaps has ideas for reporting on it in the lead. If it is included in the lead, the lead should also be clear that gender symmetry is highly disputed, and briefly note why it is. In that aforementioned discussion, I listed sources that note/explain why it is. I don't think it should be formatted like the current final paragraph of the Domestic violence against men article, especially since the Domestic violence article doesn't yet address all of that. The main article addressing all of that is the Domestic violence against men article, and WhatamIdoing and I are in agreement that the Domestic violence article should not go into too much detail about the gender symmetry debate. On a side note: For those needing reminders about the non-lead material on this matter, gender symmetry is addressed in the General and Violence against men subsections of the Gender aspects section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Flyer22reborn. This extensive 2008 review is another quality scientific journal article dedicated to these types of societal issues. Over 60 studies were reviewed. It is not the authour's POV - it is a review. The same applies to the 2000 Anderson review. It is not Anderson's POV either. Its a review. And it is far from being a fringe view at that. It is a very significant viewpoint covered in many primary and secondary sources. I'm neutral either way to be honest and am certainly not part of any mens rights group, or whatever, as a number of other more experienced editors have been falsely accused of, simply for pointing out the exact same points here as I am, and insisting we balance this article with this significant viewpoint presented in many reliable sources. This is not a news or magazine article, or press release, where there is wide editorial freedom to omit significant viewpoints, this is a Wikipedia article. You are right though Flyer22, that these issues are currently discussed in the body of the article. Therefore it has a rightful (higher) place to balance the current comment that "globally women are...." Otherwise, we as Wikipedia editors, are not applying due weight and a NPOV, as we are instructed to do in all articles.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: None of what Charlotte135 stated in the "12:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)" post has anything to do with what I stated in this section. And given what I stated in the aforementioned WP:MEDRS discussion, it is best that I do not directly communicate with Charlotte135; any time I discuss something with Charlotte135, it results in the same back and forth, and a misrepresentation of my views. I do not think Charlotte135 understands WP:Neutral/WP:Due weight (or WP:Lead, for that matter), and my feelings on Charlotte135 trying to "balance the article" have been made well-known. I know what the literature on domestic violence generally shows. The "globally women are...." sentence is the mainstream statement on domestic violence, a statement that is also supported by the World Health Organization (years ago and currently); it does not need to be balanced with the minority viewpoint (gender symmetry), especially when gender symmetry covers different types of IPV and even sources that find gender symmetry are clear that women are worse off with regard to IPV...for a number of reasons. Again, see the aforementioned discussion with WhatamIdoing. The "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." sentence is stating a fact, not one side of some big dispute. It is stating something that is not even disputed by the gender symmetry scholars. Nowhere in the domestic violence literature is the following supported: "Globally, a husband or male partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." If Charlotte135 keeps attempting to falsely balance this article without the awareness granted to more experienced editors such as myself or WhatamIdoing with regard to the correct way things are supposed to be balanced, I'll leave the matter up to others to deal with and I will likely take this article off my WP:Watchlist. I am not interested in trying to educate those who refuse to be educated. And, in this case, I am not interested in dealing with problematic editing mainly by my lonesome. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Also see what I stated in the #Info/study removed section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see my reply at the bottom of this page.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Info/study removed

I am removing this study [36] from the article. It is far from anything significant enough to include here. Can anyone really believe that a "check the box" questionnaire sent out to 1000 people living in England is adequate to establish the conclusions of this, what I can only call "so called" study? This reply puts it quite well:

limitations of study mainly concern lack of ecological validity and overstating the findings, possibility that women simply admit more then men in a questionnaire response (i.e. more honest), student responses are likely to be different from domestic violence relationships (i.e. dynamics and patterns involved - here a static measure), using a scale is far removed from anything to do with patriarchy and actually the opposite of what has been concluded here might play a part (as in more admission from women, possibly exaggeration), this extremely limited study being seen as important enough to be discussed in the press is slightly embarrassing for the psychology profession ... Gandydancer (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not add this referenced material to the article, but the British Psychological Society who conducted the study are an extremely reputable organisation with an expertise in empirical research. The 2014 study should remain and I reverted the deletion. We can certainly discuss your points of view here though Gandydancer as to why you think it should be deleted?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it was not done by the BPS, it was done by one researcher who used a questionnaire to gain her information and presented as one of several lectures at the annual BPS symposium. It should not be used to refute findings of most of the research that we present here per guidelines for medical articles. Please show me a guideline that would permit this very minor study. Gandydancer (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

http://www.bps.org.uk/news/women-more-aggressive-partners-men Quoting from the British Psychological Society "The findings showed that women were more likely to be physically aggressive to their partners than men and that men were more likely to be physically aggressive to their same-sex others. Furthermore, women engaged in significantly higher levels of controlling behaviour than men, which significantly predicted physical aggression in both sexes." These findings support what large meta-analyses and reviews have consistently shown. And after all the drama discussing DV and MEDRS of late, my understanding is that there certainly was no outcome and no consensus.Charlotte135 (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It is my understanding that "large meta-analyses and reviews have consistently shown" these findings is not correct, however perhaps I am out of touch with current information. I have not been following what you refer to as the drama, so perhaps I will need to bring it to the community for feedback. I'll wait to see if anyone else makes any comments here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, see my "03:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)" post in the #Domestic violence affects both genders and children section above. The British Psychological Society material was added by a gender symmetry POV-pushing IP; see this link. I moved the content down to the "Violence against men" section sometime back. And as this discussion shows, Charlotte135 stating that "These findings support what large meta-analyses and reviews have consistently shown." is inaccurate. Charlotte135 keeps acting like there is consensus for gender symmetry; there isn't, especially as far as physical (including sexual) IPV goes. The literature generally supports men committing IPV more than women, and women being the victims of IPV more than men, while gender symmetry continues to be debated. And I continue to forgo directly responding to Charlotte135, per what I stated in #How best to incorporate significant viewpoints into lead of article? the section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

And especially note the sample bias in any of the meta-analyses that Charlotte135 cites; for example, if anything, this Archer text, should be framed in the context of its sample bias. By contrast, the World Health Organization (WHO), which examines domestic violence cross-culturally, consistently finds that men are more often than women the perpetrators of IPV and that women are more often than men the victims of IPV. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No Flyer 22 reborn, there are so many reliable sources which support this significant viewpoint it is getting ridiculous, and all you keep doing is trying to prevent such reliable sources being added for some reason? And you know darn well I am now talking about the 2008 high quality meta-analyses/critical review Why would you want to keep excluding these significant viewpoints from so many reliable sources? "There is increasing evidence to suggest that women commit as much or more IPV as men" Trauma Violence Abuse. 2008 Oct; 9(4): 227–249. "This article titled Female Perpetration of Violence in Heterosexual Intimate Relationships Adolescence Through Adulthood critically reviews 62 empirical studies that examine the prevalence of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence across three distinct populations (adolescents, college students, and adults). All studies were published between 1996 and 2006 and reported prevalence rates of physical, emotional, and/or sexual violence perpetrated by females in heterosexual intimate relationships." Charlotte135 (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I realise my 2008 metaanalyses/critical review source directly above, is reliable, and I will now add it to the article page when I get a chance. However I am not so sure about the 2014 British Psychological Society article, added a number of months ago by another IP address editor. I thought it best to post to the reliable sources noticeboard, rather than revert, and get anywhere near an edit war over an edit another editor made, months ago! Posted this here as a courtesy to other editors on this page.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Again, anyone wanting to know my views on this matter can see this discussion, where I pointed to the ways that Charlotte135 misrepresents my views (for example, acting like I am some raging feminist trying to take a political stance), and what I've stated above on this talk page. It is not productive for me to engage an editor who continually misrepresents my views, even after being told what they are, and refuses to understand and adhere to the WP:Neutral/WP:Due weight policy. Charlotte135, for some reason, thinks that a number of scholars supporting the gender symmetry viewpoint negates the number of scholars who don't support it. Charlotte135, for some reason, thinks that gender symmetry should be given the same weight as the mainstream viewpoint/aspect that consistently finds that men are more often than women the perpetrators of IPV and that women are more often than men the victims of IPV. Charlotte135, for some reason, is eager to add that 2008 material while negating sources presented by me (and Doc James) in the #Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included? section above, or the sources I presented in the other discussion, where WhatamIdoing (I already WP:Pinged her above) made it clear that IPV applies more to women as victims than to men as victims, and more to men as the perpetrators. Charlotte135, for some reason, is eager to add that 2008 material in order to state "There is increasing evidence to suggest that women commit as much or more IPV as men.", even though there are different forms of IPV, and even scholars who support the gender symmetry viewpoint note that women are victims of IPV more than men are in different ways. Charlotte135, for some reason, wants to add that biased text to the lead, when it is vague and conflicts with various other WP:Reliable sources, and leaves out the counterargument. And this is why I, for reasons I've already noted, will do what I can to avoid engaging Charlotte135. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22reborn that is total and utter nonsense, and you know it. Please stop it and focus on content only, not me, or other good faith editors you attack, accuse and bully. And I am completely neutral as an editor on this topic, to be honest. I did not say or believe that "....a number of scholars supporting what these reliable sources all say, negates the number of scholars who don't support it." Utter nonsense. Please don't put words in my mouth. Nor do I think that the reliable sources provided directly above like the 2008 metaanalyses/critical review source, should be given the same weight as other opposing viewpoints.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

To get back on track, the information that has been removed: "A 2014 study of intimate partner violence by the British Psychological Society concluded that women are more likely to be physically aggressive in domestic scenarios than men." was not done by BPS but by a researcher who presented it at their yearly symposium. It consisted of a questionnaire sent out 1100 students with a "circle the best answer" type of format. It does not appear to have been peer reviewed or to have appeared in a medical journal. Just that should be enough to rule it out, but looking for info that agrees with the findings re physical violence, I'm not finding it. Per guidelines we don't use a lesser study to refute well sourced information. It should no be in this article. Gandydancer (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus rules. Kind of agree with comments above and there are certainly better secondary sources than this primary source. I do wonder though why other primary sources remain in this article, but anyway.Charlotte135 (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Which primary sources are you referring to? Gandydancer (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

We should generally avoid any statements like "A study showed that...", unless the study is extremely notable, i.e. a major U.N. or government study. We could list hundreds of competing conclusions of primary sources (along with their limitations), but it wouldn't build a better article for our readers. There are countless secondary sources about domestic violence, so let's focus on using those. Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)