Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Burn it. Burn it till we see Savannah. Burn it till we touch the sea.

Ok. Well. I've gone from punctuation, to trimming wording and sentences, to blanking whole sections. So far no one's flipped out...surprisingly. Maybe that's a sign of the kind of shape the article was is. Maybe that's a sign of how few people care. Maybe both.

So here goes. I'm chunking probably 10% of the article.

A lot of this can probably be reinserted in appropriate places. I don't know yet. It's too much to do at once. And if the process starts piece meal the sections are going to make no sense. I did this kind of reintegration with small sections, but this is too much. Unless it's taken out all together, the article will get much worse and make much less sense before it gets better.

This is probably going to nuke named refs. But that's a process in and of itself. Actually no, it wasn't that bad.

Simply put, none of this belongs were it's at. "Gender aspects" is not a form of DV. None of this is. I could just copypaste into Influences and Factors, but that section is already vague and bloated with tangentially related, small, questionable sections, and that would only make the problem worse.

So either help me sort it all out, fuck off, or go ahead and report me to ANI so we can get it over with and we can get on with improving the article. Sorry, but spring cleaning is a nasty process (apologies to anyone in the southern hemisphere). Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you cut so much of the below material, but a lot that should be restored. Gender aspects are an essential piece to domestic violence; this is made explicitly clear in the sources. As for them being a form of domestic violence, it was likely labeled that way because domestic violence against women, domestic violence against men, domestic violence in adolescent and young adult relationships, and domestic violence in same-sex relationships are aspects of domestic violence. Some would call these aspects "forms domestic violence." I am going to restore the material, as its own section, and we can work out here on the talk page what should be cut. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, with this edit, I restored the Gender aspects material, but not to its own section. It fits in the Influences and factors section, and, in my opinion, it should come right after the Social views section; so that's where I placed it. My problem now is that I see some redundancy there. The Social views section addresses gender aspects by talking about women not being seen as equal to men, etc. So we should perhaps cut some of that, and move the relevant, non-redundant material to the Violence against women subsection. I also see that you struck through some pieces below. Perhaps you won't mind explaining why we should discard those pieces? Well, I gather that you struck through "Intimate partner violence types: Johnson's Typology" because intimate partner violence has its own article. I understand that, and that's why I didn't restore that section, but the vast majority of the domestic violence literature is about intimate partner violence anyway, which is why there has been talk of merging the Intimate partner violence article with the Domestic violence article. Also, that section is linked from the Intimate partner violence article and from the Michael P. Johnson article; so if we are not going to keep that section, we should de-link it in those articles.

I also restored the Cycle of abuse section, since it directly relates to domestic violence. I don't think it needs its own section, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I began striking sections to try to keep track of what I had incorporated back in the article already. By "stricken for inclusion" I meant, "stricken due to already having been included again." I have changed the parenthetical to "reincorped".

I struck a couple of sections because they were off topic, like the Johnson section, which dealt exclusively with IPV, was covered in better detail in the IPV article, and so didn't need more than maybe casual mentioning in DV. Each strike should have accompanying parenthetical notes. I would appreciate it if you could indicate somehow below what you have reincorporated. I'm not saying this is orthodox at all, I'm just trying to find some way to organize it as it's done, and to know when each section has been discarded/cannibalized/reinserted.

I'm not saying that all of this needs to be cut out of the article. As I said above, my objective was to sort it all out from the talk so I didn't have half deleted, mangled sections hanging out on the live article as they were being moved and dissected. If I thought it all needed to be deleted, I would have deleted it.

As it stands, the influences and factors section is meaningless. It's a catch all for every random thing anyone could think to write about. It has no order at all and no continuity of purpose. Again, as I said above, I could have copypasted this all into I&F, meaningless as it is, but I wanted to avoid, as much as possible, the article being more disorganized before it gets less.

The question of IPV merger should be tabled until all this is done. Timothyjosephwood (talk)

I'd read what you stated about deleting the material, but I still don't see that the vast majority of it needed deleting. What I reincorporated is clear with this edit that I pointed to above. I restored all of the Gender aspects material except the "Intimate partner violence types: Johnson's Typology" section (though I don't consider that material off-topic, per what I stated above about the vast majority of the domestic violence literature, and therefore the Domestic violence article, being about intimate partner violence). From what I'm seeing, most of the gender aspects material should be kept. And right now, the best place for that material is the Influences and factors section. While the Influences and factors section can be cleaned up, or just titled "Factors" or something else, I don't see that it should be entirely discarded. I think it's best that you attempt to discuss proposed changes when the changes will be massive instead of simply making the massive changes. That way, we can be more so on the same page and avoid edit conflicts or unnecessary disputes. When it comes to your smaller edits, I am likelier to agree. For example, with this edit, you moved the Cycle of abuse section, and I agree with that. And with this edit, you moved the Pregnancy section, and I agree with that. I also agree with enough of your blanking, but I think it's best to discuss the blanking here on the talk page when it's massive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that you having created a Demographics section for the gender aspects material is an okay solution (even though a lot of people associate "demographics" with "epidemiology"). I like this solution. I would make "Adolescents and young adults" a subsection of "Gender differences," though, since it's mostly about gender differences. And the "Social views" section is still very much redundant to detail in the Gender differences section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. Edit conflicts everywhere.

As you can see, it wasn't so much a blank, as it was an extended rearrangement. Most of it fit nicely into demographics (for the time being), but I didn't know that until I started chopping and placing.

Yes, a lot more needs to be done. But this is a much more solid foundation to work on, and that work can be more incremental and less disruptive to people seeing the work in progress (thus the temporary move to talk). Although I suspect something similar will be needed when the factors section is finally parsed out into sections that make sense.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, edit conflicts are one of the main pains of editing here. As for this, where is this duplicated at? I know that the section mentioned that researcher twice, but the material was different. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be right. Tomorrow's brush will be a more fine one and I will look into it.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Gender aspects

General

There continues to be debate regarding gender differences with relation to domestic violence. Limitations of existing survey tools (e.g., conflict tactics scale), disparate sampling procedures, respondent reluctance to self-report, and differences in operationalization all pose challenges to existing research. In addition, normalization of domestic violence in those who experience subtle forms of abuse, or have been abused for long periods of time, reduces the likelihood of recognizing, and therefore reporting domestic violence.(DEMOGRAPHICS)

A 2011 review article by IPV researcher Ko Ling Chan found men tended to under-report their own perpetration of domestic violence while women were more likely to under-report their victimization. Financial or familial dependence, normalization of violence, and self-blaming were found to reduce the likelihood of self-reporting victimization in women. By contrast, fear and avoidance of legal consequences, the tendency to blame their partner, and a narrative focus on their own needs and emotions reduced the likelihood of self-reporting perpetration in men.(added to self report)

A 2013 review examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence. The authors found that if one examines who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, experience subsequent psychological problems, domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims. However, they went on to conclude "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." Many organizations have made efforts to use gender-neutral terms when referring to perpetration and victimization. For example, using broader terms like family violence rather than violence against women.

A 2011 review by researcher Chan Ko Ling from the University of Hong Kong found that minor partner violence was equal for both men and women but more severe partner violence was more likely to be perpetrated by men. His analysis found that men were more likely to beat up, choke or strangle their partners while women were more likely to throw objects, slap, kick, bite, punch, or hit with an object. Researchers have also found differing outcomes for men and women in response to intimate partner violence. A 2012 review from the journal Psychology of Violence found that women suffered disproportionately as a result of IPV, especially in terms of injuries, fear, and posttraumatic stress. The review also found that 70% of female victims in one study were "very frightened" in response to intimate partner violence from their partners, but 85% of male victims reported "no fear". The review also found that IPV mediated the satisfaction of the relationship for women but not for men.(demographics)

Violence against women

Campaign against domestic violence in Uganda

Main article: Violence against women

The United Nations Population Fund found violence against women and girls to be one of the most prevalent human rights violations worldwide, stating that "one in three women will experience physical or sexual abuse in her lifetime." Violence against women tends to be less prevalent in developed Western nations, and more common in the developing world.

Wife beating was made illegal nationally in the United States by 1920. Although the exact rates are disputed, 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, and this is exacerbated by economic or social dependence.

The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993) states that "violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which has 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". 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.

The Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women defines violence against women as "any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere". Similarly with the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, it classifies VAW into three categories; one of which being DV - defined as VAW which takes place "within the family or domestic unit or within any other interpersonal relationship, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the woman".

The Maputo Protocol adopted a broader definition, defining VAW as: "all acts perpetrated against women which cause or could cause them physical, sexual, psychological, and economic harm, including the threat to take such acts; or to undertake the imposition of arbitrary restrictions on or deprivation of fundamental freedoms in private or public life in peace time and during situations of armed conflicts or of war".

The Istanbul Convention states: ""violence against women" is understood as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women (...)". (Article 3 – Definitions). In the landmark case of Opuz v Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held for the first time that gender-based domestic violence is a form of discrimination under the European Convention.

Femicide is usually defined as the gender-based killing of women by men, although the exact definitions vary. Femicides often occur in the context of DV, such as honor killings or dowry killings. For statistical purposes, femicide is often defined as any killing of a woman. The top countries by rate of femicide are El Salvador, Jamaica, Guatemala, South Africa and Russia (data from 2004–09). However, in El Salvador and Colombia, which have a very high rate of femicide, only three percent of all femicides are committed by a current or former intimate partner, while in Cyprus, France, and Portugal former and current partners are responsible for more than 80% of all cases of femicide.(demographics)

Pregnancy

Main article: Domestic violence and pregnancy

During pregnancy a woman may begin to be abused or long-standing abuse may change in severity, causing negative health effects to the mother and fetus. Pregnancy can also lead to a hiatus of domestic violence when the abuser does not want to harm the unborn child. The risk of domestic violence for women who have been pregnant is greatest immediately after childbirth.(physical)

In Russia, pregnancy of the victim is an aggravation, while pregnancy of the offender is a mitigation.(removed)

Violence against men

Main article: Domestic violence against men

Kalighat painting, "Woman Striking Man With Broom", Calcutta, India, 1875

Domestic violence against men includes physical, emotional and sexual forms of abuse, including mutual violence Male domestic violence victims may be reluctant to get help for various reasons. One study investigated whether women who assaulted their male partners were more likely to avoid arrest even when the male victim contacts police, and found that, "police are particularly unlikely to arrest women who assault their male partners." The reason being that they "assume that the man can protect himself from his female partner and that a woman's violence is not dangerous unless she assaults someone other than her partner". Another study concluded "some support for qualitative research suggesting that court personnel are responsive to the gendered asymmetry of intimate partner violence, and may view female intimate violence perpetrators more as victims than offenders." Moreover, a study in Ireland by the National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence on the general population's attitudes to domestic violence, found that the higher the education status of an individual, the less likely they were to agree that a male could be a victim of domestic violence by a female. The report concluded that since there is little research in the area of female on male domestic violence, students are unlikely to become familiar.(demographics)

Adolescents and young adults

Main article: Teen dating violence

Among adolescents, researchers have primarily focused on heterosexual Caucasian populations. The literature indicates that rates are similar for the number of girls and boys in heterosexual relationships who report experiencing IPV, or that girls in heterosexual relationships are more likely than their male counterparts to report perpetrating IPV. Ely et al. stated that, unlike domestic violence in general, equal rates of IPV perpetration is a unique characteristic with regard to adolescent dating violence, and that this is "perhaps because the period of adolescence, a special developmental state, is accompanied by sexual characteristics that are distinctly different from the characteristics of adult." Wekerle and Wolfe theorized that "a mutually coercive and violent dynamic may form during adolescence, a time when males and females are more equal on a physical level" and that this "physical equality allows girls to assert more power through physical violence than is possible for an adult female attacked by a fully physically mature man."

While the genders engage in IPV at about equal rates, females are more likely to use less dangerous forms of physical violence (e.g. pushing, pinching, slapping, scratching or kicking), while males are more likely to punch, strangle, beat, burn, or threaten with weapons. Males are also more likely to use sexual aggression, although both genders are equally likely to pressure their partner into sexual activities. In addition, females are four times more likely to respond as having experienced rape and are more likely to suffer fatal injuries inflicted by their partner, or to need psychological help as a result of the abuse. Females are more likely to consider IPV a serious problem than are their male counterparts, who are more likely to disregard female-perpetrated IPV. Along with form, motivations for violence also vary by gender: females are likely to perpetrate violence in self-defense, while males are likely to perpetrate violence to exert power or control. The self-defense aspect is supported by findings that previous victimization is a stronger predictor of perpetration in females than in males. Other research indicates that boys who have been abused in childhood by a family member are more prone to IPV perpetration, while girls who have been abused in childhood by a family member are prone to lack empathy and self-efficacy; but the risks for the likelihood of IPV perpetration and victimization among adolescents vary and are not well understood.(demographics)

Same-sex relationships

Historically, domestic violence has been seen as a heterosexual family issue and little interest has been directed at violence in same-sex relationships, but domestic violence can occur in same-sex relationships as well. The Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention 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."

Some sources state that gay and lesbian couples experience domestic violence at the same frequency as heterosexual couples, while other sources state 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, or that lesbian couples experience domestic violence less than heterosexual couples do. One study focusing on Hispanic men indicated that gay men are less likely to have been perpetrators or victims of domestic violence than heterosexual men but that bisexual men are more likely to have been both. By contrast, some researchers commonly assume that lesbian couples experience domestic violence at the same rate as heterosexual couples, and have been more cautious when reporting domestic violence among gay male couples.(ADDED TO EPI. NEEDS TO BE CANNIBALIZED INTO DEMOGRAPHICS)

A 1999 analysis of nineteen studies of partner abuse concluded that "[r]esearch suggests that lesbians and gay men are just as likely to abuse their partners as heterosexual men." In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the 2010 results of their National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey and report that 44% of lesbian women, 61% of bisexual women, and 35% of heterosexual women experienced domestic violence in their lifetime. This same report states that 26% of gay men, 37% of bisexual men, and 29% of heterosexual men experienced domestic violence in their lifetime. A 2013 study showed that 40.4% of self-identified lesbians and 56.9% of bisexual women have reported being victims of partner violence. In 2014, national surveys indicated that anywhere from 25-50% of gay and bisexual males have experienced physical violence from a partner. (reincorped)

Gay and lesbian relationships have been identified as a risk factor for abuse in certain populations. LGBT people in some parts of the world have very little legal protection from DV, because engaging in homosexual acts is itself prohibited by the "sodomy laws" of those jurisdictions (as of 2014, same-sex sexual acts are punishable by imprisonment in 70 countries and by death in other 5 countries) and these legal prohibitions prevent LGBT victims of DV from reporting the abuse to authorities. In the face of the 2003 Supreme Court decision, 13 US states have refused to remove sodomy laws from legislation as of 2013.(demographics)

People in same-sex relationships face special obstacles in dealing with the issues that some researchers have labeled "the double closet". A 1997 Canadian study by Mark W. Lehman suggests similarities include frequency (approximately one in every four couples); manifestations (emotional, physical, financial, etc.); co-existent situations (unemployment, substance abuse, low self-esteem); victims' reactions (fear, feelings of helplessness, hypervigilance); and reasons for staying (love, can work it out, things will change, denial). Studies conducted by Emory University in 2014 identified 24 trigger for partner violence through web-based surveys, ranging from drugs and alcohol to safe-sex discussions. A general theme of power and control seems to underlie abuse in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. (Stricken due to relevance)

At the same time, significant differences, unique issues, and deceptive myths are typically present. Lehman, regarding his 1997 survey, points to added discrimination and fears that gay and lesbian individuals may face. This includes potential dismissal by police and some social services, a lack of support from peers, fear of attracting negative stigma toward the gay community, the impact of HIV/AIDS status in keeping partners together (due to health care insurance/access, or guilt), threat of outing, and encountering supportive services that are targeted, or structured for the needs of heterosexual women, and may not meet the needs of gay men or lesbians. This service structure can make LGBTQ victims feel even more isolated and misunderstood than they may already because of their minority status. Lehman, however, stated that "due to the limited number of returned responses and non-random sampling methodology the findings of this work are not generalizable beyond the sample" of 32 initial respondents and final 10 who completed the more in-depth survey. Particularly, sexual stressors and HIV/AIDS status have emerged as significant differences in same-sex partner violence.(added to demographics)(demographics)

Cycle of abuse

The four phases of the Cycle of Abuse

Main article: Cycle of abuse

Lenore E. Walker presented the model of a Cycle of abuse which consists of four phases. First, there is a buildup to abuse when tension rises until a domestic violence incident ensues. During the reconciliation stage, the abuser may be kind and loving and then there is a period of calm. When the situation is calm, the abused person may be hopeful that the situation will change. Then, tensions begin to build, and the cycle starts again.(added to cycles of violence)

Intimate partner violence types: Johnson's Typology

Main article: Types of intimate partner violence

Michael P. Johnson argues that there are four major types of intimate partner violence (Johnson's Typology), a finding supported by subsequent research. Distinctions are made among the types of violence, motives of perpetrators, and the social and cultural context based upon patterns across numerous incidents and motives of the perpetrator. Types of violence identified by Johnson:

• 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 (IT) may also involve emotional and psychological abuse. Intimate terrorism is one element in a general pattern of control by one partner over the other. Intimate terrorism is more likely to escalate over time, not as likely to be mutual, and more likely to involve serious injury. IT batterers include two types: "Generally-violent-antisocial" and "dysphoric-borderline". The first type includes people with general psychopathic and violent tendencies. The second type are people who are emotionally dependent on the relationship. Support for this typology has been found in subsequent evaluations.
• Violent resistance (VR), sometimes thought of as self-defense, is violence perpetrated by victims against their abusive partners.
• Mutual violent control (MVC) is rare type of intimate partner violence occurring when both partners act in a violent manner, battling for control. (Stricken due to relevance. Already included in IPV article in more depth.)

References

Length of the VAW and Same sex sections under Dems

These probably need to be trimmed down. VAW has it's own article. Same sex DV may need it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As long as the Violence against women section retains the important domestic violence information, I am fine with a trim of it. As for the Same-sex relationships section, I argued before that there is not much information out there on domestic violence in same-sex relationships and it therefore does not need its own article. But not long afterward, the Domestic violence in lesbian relationships article was created. So I think that when enough material is gathered on domestic violence among male-male romantic/sexual relationships, that material should be merged with the Domestic violence in lesbian relationships article to create a Domestic violence in same-sex relationships article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually, in that linked archived discussion, I suggested that it was perhaps time to create a Domestic violence in same-sex relationships article; this was after I objected to creating one because of the scare literature on that aspect of domestic violence. And then an editor created the Domestic violence in lesbian relationships article instead of an article covering domestic violence in same-sex relationships in general. I think that the section on it currently in the article is mostly fine, and, given that the topic does not yet have its own article, the length is decent; it's not terrible. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Domestic violence

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Domestic violence's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "bbc.com":

• From Acid throwing: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23631395
• From Honor killing: http://www.bbc.com/news/10364986

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Epidemiology section

Regarding this, I'm not sure that we should get rid of the Epidemiology section. I know that, in the #Burn it. Burn it till we see Savannah. Burn it till we touch the sea. section above, I stated "a lot of people associate 'demographics' with 'epidemiology'", but that doesn't mean that they are the same thing. That stated, I don't strongly object to the new setup either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And it's probably best to keep the demographics and epidemiology material together to avoid redundancy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems pretty semantic. Prevalence v Epidemiology v Demographics v etc. Call it what you will, but shouldn't be disparate sections discussing essentially the same thing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In the media

Flyer22 Reborn and any others, thoughts on Penbat's in the media section? I'm inclined to think it should be fleshed out in a sandbox or on the talk first and then inserted into the article once it's a section and not a bullet point.

Don't want to unilaterally rev without discussion as it is clearly a good faith effort, and it seems like a legitimate topic on the face of it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I saw this section Penbat added before seeing the above post by you, Timothyjosephwood. As soon as I saw the section, I was thinking it shouldn't be there unless very encyclopedic and well-developed. Right now, it has the trivia lean to it, and will attract more trivia. WP:Trivia and WP:In popular culture have advice on matters such as these. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In the case of order, Penbat was right to place it last. "In the media" (or "Media") or "In popular culture" (or "Popular culture") sections are almost always placed last. This information should not come before the other sections in this Domestic violence article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and move here for the time being until it can be fleshed out. To answer Penbat's question "why not have an 'in the media' section", well...this isn't currently a section; it's a bullet point, and one furthermore dealing with a relatively obscure cultural reference. I don't see a strong justification for inserting it, it its current form, into an article that is already almost 14,000 words long. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In the media

• A domestic abuse story line in the British radio soap opera The Archers is considered to involve classic gaslighting.

References

New section proposed

I think there should be a new section covering both Parricide and Filicide as part of this article on domestic and family violence, and would like to add it, but am discussing here first. Would any editor object? If so, exactly why please, as both are very relevant components of family violence and are often covered in the media.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest putting a draft together and pitching it, rather than pitching the idea. After all, the appropriateness of the section depends on the strength and number of the sources, and we have no sources without a working draft. TimothyJosephWood 10:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Might be a good time to review WP:NOTE, as that is the standard that must be met for inclusion. Also note that per WP:OR, it is not enough to say that (1) familial violence is a form of DV, (2) patricide is by definition familial, (3) therefore patricide is DV. You must actually have sources that cover these topics explicitly as a form of DV. TimothyJosephWood 12:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting point Timothyjosephwood. My understanding, based on all reliable sources and previous discussions by other other editors, is that this article is actually covering family violence, not intimate partner violence or other forms of family violence. Therefore the reliable sources, specifically covering family violence, would appear to fit the bill, and topics such as child homicide would clearly fall under this much broader family violence umbrella and certainly deserve their own distinct space in this article commensurate to the weight accorded within the family violence sources. I guess I'm now swaying toward a distinct section on child murder, rather than murder of other relatives and would certainly satisfy the requirements of WP:NOTE.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Correction. WP:NOTE is not relevant. WP:DUE is. As I was. It was early. I should have to pass a breathalyzer to edit WP, that tests how much coffee I've had. TimothyJosephWood 22:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that if you're immediate interest is in writing, producing, then this is probably not the best article for you right now. It's still bloated, and needs substantial refining and reorganizing. While at the same time, there are 7 articles rated high importance by WikiProject:Feminism that are currently stubs. DV needs hatchets and organizers. Those articles need producers. TimothyJosephWood 22:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No drama with you confusing WP:NOTE with WP:DUE. Lack of sleep can skew the mind sometimes. Back to content though, and let's not avoid the issue I've raised, given child murder is on our TV screens, paying Penbat respect in their interest in including an in the media section (different discussion above I know), as well as the reliable sources on family violence, I think WP:DUE is satisfied too. Don't you Timothyjosephwood? So far no good reason, based on policy, either WP:NOTE or WP:DUE, has been provided by any editor, for not including such a highly relevant section to the article on family violence. That's the only reason I posted here first before going ahead and adding it. Will keep discussing a bit longer before I do in case compelling reasons can be provided not to. Seems a pretty logical and straight forward inclusion to me given its coverage in the family violence sources.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Timothyjosephwood, as I (and others) have noted, any thorough examination of the sources in the article, and examination of the literature on domestic violence, shows that the literature on domestic violence is mostly about intimate partner violence. In light of that, other aspects of domestic violence, including family violence, are given decent weight in the article. If more family violence material is needed in the article, we will add it when appropriate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Timothyjosephwood. I agree though that this article on family violence is bloated and thus even more reason why such a relevant section such as child murder by a parent should be added. I think WP:DUE should be applied to the heavy coverage/saturation of intimate partner violence which has been added to the sacrafice of other dimensions of family violence found within the reliable sources. I think you were on the right track Timothyjosephwood by attempting to blank much of that material which receives far too much weight in an article on the broad topic of family violence IMHO. As far as the stubs you mentioned for some reason, I may leave those types of articles to other editors. My points here solely relate to child murder by a parent and its inclusion as a header in this article on family violence, nothing else. Sorry, just want to bring us back to the topic.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Timothyjosephwood. I also note we already have other separate articles on topics like intimate partner violence. However this article is on the family. Family violence. And my points and my only interest here is content, reliable sources and policy, policy, policy. As I said, will keep discussing a bit longer with you, before I do include it, in case you can provide compelling reasons, based on content, reliable sources and policy, why not. Child murder by their parents Filicide is very much covered in the reliable sources on family violence.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, as I've covered, odds are near 100% you get reverted if you don't post a proposal and get consensus on the talk first. There's no shame in talk consensus. It's the responsible and community-minded thing to do.

This is beside the fact that this is not an article on family violence, this is an article on DV...because sources define DV the way they do. There is no room for interpretation of DV vs Family Violence outside of the sources.

Also, as I've covered, "DV = Family violence = my particular instance of violence in the family" is WP:OR (<-- policy detector alert). You need sources that call this DV explicitly, or you will 124% be reverted. Hell, I'll revert you. Because, again, consensus on the talk is the right thing to do, and it without-a-doubt ends up with a better section after all is said and done.

Don't make me an adversary on this. I'm trying to help you make constructive contributions. Work with me. TimothyJosephWood 23:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm confused Timothyjosephwood. I'm definitely not trying to make you an adversary on this either. A bit of Wikipedia:Assume good faith is needed here I think. Your comment "This is beside the fact that this is not an article on family violence" is my point exactly. We already have an article on intimate partner violence, or violence between couples and other separate aspects of family violence. My understanding of this article's coverage is all violence between any and all family members, including grandparents, siblings, aunties, uncles, even boarders, anyone in a family setting. That is genuinely my understanding and I'm sure many other's understanding of this article. The family in family violence.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, I do appreciate you discussing the difference here between family violence and intimate partner violence and you applying Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I meant that in my comment above, regarding your adversary comment only. And not assuming I was trying to do that. I'm just trying to focus us also on content, policy and reliable sources.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I know it seems counterintuitive at first, but that's the way it works out. Think about it like "All sources are in Greek, and all editors are translators from Greek to English." All you're doing is translating, paraphrasing. Anything you add to it is original research.

For example, I was a player in adding the Conscription section to sexism. That only happened because there were sources who said what I thought. I figured, that's sexist. I looked, and sure enough there were reliable sources saying the same thing.

So you have to find sources that equate these topics, so that you take yourself out of the equation. Doesn't matter if Jimmy Wales disagrees with you, because you don't matter and he doesn't matter. The sources are the only things that matter. TimothyJosephWood 00:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, my understanding of this article's coverage is all violence between any and all family members, including grandparents, siblings, aunties, uncles, even boarders, anyone in a family setting. That is genuinely my understanding and I'm sure many other's understanding of this article's remit. We have individual articles on intimate partner violence for instance. In the family violence literature child murder by a parent is often cited. Can you address my point please, regarding the word family in family violence. That's my understanding of this article. All members of a household. And any violence committed by these members against another member. There is no individual article on family violence. Maybe this article should be titled family violence instead. As I said, we already have an article on individual dimensions of family violence like intimate partner violence.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, time to back up a step.

I was under the impression that there was an interaction ban between yourself and Flyer. Apparently there was also a three month topic ban. So probably best to table this, stretch your legs a bit and work on something different for a while.

Keep in mind that part of the usefulness of bans it they give editors a while to cool off, and show that they're willing to play by the rules. On the other hand, editors who go out of their way to flout or ignore sanctions make a pretty good case against themselves that they can't play well with others.

As always, happy to help out any way I can, at least for the time being, on articles not related to the topic ban, and topics not related to Flyer. Wikipedia is a big place, and there's no WP:DEADLINE, so there's plenty of work to go around. TimothyJosephWood 12:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, both perspectives are correct with regards to domestic violence. Men's violence against women is the main cause of domestic violence, which is supported by countless sources. However, there are other critical aspects of domestic violence which should be addressed within this article. For example, the section on child abuse should be expanded. I added a link to that article as a start. This article should strike more of a balance. There is no need for the ongoing internal drama regarding this issue. Please keep in mind non-editors who read this article may also read this talk page, so we need to keep these discussions civil, otherwise we compromise the perceived integrity of Wikipedia. We need to be working together to build a better encyclopedia, instead of working against each other, especially on such a sensitive topic as this one. Thank you. Mistercontributer (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Cyber Bullying

For some reason, the references are not staying. I haven't looked at the history yet to see if someone feels the need to edit or delete them. Anyone know wth? Shy1alize (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Shy1alize (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

So this is whats left of the cyberbullying section when you remove unsourced material and otherwise WP:COATRACKs.

Cyber Bullying

Main article: Cyber Bullying

Cyber bullying is when the abuser uses electronics to bully the victim through intimidation. More specifically a form of Cyber bullying can be performed through sexting. Sexting is an sensual message and or photography shared via cell phone. Authorities on occasions blame the victims of non-consensual sexting.

References

There needs to be sources to connect the issue with DV, and establish that this is not WP:UNDUE. Right now there are none; there is a single source referring to it as a form of IPV (which has it's own article btw), none that refer to it as a from of DV. Notwithstanding the fact that the section is called cyberbullying, when only a dozen words were about cyberbullying, and the rest of the section was about sexting, but not really about sexting because it was really about revenge porn.

Furthermore, half the things in the section were a blatant WP:SOAPBOX in addition to an almost complete lack of WP:RS:

• "It is considered a form of intimate partner violence" (by whom?),
• "The victim does not consent for the images to be sent" (according to whom?),
• "The abuser looks to damage the victim’s social reputation" (based on what?),
• "In most cases" (how many?),
• "taking over the victims Facebook account" (they're hackers as well?),
• "anti-revenge porn bill" (what bill?),
• "The only rule" (the bill contains only one provision? must be short),
• "80% of the time" (where does this number come from?),
• "The bullying occurs because it causes emotional distress to the victim." (according to?),
• "can feel shame or embarrassment" (Most people can. This doesn't say anything.)
• "Unfortunately" (this is not a blog),
• "becoming popular among young daters" (based on what statistics?)
• "This type of abuse is difficult to detect by law since" (law enforcement? according to?),
• "most sexting starts" (According to?)
• "Regrettably" (this is not a blog),
• "abusers threaten the victims who converts" (what?),
• "they are looked as the provokers" (a. English? b. by whom? c. according to whom?),
• "Authorities on occasions" (What occasions?)
• "The problem is not sexting. The problem is that abusers take it and exploit the victims without consent." (according to?)

So yeah, this section has a long way to go. It's not a lost cause, but it needs a lot of sources and almost a 100% rewrite. Again, this needs to start with reliable sources saying cyberbullying (or sexting, or revenge porn) is a form of DV, otherwise including it in the article at all is WP:OR via WP:SYNTH.

For now I'm going to blank the section as it's not simply a matter of incremental improvement, but a basic issue of establishing what the section is supposed to be about, and that it should be in the article at all. Because of this, the more appropriate place is to work on it on the talk or in a sandbox, not on the live article. I realize this might start a shit storm. Try to work with the fact that I've pointed out the things that need fixing, and not blanked it outright, which was my initial inclination. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Original:

Cyber Bullying

Main article: Cyber Bullying

Cyber bullying is when the abuser uses electronics to bully the victim through intimidation. More specifically a form of Cyber bullying can be performed through sexting. Sexting is an sensual message and or photography shared via cell phone. In this type of intimate partner abuse the abuser exploits the victim’s sexting messages and or images via mobile phone, social media, or email. It is considered a form of intimate partner violence because it is non-consensual. The victim does not consent for the images to be sent to the family, friends, or posted on social media. The abuser looks to damage the victim’s social reputation or place fear in their victim through threats. In most cases the images and texts were taken with consent but then the abuser later threatens to use the images and or texts against the victim by taking over the victims Facebook account or email and posting them on social media. Non-consensual posting practices by the abuser is done without the victims consent by using the pictures in other ways, refusing to discharge of the pictures, by making threats, and by degrading the victim. In some cases since the pictures are nude or erotic the victims can be looked as porn participants. In California an anti-revenge porn bill has been put in place to charge a misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct for those who post images of someone else without their consent and in which can cause them emotional distress to the victim. The only rule is that for cases like this it has to be the poster who took the picture. The picture could not have been taken by the victim themselves. Convicting the abuser becomes difficult because 80% of the time it is the person themselves (victim) who takes the sexual picture and sends it to the abuser as an innocent sext. The only way the abuser can be charged is if they took the picture of the post themselves. The bullying occurs because it causes emotional distress to the victim. They can feel shame or embarrassment. Unfortunately the problem will not go away easily by just turning off all forms of technology. This type of abuse, cyber bullying through sexing, is becoming popular among young daters in their relationships. This type of abuse is difficult to detect by law since most sexting starts off con-sensually. Regrettably the abusers threaten the victims who converts the consented sexting text and or photography to a non-consensual text or image. This type of cyber bullying sexting has a negative effect on women because they are looked as the provokers. Authorities on occasions blame the victims of non-consensual sexting. The problem is not sexting. The problem is that abusers take it and exploit the victims without consent.

References

A bit late, but I'm endorsing the section blank as a sensible trim. Fundamentally, domestic violence means abuse from a person you live with - an abuser isn't using a computer to threaten you if they're in the room with you. This doesn't mean it might not be worth mentioning in a section describing the aftermath of domestic violence, when someone's left their abuser, but only a sentence or two. I am thinking about maybe adding a citation or two here - I know there have been cases where abusers have installed tracking/backup software onto computer equipment used by partners in order to track them if they leave. Blythwood (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead size

I reverted the addition of this tag by BeenAroundAWhile. As seen in the second link, BeenAroundAWhile gave the following reason for adding the tag: "Too much info and too many details that are better left for the body of the article." I reverted because, like I recently stated, the lead is four paragraphs long, and is meant to summarize the article. This a huge article; so, per WP:Lead, having four medium-sized paragraphs is standard. Well, the last paragraph is bigger than the others, but my point still stands. WP:Lead has recommendations for lead size based on WP:SIZE; see WP:LEADLENGTH. Given the size of this article, the lead is not overlong. Also keep in mind that many, perhaps most, of our readers only read the leads of our articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'll throw my hat in saying that both the article and the lead are too long. But I started a rework and wandered off, so I can't say that I have the courage of my convictions. TimothyJosephWood 03:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

"Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence

The consensus is to remove the "Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence from the lead. Cunard (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Charlotte135 has returned to this article soon after being restricted from it for three months, and immediately focused on text that was previously disputed; in this case, the text is the "Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence. I reverted yet again. The text does not belong because it is redundant to the first paragraph. That domestic violence affects men, women, and children is quite clear from that first paragraph. Furthermore, this sentence that Charlotte135 insists on adding is not a good topic sentence since the paragraph focuses on couple violence, not on children at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22. The sentence you deleted recently was not disputed it was agreed on and settled and stayed in the article for months. Gosh, true to form though you immediately and predictably bring up my now well expired issue. Is that necessary? I mean with your extremely long history of blocks from all articles, not just a single topic and your sockpuppetry cases involving you and your little brother (who you said was using your account apparently without you knowing) in your mum and dad's house, and you being in tears over it as you told administrators at the time, why would you be slinging mud in a desperate attempt to discredit me?

I knew this would happen though. That's why I tried to get advice from an actual administrator, Diannaa. This discussion is here [1] and my reply to administrator Diannaa is here [2]

I realize I am giving as good as I get here and I wish you had just decided to be civil and leave the past in the past. I think policy even talks about that principle somewhere I've read. Why not just discuss your issue in a civil manner instead, like we all should Flyer22reborn? Why do you need to try to discredit other editors? Why bring up their past? How do you like having your very long history of blocks and sockpuppetry thrown in your face every time you try to edit in good faith? And the edit you deleted recently, which had been in the article for months, I reverted today, once. But then you again deleted. Are you not supposed to instead take it to talk first and discuss? I may revert back and discuss instead, if you can be respectful that is. Is that okay with you Flyer22 reeborn?Charlotte135 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing agreed upon when it comes to that sentence. And since you've repeatedly mischaracterized me on your talk page, continue to do so, have shown up here engaging in the same disruptive behavior, including with inaccurate and irrelevant comments about my block log (when the fact that it is inaccurate and irrelevant commentary has been made thoroughly clear to you before, as seen here and here), it's obvious that you did not learn your lesson when you were banned from this article for three months. It's also obvious that you did not take the advice that Diannaa gave you. You clearly have not headed anything Mark Arsten told you either. And you've been recently tracking the articles I edit, including the Sex reassignment surgery article; that is not a coincidence. You could have easily focused on the edit. I did focus on the edit; it's an edit that I disputed in the past on this very talk page, and it ties into the problems I had with you editing this article before you were topic-banned from it. Coming to this article and continuing past disputes soon after your topic ban expired is relevant. Your inaccurate commentary on my block log is not relevant. And to boot, you got it wrong yet again even. There was no "my mum and dad's house." It is my house; you already know that. My brother used my account once, and I was blocked for that by Boing! said Zebedee to protect my account. Really, how many administrators do you need to talk to before you get commentary on my block log right? Must you talk to Boing! said Zebedee, Alison, The ed17? Or do you simply want to keep commenting on it wrongly so that you have some imaginary dirt to throw my way, to try to make me look as bad as, or worse than, you? Whatever the case, you do not heed warnings well, that much is clear. And I will deal with all of this in due time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Flyer 22 you deleted this comment [3] of mine? What's going on please? Even if you are angry and keep making this personal with me, for no reason, when I keep trying to work things out with you, why do you believe you can delete my comments please? and then accuse me of doing so? What a dirty trick to try and discredit me? You should know better. Anyway I will restore my comment you just deleted in anger.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I won't revert your deletion of this statement from the article you made and breached the WP:BRD cycle guideline, and you instead inviting/encouraging an edit war. I will instead immediately take this matter to dispute resolution, rather than get entrapped in an edit war with you. I do invite you though, before I do so, to revert yourself and us try to work this out here on the talk page?Charlotte135 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice that, with this edit, I was reverting your deletion of my comment. I do not care that your deletion was accidental, if it was, and I did not care to restore your comment in the process. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22. After looking at the editing, my edit must have been added the same time as your last one. That's all I can think happened. That means it was not just accidental but completely innocent. However your deletion of my text, 10 minutes after, seemed quite obviously to anyone, malicious, and your comment "I do not care that your deletion was accidental, if it was, and I did not care to restore your comment in the process." seems both angry and disregarding of the community standards? Can you apologize to me please.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Flyer22. Is this [4] what you were referring to above, when you distorted what Mark Arsten actually told me? You see, I asked Mark as well. Was it the bit about he was not sure how other editors (you) may treat me? Here was his comments on my talk page anyway, given you chose not to include the truth. [5] I'm wondering what both Mark and Diannaa, or any administrator, would think about you maliciously deleting my comments here in anger? As I said, would you consider apologizing, first? Charlotte135 (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Flyer 22. this is ridiculous. This is a public space, correct? Redundancy is a opinion. I don't understand this either. DV does affect men, women and children. this can be stated more than once. it is to emphasize the reach. --Shy1alize (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy is not an opinion. The sentence is not needed in the least. If you want to go to WP:Dispute resolution over it, be my guest. For example, I don't mind wasting editors' time at all by starting a WP:RfC on this trivial matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

you see it redundant, i don't. i think that is perception. I may be corrected, i assume you will attempt to belittle my trivial matter. This website cannot even be utilized for any real academic works. marinate in that ok. public space. not real source of information. Shy1alize (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You stated, "DV does affect men, women and children. this can be stated more than once." Seems like you were arguing for redundancy to me. Stating essentially the same thing twice, or more than twice, in the lead is not how good Wikipedia articles are written. It is easy to see from the very first paragraph that domestic violence affects men, women, and children since the very first paragraph talks about domestic violence affecting heterosexual and same-sex couples, and children. No need to state it again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with Shy1alize, Flyer22reborn. And I find your response toward Shy1alize quite rude and demeaning. It seems our views outweigh your revert. Please also discuss here and show some respect for the WP:BRD cycle guideline. You boldly deleted that sentence recently and the sentence had remained in the article for a long while. I then reverted your bold edit once. You should have then discussed here, rather than provoke a potential edit war, by then again reverting the edit. You know better, as you say to everyone, very often that you hold much experience here on Wikipedia. You are also going against two other editors opinion on this one so please respect consensus. Further the word "affect" in that sentence is not mentioned in the first paragraph nor is therefore the intent of that sentence. Let me explain. Some synonyms for the word affect are: upset, troubled, overwhelmed, devastated, damaged, hurt, pained, grieve, sadness, distress etc. So, no it is not redundant as the first paragraph does not discuss the fact that men, women and children are "affected" by domestic violence.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It's redundant. Your "affects" argument makes no sense. And WP:BRD is an essay, not a guideline. If you really want me to start a WP:RfC on this issue, I certainly will. I will start a WP:RfC on something each time I disagree with you on a matter if need be. WP:Consensus is not a vote; WP:Consensus is about the weight of the arguments. And rarely does two against one equate to consensus on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I'm certain that Gandydancer agrees with me that the sentence in question should not be included. And, for the record: I couldn't care less what you think about my behavior, especially since you mischaracterize it all the time, as is clear by my initial reply to you above, and by Boing! said Zebedee's comment below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop bullying your edits out of the article. You and Gandydancer are very close affiliates on Wikipedia. Everyone knows this fact. The two of you always back each other up, without fail. Your opinions count as one opinion Flyer22reborn. You know that, especially given your experience and how you are "not a newbie" line you keep jamming down other editors throats. Whereas I don't know Shy1alize but agree with their logic. You're outnumbered and both mine and Shy1alize's logic are sound despite your opinion. Do whatever you want. But stop edit warring and respect other editors and respect WP:BRD.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There you again with the silliness: "Stop bullying." More silliness is you stating "The two of you always back each other up, without fail. Your opinions count as one opinion Flyer22rebon." And these two aspects are yet more reasons for why that sentence will not be staying. You do not grasp how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You never do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop it and let it go. You are wrong. Go and read policies on canvassing too. What I guarantee very soon though and as sure as the sun rises of a morn, is that your close affiliate Gandydancer, will come flying in soon after you have contacted them over this, and revert the edit, for you so you don't breach the revert rule. Without fail. Just watch. And this Flyer22reborn. will ultimately illustrate my point.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The sentence will be removed, per my arguments, and you will have to accept it. There was no WP:Canvassing violation; this is yet another guideline you have misinterpreted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I just said your close affiliate with identical opinions and ordered by you, will come in soon, and delete it, like clock work, after you contact them outside of Wikipedia. Like clock work I say, and without even thinking, or considering the solid arguments put forth here on talk. My point Flyer22reborn, is that my argument and Shy1alize's separate argument both make a lot of sense. And we are are actually independent editors with separate minds of our own, and separate opinions I'm sure. That's the difference.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick update here after reflection. I can only talk for myself, but I regret not following Diannaa's excellent advice on my talk page, particularly her advice, not react to 'put downs'. Hard to do, when you're being demeaned and belittled and your past keeps being dragged up. The discussion with administrator Diannaa is here [6] and my reply to Diannaa is here [7] Anyway my sincere apology for insinuating you and Gandydancer hold the same opinions Flyer22reborn. Please accept my apology. I retract that comment, which was only in reaction to you belittling me and the other editor's Shy1alize's valid points and you putting us both down and not respecting the WP:BRD cycle guideline. But again, I will try not to react to demeaning comments like that in the future. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be best if you cease replying to me, or citing guidelines or policies you do not understand; your arguments are weaker with each response, and you cannot help but throw out insults such as "ordered by you." I do not like discussing anything with you, and I will likely make it so that I never need to discuss anything with you in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please stop following me around and trying to entrap me. I should not take your bait. And yes, perhaps you and I should have an interaction ban? But you saying things like: "policies you do not understand; your arguments are weaker with each response" is an attack. Your recent attacks [8] on editor Shy1alize's good faith comments can be seen by this editor saying "...i assume you will attempt to belittle my trivial matter." says a lot too. You keep attacking demeaning and belittling other editors and their understanding of policies. I'm sure there are other editors on Wikipedia you have demeaned and belittled too and thought your understanding of policies are superior. In this case your redundancy argument is overruled and in IMHO makes no sense nor have you provided any argument or logic only demeaning comments and stating your superiority.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Me following you? No. You are following me. You have suddenly taken an interest in any article I heavily edit, and your contribution history shows that. You are clearly seeking a confrontation with me any and everywhere you can get it. No worries. I will deal with that just like I deal with every disgruntled editor who becomes obsessed with me. I will not agree to a WP:Interaction ban unless it's a one-way interaction ban where you are not allowed to comment on me or focus on any article I heavily edit. For example, visiting an article I heavily edit and then reverting me on it? That would be a no. And you should know that it's a no without an interaction ban. Common sense should tell you to stay clear of me unless necessary. It's nothing but a WP:Hounding attempt by you. If I revert you at any of these articles, you get your confrontation. If someone else reverts me, and I revert back, you can simply show up and invalidly support that person's revert with the excuse that you've edited the article before. You are quite easy to read. Everything you do is so transparent (predictable) to me. And any denials you make in that regard will not be believed by me. But, yes, feel free to reply with denials and inaccurate commentary...as expected. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I want to confirm that Flyer 22's block log is the result of a genuine "My brother did it" episode. I communicated with Flyer by email at the time (as did other admins), and I was convinced that she was not guilty of any abuse herself - and the block that I made was indeed to help her secure her account, as I noted in the log. In fact, none of the blocks is a result of any misbehaviour by Flyer 22. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135 has not changed a bit and is using the same tactics as she did that caused her to be blocked. She can wear us all down and get her way to bias this article or she can again be blocked. There are no other choices. Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Gandydancer. If you keep up the baseless personal attacks, I am going to report you straight to ANI. Period.Charlotte135 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What personal attack? For when it is needed, it is this ANI archive which shows the three-month topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What the hell has that got to do with anything Johnuniq. I realise you are a close friend of Flyer22, but hey, why don't you drop the stick and act with some neutrality eh. Any comments on content, while you are here? Anything to say about the discussion Johnuniq and drop the personal stuff?Charlotte135 (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Redundant sentence?

Opinions are needed on whether or not the "Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence in the lead is redundant. One concern is that the sentence is redundant to what the first paragraph states because it is easy to see from the first paragraph that domestic violence affects men, women and children, and that the sentence is at conflict with what was the topic sentence in the third paragraph. The other concerns are that redundancy is an opinion, and that, even if the content is redundant, we can state the same thing more than once in the lead, and that the first paragraph doesn't use the word affects.

If seeing this from the RfC page or your talk page via an RfC alert, the discussion on the matter can be found above at Talk:Domestic violence#"Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It's clear, and common sense, that domestic violence affecting men, women, and children is supported by the following content: "is a pattern of behavior which involves violence or other abuse by one person against another in a domestic setting, such as in marriage or cohabitation. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is violence by a spouse or partner in an intimate relationship against the other spouse or partner. Domestic violence can take place in heterosexual and same-sex family relationships, and can involve violence against children in the family." There is no need to plainly state the obvious in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Leave it out. Besides Charlotte's inappropriate editing, for which they've already been blocked, it sounds sloppy. It's not just redundant, but it makes the paragraph sound like a middle-school essay. Domestic violence affects men, women, and children? Wow, you don't say? There is nothing wrong with the lead as it is, without these kinds of unnecessary personal touches some editors wish to add. This isn't a class presentation. Ongepotchket (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not redundant - "Takes many forms" and "affects men, women and children" are not redundant sentences. Likewise "affects people" is not a replacement for "affects men, women and children" because "affects people" is true even if it only affected male gay Hispanic midgets, because they are people. There are possible alternatives like "Affects people regardless of gender and age", or also pointing out that both men, women and children can be victims, etc. I do think it's important to somewhere in the lead point out that it's not only women or not only children or not only men that are victims, as it is a common misconception that it is primarily women and children that are victims, but it does not necessarily have to be in this exact form. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"Affects people regardless of gender and age" is not a bad idea. It's an addition I'd support if the previous paragraph didn't already state it. I don't see the need to repeat it at every turn, just like I wouldn't see the need to add how DV affects your example of gay Hispanic "midgets". The article likewise doesn't say only women or only children are victims. If the article is implying women and children are primarily the victims, it's likely because (according to sources) women and children are primarily the victims. This is especially true on a global scale. The article should be allowed to reflect what sources say without being challenged constantly. Ongepotchket (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The previous paragraph does miss out in pointing out that men can be victims and women can be perpetrators. I think this should be made more clear. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's redundant. I just think it's not necessary. The language from Ongepotchket is perfectly fine, but again, probably isn't necessary since the article already addresses DV related to men, women and children.

On a side note, a few additional points because why not, I'm already here:

• "Domestic violence occurs when the abuser believes that abuse is acceptable, justified, or unlikely to be reported." This is a bit of mind reading. What about a guy who just gets blackout drunk and hits his wife, even though he feels guilty the next morning and knows she'll call the cops. What about someone who just generally has anger issues and poor impulse control? Overly simplistic, overly homogenizing and probably systematically unknowable (Prof X fired up Cerebro and looked at every DV perp), not to mention unsourced.
• I'm not sure I agree with a second sentence being completely about a tangentially related topic that has its own article. Should be some tie in like "DV is related to IPV however they are distinct because such and such."
• "A wife or female partner" is completely redundant, like saying "a Toyota Corolla or car". Specific category compared one-on-one to inclusive category which includes it.
• "Often" in the last sentence is a WP:WEASEL via numeric vagueness.
• The whole two last paragraphs have a weaselly "may" problem. "May" appears 10 times. I'm fine with the first two uses in the third par. But there's no reason to say "may be supported by laws". No, it is supported by laws in many countries, end of debate. The may infestation in the fourth paragraph nearly makes the whole thing say nothing. I may spontaneously combust, but probably not. It is a tentative, speculative, inane writing style that is non-encyclopedic. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

After a second look. Large portions of the article seem to have a "may" problem. The word appears 116 times. In the first paragraph of Social Stress, literally every sentence includes the word. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, the sentence is redundant and doesn't add anything to the article. I would favor removing it. Also, the part of the lead paragraph that says domestic violence "can involve... in some U.S. states, violence against a roommate." is confusing and misleading. It makes it sound like people only attack their roommates in certain U.S. states. It should either remove the "in certain U.S. states" part, or say that in some states violence against roommates is also legally classified as domestic violence. Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, and I agree with Timothyjosephwood there are plenty of other cases within this article that need addressing. A full copy edit would prove ideal. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• FoCuSandLeArN, working on it. Kindof surprised there's been no hubbub about the sheer amount of this article I've already deleted. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes, it is redundant. Suggest asking from WP:GOCE for a copy edit from previously-uninvolved-editors. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• I also find it redundant. We try to run a taught ship at an encyclopedia and keep the words to a minimum while saying the maximum. It is already clear from other sentences, and there is no real need to say "Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Clumsy, but not wholly redundant It is not concisely phrased and wrongly placed in 'couples'. Modified forms as suggested by OpenFuture and Ongepotchket eg "Affects all ages and both sexes", possibly leading to "but globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women" might benefit 'flow'. I endorse most comments by Timothyjosephwood and wonder if the lead is overlong and 'out of sequence' in some ways eg, that women are the most frequent victims seems more important than specific forms, such as 'bride burning'. Also is 'stoning' domestic violence? I understand what is meant, but wonder whether context is clear.Pincrete (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, the lead, which has been improved since this discussion, is currently four paragraphs long. Given the WP:SIZE of this article, I don't see how the lead is overlong when it comes to WP:LEAD sizes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, 'lead' was a question, based on an initial reaction (I wonder … ). The length and content of any lead is a matter of coherence and readability as much as length. If that comment was unhelpful, ignore it. Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• Not redundant / keep as per Charlotte LavaBaron (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Violence against men cat

WoKrKmFK3lwz8BKvaB94 has twice removed this cat form the article, and I have twice reverted. The article includes a section on violence against men. If that section should be removed, then a consensus should be achieved for doing so, and the cat can then also be removed. But so long as there is a standing consensus for the inclusion of the section, then the category is appropriate. TimothyJosephWood 23:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The category is clear: "The scope of this category includes sexual violence against men, sexual and gender-based violence against men in conflict situations, domestic violence against men (including honor killings of men), and violence against trans men. Organizations, literature, events, books, etc for which the topic of gender-based violence against men is defining are also on-topic.

This category should not include violence where men happen to be the victims. Rather, it should only include acts of violence where the gender of the victim is an important determinant in them being selected for violence, when there is a gendered nature to the violence itself, or when it otherwise fits the definition in the literature of sexual or gender-based violence."

Thus, you must show that there is evidence that men as a gender have been singled out in instances of domestic violence. I do not see any sources that indicate this. The section of the article which discusses domestic violence against men does not claim that such domestic violence is occurring as "gender-based" violence.

jps (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The entire article is about gender based violence. TimothyJosephWood 00:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No, the article is about violence that occurs domestically. There is gender-based domestic violence, but domestic violence can also occur against other members of the family in scenarios that have absolutely nothing to do with gender (e.g. elder abuse). jps (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there is an entire Domestic violence against men article which is properly categorized as "violence against men" according to the category description (specifically domestic violence against men). But this article is not about violence against men, per se, and it seems to me that the actual description of the category is pretty clear that it "should not include violence where men happen to be the victims." It seems to me that violence where men happen to be the victims could easily be the feature of domestic violence writ large. This article itself even seems to support such a notion.

jps (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that a portion of this article is in fact about violence against men per se, as has been pointed out multiple times. TimothyJosephWood 12:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to grant that an analysis as to whether domestic violence against men has a gender-based component is reasonable to subsume under a categorization scheme such as the one identified at that category. However, do we have evidence that there are instances of domestic violence against men that was perpetuated against men qua men as opposed to simply being part of the household? A single source to that effect would be nice. jps (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a section in the article about violence against men. It is entitled, "Men". It is part of a larger section examining gendered aspects of domestic violence. I am not wasting time on a lengthy digression into the metaphysical, philosophical qualities of manness. Take two doses of common sense and move on to something that's actually productive. TimothyJosephWood 14:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As I suspected, there is no source which identifies a kind of domestic violence directed against men as a gender. In fact, in both this article and the WP:CFORK, it is made clear that there is no evidence that domestic violence that happens to happen against victims who are male is directed against them because of their gender. This is in contrast to sources we have which identify that this is the case for many women who are victims. jps (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The category specifies domestic violence. You are wrong. TimothyJosephWood 17:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere does the category description demand that the umbrella article on every type of domestic violence should be so categorized. Do you know of any sources which identify any instances of domestic violence being perpetuated against men because of their gender? jps (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I know what the category says. If you want to change that, then take it up there. TimothyJosephWood 18:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay. jps (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

External links - hotlines

This is kindof an off-the-wall idea, but would anyone have any objections to putting a few large national hotlines in the external links section? I'm not entirely sure if this could easily be argued against under WP:WWIN...maybe advocacy? But I'm not sure that victim advocacy is really the kind that the policy is talking about. It doesn't seem to be prohibited under any of the categories in WP:LINKNO.

Looking at the National Domestic Violence Hotline website, it seems like a good place to go for information generally, as well as help. I'd imagine there are similar sites for other countries.

Pinging @Flyer22 Reborn:, @EvergreenFir: and @Softlavender: for their reliable opinions. TimothyJosephWood 21:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Wikipedia's stance on that type of linking, but I wouldn't see a problem with it...as long as we don't go overboard with it and choose quality sites. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:External links. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. TimothyJosephWood 21:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• My personal feeling is that the main thing is for there not to be too many ELs. I'd also like to opine that the Further Reading section seems overwhelming and somewhat indiscriminate. I'd also like to suggest that on items (in citations and Further Reading) where there are more than six authors that only the first three authors be listed, followed by "et al." (That's AMA style and saves a ton of space.) I'd also recommend, on the studies, that for the authors' first names only their initial(s), without periods, be used -- this also streamlines the entry. Right now the article suffers from too much space being wasted on that. So an entry with more than six authors should read: "Smith, RP; Jones, L; Anderson, PW; et al. _____________". This would streamline both the citations and the Further Reading. Softlavender (talk) 23:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to go through the further and see if anything is repeated in citations, or can otherwise be removed. One interesting thing I've noticed is that some non-English articles collapse references into a scroll box. I'm not even sure if that's an option on en.

As far as too long, since this is the English WP, I wasn't even considering non-English speaking countries. Searching around gave the US, UK, AUS, and one Canadian site, which also apparently offers help in multiple languages. I imagine that should suffice. TimothyJosephWood 23:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• If the website offers readers additional information about domestic violence that conforms with WP:EL, I don't see why not. Hotline and victim advocacy websites often have a lot of information that would be useful for readers. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose
  • This is not the place for this. This page might link to a Wikipedia: space page which did provide numbers and links, and I would support that, but there is no way to put enough information in this page to make it useful.
  • There is no single clearinghouse for international crisis referrals. Crisis support is terribly inefficient, with practically all nonprofits in this space using non-free resources and software to give support only to a tiny demographic in a tiny geographical area. It would be ideal if there were a central referral service where anyone could call or email and be referred by crisis, location, and need, but actually, it takes a huge amount of research even to find a service for support. Timothyjosephwood, you provided a link to a United States service. I live in the US and before I looked, I assumed that every country had these kinds of services. Actually, they are rare, and something really upsetting is that services like this often refuse to provide phone or email counseling to people who contact them from outside their country. I know their resources are limited, but in-wiki we do not have a culture of excluding people by country. It is weird to encounter support services that have that as a policy, and really upsetting when an American gives a contact like this to someone in another country and the counseling service is unable to help them.
  • I will never support any project which favors any particular community, so if there is domestic violence support linked here, I expect that support to have potential to serve all genders, sexual orientations, countries, languages, and crisis situations. Nothing has to be perfect in the beginning, but I would not want to start with a commitment to exclude certain groups from support. If only a few hotlines are put into this article then that would be very likely to exclude some readers, so I advocate for a link to a longer list elsewhere so that all links can be included.
  • I and others did research on what it would take to make referrals to an appropriate service. Some notes are at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Centralised harassment reporting and referral service. I like the idea of providing access to hotlines, and anyone can start a list of hotlines on wiki in the wikipedia: space or meta: space if they like, but this will not be easy and surely some organization, somewhere has already made a good start on this. It would probably be better to copy someone else's work to start than to establish this here from the beginning.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with everything Bluerasberry wrote. While Herostratus's idea of applying WP:IAR on humanitarian grounds is very attractive in theory, I have the feeling there's a real risk of opening a can of worms here. For one thing, victims of domestic violence aren't the only at-risk persons among our potential readership. What about suicidal people? Students getting bullied at school? Kids or elders being abused? People entrapped in violently coercive religious settings? Are we prepared to set a precedent for including hotline links in all the relevant articles? If so, how on Earth will we police those links to ensure that vulnerable people don't get steered out of the frying pan into the fire? With the best of intentions, we might well end up making some bad situations even worse. I'd suggest considering that Wikipedia is still, for all its 21st-century bells and whistles, an encyclopedia—a reference work to which people turn to get thorough background information about topics, not advice about who to call in an emergency. Anybody who can access our domestic violence article can access Google and other search engines if they're looking for hotlines specifically or for advocacy organizations that are relevant to their situation. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 04:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Blank explanation

As a more extended explanation than can fit in an edit summary: The further reading sub-section for IPV was basically a 100% copy-paste from the main article. Certainly the topics overlap a great deal. If someone wants to carry the torch that these articles should be merged, I'm all for it. But, currently there is a main article on IPV, so I don't see a pressing reason to duplicate further reading when the section on this article is already stupid long. TimothyJosephWood 13:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry, no, this is not what External Links are for. Aside from the fact that it imposes our judgment of which hotlines are significant and which countries, it's an open invitation to every single provider of abuse services in the world to come here demanding a link. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
• Well, for me there are are a couple considerations that seem most important:

1. External links are supposed to be for, and only for, extra "enrichment" information -- "Here's some extra stuff that is too much detail or otherwise inappropriate for the article, but that some readers might find useful". Do victim hotlines fit under this rubric? (They might, actually. They might well contain information more than "Here is a phone number, call now if you are being abused". Even providing "list of steps to take if you are being abused" provides useful information to non-victims, telling them what abuse organizations do recommend for victims, and so forth.)
2. We are moral human beings in the world. Our obligation to do morally just things supersedes all rules and obligations of the Wikipedia. Providing a link to hotline to someone who is reading this article could well be a morally justified action. (It gets complicated. The Wikipedia is itself a public good so substantively undermining it is a moral fault (but I don't think including a few hotline links would be "substantive undermining" in the great scheme of things). Determining moral right is itself tricky (but I think that helping abuse victims is clearly morally just.)

All in all, and considering that the links are apparently more than just a bare phone number and do contain some kind of extra info: Yes, we should include these links. Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, number two may be the first valid application of WP:IGNOREALLRULES that I've seen yet. TimothyJosephWood 17:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikiprojects LGBT studies and Feminism notified of the discussion to solicit third party comments. TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose initially, it seems like a wonderful thing to do, to act like humans not like editors. However, I am concerned that we will then have to deal with policy in regards to those links. Do they represent all the nationalities of our readers? Do we include any organizations with religious/political connections? I've never contacted any form of helpline, but I'm assuming that there are some with certain agendas, that we could be considered to be promoting, if we included their details.

Also, while it seems helpful, I'm sure that someone capable of navigating to the domestic violence article, is equally capable of using google search and finding the particular organization that would suit their needs best. I think we would be better off giving them this link: http://bfy.tw/7Npb that promoting any particular organizations. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Add to "List" article - I think a page titled List of domestic violence hotlines could be created with a table including location, name of hotline, founding organisation and link.I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Plans for expansion, advice wanted

Hello, I have been gathering research about domestic violence (or intimate partner violence) in same-sex relationships, and I am trying to decide whether I should expand upon the same sex relationships section within this article, or if I should create a new page about same sex domestic violence, or if I should take the page about domestic violence in lesbian relationships and expand it to include other same sex couples as well as trans individuals. Any advice would be very much appreciated, please feel free to post on my talk page your thoughts. Kmwebber (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Kmwebber

@Kmwebber:: Flyer22 Reborn is probably the best person to talk about it with. Also see this previous comment by them on the subject. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

We already have domestic violence in lesbian relationships.--Penbat (talk) 13:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me like its a no brainer to have a separate male gay article as domestic violence in lesbian relationships is almost entirely underpinned by its own body of lesbian-specific studies.--Penbat (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm totally in favor of making a gay DV article, or even one comprehensive LGBT article to branch off into individual LBTS sub articles like the current lesbian one. TimothyJosephWood 18:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. I commented that, like I stated at Talk:Domestic violence in lesbian relationships, I think it's best to have a Domestic violence in same-sex relationships article instead of an individual lesbian domestic violence article and an individual gay male domestic violence article. Also, I've learned from titling matters regarding the Gay sexual practices article (see Talk:Gay sexual practices#Title and WP:Content forking) that there can be objections to an article titled "Gay male" when the couples included might not identify as gay, etc. There was a similar argument made at Talk:Domestic violence in lesbian relationships regarding the term lesbian, but, as I explained there, the term lesbian is commonly used broadly in the literature. It's certainly broader than "gay male."

The Domestic violence article is very big already. So, per WP:SIZE issues, significantly expanding it with a subtopic would not be ideal. Once a "Domestic violence in same-sex relationships" article is created, we can link to it in the Same-sex relationships section of the Domestic violence article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016194204/http://www.sanctuaryforfamilies.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=252&Itemid=259 to http://www.sanctuaryforfamilies.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=252&Itemid=259
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bka.gv.at/DocView.axd?CobId=36150
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DUTTON.-1994.-PATRIARCHY-AND-WIFE-ASSAULT-THE-ECOLOGICAL-FALLACY..pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Parental bullying of children

Parental bullying of children seems to be a gap in this article for domestic abuse in its family wide meaning. This is a small start - parental bullying of children.--Penbat (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"Rule of thumb"

However, during the early 1500s, the laws changed to "The Rule of Thumb", which meant that the husband was allowed to hit his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb.

I'm assuming this is a joke, since the phrase rule of thumb itself didn't appear in print until 1685, according to Phrase Finder. The notion is a modern urban legend, although none of the sources I've seen mention the 1500s. Any help verifying this supposed fact would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I see now where this material was added – it also mentioned "the region [reign?] of Romulus" and his "laws of Chastisement". This topic and the "rule of thumb" were evidently the subject of a public debate between Nancy K.D. Lemon of UC Berkeley and Christina Hoff Sommers back in 2009. The basis for attributing any such policy to Romulus appears sketchy at best. I can't say whether the source cited has anything to say about any of this. As always, any help with verification would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I support removal of the text. The only thing known about the phrase "rule of thumb" is that its origin is unclear, but it is much more likely that my dictionary and other sources are correct by saying that it probably comes from the use of a thumb for rough measurements. The Siegel source most definitely does not support the text in the September 2016 addition as it appears the only mentions of "thumb" are as follows:

• p. 2123, footnote 18: See Henry Ansgar Kelly, Rule of Thumb and the Folklaw of the Husband's Stick, 44 J. LEGAL EDUC 341, 353 (1994).
• p. 2154: In Rhodes, the defendant whipped his wife "three licks, with a switch about the size of one of his fingers (but not as large as a man's thumb)"; the trial court ruled that a husband had the right to chastise his wife and so was not guilty of assault and battery. On appeal, the North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the verdict but justified it on different grounds [the evil of publicity would be greater than the evil involved in the assault].

Many historical details are given by Siegel but they belong in an article on the history of the topic and any mention of "rule of thumb" in this article is undue and likely to give the false impressions that the term had legal or social assent for which no sources have been provided, and that "rule of thumb" derived from the alleged violence measure which, given its unlikely nature, would need multiple gold-plated sources. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Legal research needed

It would be interesting to have a map showing the legal status of domestic violence in countries around the world. -- Beland (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Here is an excellent map (from which a free version could be made) from this article. -- Beland (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and an interesting article with a series of maps showing how gun laws interact with domestic violence in the United States. -- Beland (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Beland, feel free to include one. As long as it's up-to-date, I don't see a problem with including a map. But where to place it in the article?

Also, for accuracy, you might want to change the title of this section to something about a map. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Untrustworthy sources?

Sources 1 & 2 seem untrustworthy. The links lead to ebooks that seem to be heavily unknown. The first one is by Ronagh McQuigg, a lecturer from Queen's University Belfast. She could be right, but I don't believe an obscure eBook would be the greatest source. The second source is the same thing: obscure eBook by some university faculty. The second source seems to be vague as to what it's talking about, as it says "between 10% and 69% of women report that an intimate partner has physically abused them..." However, it doesn't seem to explain what group they surveyed to get those numbers. I might be crazy, but it might be worth it to point these out, since in certain countries I've heard that abuse isn't overwhelmingly towards women, like the US for example. [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToastyFresh (talk • contribs)

Those books are both published by Routledge, which is a major academic and peer-reviewed publisher. They are about as reliable a source as we can get. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

For reference :

• McQuigg, Ronagh J.A. (2011), "Potential problems for the effectiveness of international human rights law as regards domestic violence", in McQuigg, Ronagh J.A. (ed.), International human rights law and domestic violence: the effectiveness of international human rights law, Oxford New York: Taylor & Francis, p. 13, ISBN 9781136742088, This is an issue that affects vast numbers of women throughout all nations of the world. [...] Although there are cases in which men are the victims of domestic violence, nevertheless 'the available research suggests that domestic violence is overwhelmingly directed by men against women [...] In addition, violence used by men against female partners tends to be much more severe than that used by women against men. Mullender and Morley state that 'Domestic violence against women is the most common form of family violence worldwide.'
• García-Moreno, Claudia; Stöckl, Heidi (2013), "Protection of sexual and reproductive health rights: addressing violence against women", in Grodin, Michael A.; Tarantola, Daniel; Annas, George J.; et al. (eds.), Health and human rights in a changing world, Routledge, pp. 780–781, ISBN 9781136688638, Intimate male partners are most often the main perpetrators of violence against women, a form of violence known as intimate partner violence, 'domestic' violence or 'spousal (or wife) abuse.' Intimate partner violence and sexual violence, whether by partners, acquaintances or strangers, are common worldwide and disproportionately affect women, although are not exclusive to them.

PriceDL (talk) 01:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The second source does not say what the text implies it should say. So I'm thinking of removing the second reference. Alternatively, someone could change 'overwhelmingly' to 'disproportionately' in the text that the source is supposed to be supporting. Joesonyx (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I am unsure how trustworthy the first source is for the claim that domestic violence is 'overwhelmingly' men against women. Is this a controversial claim or is it not? This is a highly politicized subject. I have heard of many studies saying that this is not the case, but I haven't researched how reliable they are. Any thoughts? Joesonyx (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The following article in The Guardian, which cites actual Home Office DATA in the UK, claims that 40% of domestic violence is directed against men. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence Joesonyx (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Kimmel had a good the debunking the gender symmetry argument. The academic side is generally clear that men are the predominant abusers and women are the victims. Moreover, there's a large severity gap; when women abuse, the injuries are much lower on average. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you cite any specific research? Academic OPINIONS aren't worth much--I'd like to see peer-reviewed research. You know, a study, with stated methodology and conclusions and so forth. Unfortunately, I don't have access to an academic library, so articles available online are ideal. I'm not focusing on the question of whether the injuries are lower or higher on average in the two cases. Thanks. Joesonyx (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I find only one article by a Kimmel on google search on the topic. According to its abstract alone, it doesn't debunk a 'gender symmetry' argument. Rather it says: " Evidence is presented that situational couple violence dominates in general surveys, intimate terrorism and violent resistance dominate in agency samples, and this is the source of differences across studies with respect to the gender symmetry of partner violence." Note that it says 'this is the source of DIFFERENCES ACROSS STUDIES'. It does not, in the abstract, by any means invalidate findings of gender symmetry. But I remain open. Joesonyx (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

So, I'm going to remove the second reference after about 24 hours heads-up starting now, for reasons I stated a few paragraphs above. Please lodge any counter-arguments if you do not think I should be doing this. Joesonyx (talk) 08:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

As discussed times before on this talk page (mainly when debating a single editor), we will not be removing the "Globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women, and women tend to experience more severe forms of violence." sentence. This is because it is overwhelmingly supported by the domestic violence literature, and that includes sources I've listed before (as seen at Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 6#Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included?), and it should be in the lead (per WP:Lead). So you can give a heads up, but, if you remove that sentence, you will be reverted. And I would hope that you do decide to WP:Edit war. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

And as for the second source in particular, the same applies; I see no valid reason that it should be removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

One issue at a time please. Please focus on the issue at hand. You have spent time saying why, if I remove a certain sentance, it will be reverted. I have not talked about removing that sentence (though I'll give you the heads-up that I may in the future, indeed).

So, the issue at hand: can you please read why I believe the second source should be removed? Simply because it does not support the text it is supposed to support. It does NOT support the claim that domestic violence is OVERWHELMINGLY male-on-female. It supports only a claim that it is disproportonately male-on-female.

By the way, I will go and look at the debate on removing that sentence, in due course. I'll make sure I have read the debate and will consider whether I will put forward new arguments for removing the sentence.

Considering that this is a highly contested issue, I'll give you further time (say a further 24 hourse) to debate the issue brought up, even though you have evaded it so far. Joesonyx (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22, I'll just give you the heads-up that your opening sentence does not reflect an open and collaborative attitude. Categorical statements like "we will not be removing" are bossy, and suggest a WP:OWNER attitude, as if to isolate those who disagree with you and place him outside the "we" who will be making the decisions. Further, it is unknown to be true; it can be subject to review; you do not KNOW that "we" will not be removing and should not be presenting this as if it is finally settled forever, and may MISLEAD to your advantage those who do not know wikipedia well enough to see through what you say. Further, right off the bat, you seem to have made an attempt to bully/ISOLATE the contrary point of view by painting the picture that those who disagree with you on this were isolated before in "(mainly when debating a single editor)". In that history, there was indeed ONE editor who was predominantly PUTTING IN THE ENERGY REQUIRED to disagree with YOU, but then you were predominantly the one disagreeing with him/her. Attempting to psychologically isolate that editor (and those who agree with him) are not in a collaborative spirit and further suggest bossy WP:OWNER attitudinal problems. Further, your TOTALLY precipitous THREAT TO REVERT, expressed with no good cause against an editor who was CLEARLY seeking discussion of his edits is further reflective of a non-collaborative, aggressive and even fighting attitude, as is your precipitous and ill-mannered warning against me not to engage in an 'edit war'. Finally, your handing down of your disguised-as-final decisions without even reading the proposal at hand further suggest attitudinal and approach problems. That's quite a lot in your opening, yes, salvo, an appropriate word, when you look at it.

When WP:OWNER attitudinal problems were observed in you before in debates related to this issue, you claimed for yourself a good long track record at Wikipedia, as if that was a defense. That track record may or may not be valid in itself, but it is a red herring; the WP:OWNER attitude being talked about is related to THIS article and issue. It is not impossible that you did indeed manifest ZERO bossy WP:OWNER attitude relative to any number of wikipedia articles, but that has no bearing on whether you are manifesting these problems relative to this article.

In my opinion, for reasons clearly given by me above with clear examples, lack of collaborative spirit and bossy and aggressive WP:OWNER attitudinal problems have been manifested here in a VERY OBVIOUS way here by you, and in several ways in a very short passage, and need to be addressed. I regret to come down so hard, but I feel that my response is proportional to what is out-of-balance here, particularly with regard to the history of this issue, and should be nipped in the bud before the discussion proceeds in a productive, collaborative manner. Joesonyx (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The reasons you've given do not support removal, pure and simple, as others have made clear in this section. I am not interested in your baseless accusations against me. Your "was predominantly the one disagreeing with him/her" argument, for example, is blatantly false. As you well know, many agreed with me and that editor was topic-banned twice. We've had enough of POV-pushers trying to negate the "women are most affected by domestic violence, and men are more often the perpetrators" aspect at this article. Forgive me for not being tolerant of it. You don't like the rules? Attempt to change them. Throwing around WP:OWN accusations will get you nowhere, just like it got "the other editor" nowhere. If you want to report me, feel free. Go right ahead. But while we're on the subject of being collaborative, stating that you are going to remove something, whether a sentence or a source, despite multiple editors opposing it, is not collaborative. Stating that you'll "give [me] the heads-up that [you] may in the future, indeed" remove the content, as if you can simply do what you want, is not collaborative. Stating that you'll "give [me] further time (say a further 24 hourse) to debate the issue brought up, even though you have evaded it so far" is not collaborative, and can only be taken as a threat -- a threat you do not have the power to execute.

You have no valid argument for removal of the source. I focused on the source, not just the sentence. You focused on me for personal reasons; again, I'm not interested. I simply noted that if you were to remove valid material, you would be reverted. If you contest the matter after that, debates will follow, likely an RfC or similar as well. You know the drill. So it's better to not waste our time. The sentence states, "Globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women, and women tend to experience more severe forms of violence." The source states, "Intimate male partners are most often the main perpetrators of violence against women, a form of violence known as intimate partner violence, 'domestic' violence or 'spousal (or wife) abuse.' Intimate partner violence and sexual violence, whether by partners, acquaintances or strangers, are common worldwide and disproportionately affect women, although are not exclusive to them." Now you can argue semantics all you want to, but that source supports that sentence. Your "overwhelmingly women" and "disproportionately women" argument is one of the weakest semantics arguments I've ever seen. There are sources that state both "overwhelmingly women" and "disproportionately women" when speaking of domestic violence because they are using the words to mean the same thing, and yet you are acting like the two are different. If we look at the definition of "disproportionately," we can see that it means "to an extent that is too large or too small in comparison with something else." We know from the source, and from the vast majority of other sources on domestic violence, that "disproportionately" in this case means "too large in comparison with other domestic violence." So how does this not equate to "the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women"? Really, what valid argument do you have that this does not mean the same thing? The source goes on to make it clear why it states "disproportionately," by listing statistics that show that most domestic violence victims are women. After that, it continues to focus on women. Really, what valid argument do you have that "overwhelmingly women" and "disproportionately women" do not mean the same thing in the case of domestic violence? Why should I even debate you on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

And "overwhelmingly women" can easily be changed to "disproportionately and overwhelmingly women," although I find this redundant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Domestic Violence in Spain

Just what is that picture of? It seems staged and the caption explains nothing. Czolgolz (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Excuses:

Domestic violence is not applicable unless there is a form of extortion, and when that critereon is used, many of the cases in domestic violence fall apart and what you have left are a large number of cases where a slap down is given to prevent an action, actions by an individual that would repercute negatively on the household.

The restant don't have the nomer of domestic violence but a nomer of underlying frustration that is taken out in the private sphere, instead of the public.

Patheticly enough, the term domestic violence is used in extortion mode, where even the slap down of a child whom continuously whines for an ice cream, is used as a pretext to formulate a criminal form of lawsuit for sindicalistic lawyers whose accentuation is one of catering to 'the masochistic' side of the third party that would, the lawyer itself promoting the 'sadistic' side of his own heroism to obtain closeness to an 'easy mark' masochist.

Quite a few of these cases end up in posterior Sex Acts and Stockholm syndrome master slave relationships, and with an at large population that attempts to mirror onto all and everyone to remove the/a verdict/stigmata onto one of their own. (Examples> Alleged Scientiology. Criminal sindicalism. Political parties (south anti negro vote).) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.84.202 (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello anon. Your suggestions appear to be original research, and content on Wikipedia must be based on reliable sources so that content may be verifiable for readers. TimothyJosephWood 14:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

Hi, Jayx80 (talk · contribs). You should discuss some changes you make to this article. I've had an issue with a few of your edits. For example, with this edit, you changed "The term intimate partner violence is often used synonymously with domestic abuse or domestic violence" to include "incorrectly." No, going by a lot of reliable sources, it's not incorrectly. The terms do generally mean the same thing, as has been noted times before at this talk page. So I reverted you on that matter. I reverted you on a few other things as well, including this change to the lead paragraph. I reverted that change because, as I stated when reverting you, the lead does not need that detail, nor the specific wording of one source. NCADV.org, which is an advocacy/support group, is not an authoritative source, and using wording like "instrumental violence" is not clear while "physical violence" is clear. Also keep WP:Refers in mind and that the lead, per WP:LEAD, is meant to summarize the article; it is not meant to include material not already covered below. You also need to stick to what the sources state, per WP:Synthesis, and do no capitalize words that should not be capitalized; I've noticed that you capitalize the first letter of battering when it should not be capitalized. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn (talk · contribs)

Thank you for the corrections. I apologize for the mistakes.

Failing to include any mention of control or intimidation in the lead for DV seems conflicting with the DV literature consensus. DV is not merely a pattern, but a pattern of intimidation/control/fear. For example, battered victims may have a pattern of using Violent Resistance in response to a batterer's Coercive Control. This does not constitute DV, despite being a pattern.

Because IPV is NOT necessarily abuse/battering. This is not supported in the DV literature, and wouldn't it be intellectually dishonest to present them in such a way? The DV literature uses IPV as an umbrella term for ANY violence committed by intimate partners, which often includes victims' retaliatory violence against their batterers, defensive violence, and violent resistance against batterers. Research using the CTS will count acts of violence, (always refered to as IPV in the studies), such as throwing something at a partner. Without context (which the CTS is incapable of determining), there is no way to know if this was an act of abuse, or a victim resisting Coercive Control. To call IPV 'abuse' is therefore misleading and inaccurate. Because as the research shows, victims frequently use violence against their batterers.

The public tends to mistakenly believe bilateral violence means "mutual abuse", which does not exist and failure to properly define these terms contributes to such ignorance. Instrumental violence is a term used in some DV research to distinguish the abusive violence used to intimidate, punish, humiliate and control victims. Jayx80 (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, the part on males facing social barriers: I had added to acknowledge both men and women, as it seems misleading to only mention men, seeing how much research details the many sexist social barriers women specifically face.Jayx80 (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Jayx80, the second paragraph briefly notes the different forms of domestic violence; in my opinion, that control or intimidation are included is clear. But I would not oppose you mentioning them in that second paragraph. My point is that the lead is not meant for every detail, and especially when the detail is redundant. Redundancy includes a term that is already covered by another term.

I do not grasp your "IPV and battering are in no way the same" argument. What are you trying to state in that regard? I also want to take the time to note that the term battering is outdated and often avoided in the literature these days (except for when noting it as an alternative term that used to be used a lot); we mention this in the "Etymology and definitions" section.

What do you mean by "IPV is not always abusive"? What sources do you have to support what you mean on that?

As for the part about males facing social barriers, it was included because the paragraph already focuses more on women. I cut "the gender-related barriers in reporting" part. It now simply states, "Due to social stigmas regarding male victimization, men face an increased likelihood of being overlooked by healthcare providers.," which was already there as part of the "gender-related barriers in reporting" piece. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page, by the way. It's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I'm maybe being overly nitpicky with the terms... The terms "battered victim" and "batterer" are still used, albeit less frequently, in the research but are still relevant for counselors/judges/police/etc for distinguishing victims who use violence to resist abuse, from the abusers.

Also 'Batterer Intervention Programs' are the official name for the nation-wide programs treating batterers. The term Battering is, admittedly, most commonly used in the context of policy and the criminal justice system ('battered victim syndrome'). Like this 2013 report on DV literature consensus for service providers etc uses the terms IPV and "batterer" frequently throughout: http://www.academia.edu/download/33367431/HartKleinPracticalImplications.pdf

The international expert on family violence, Richard Gelles, who is still actively publishing scholarly books and studies on family violence, makes the clearest distinction in his statement (this is an excerpt) on gender asymmetry in DV:

"We know that there are two to four million women battered in the United States each year. At least half these women fight back and defend themselves, and about 700 times last year, women killed their husbands or partners. In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked. "...Thus, when we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of battered men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men."

"Indeed, men are hit by their wives, they are injured, and some are killed. But, are all men hit by women battered? No. Men who beat their wives, who use emotional abuse and blackmail to control their wives, and are then hit or even harmed, cannot be considered battered men. A battered man is one who is physically injured by a wife or partner and has not physically struck or psychologically abused her."

But anyway, I agree with you. I don't think it's really all that significant to change anything. I think this might just be an issue of semantics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayx80 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Jayx80, and regarding stuff like this, this and this, keep in mind that this article is already very big and that, per WP:SIZE, we are trying to keep the size under control. We go by WP:Summary style. Also, per MOS:Paragraphs, single-sentence paragraphs should generally be avoided. Do read these pages I am pointing you to so that you understand our rules. Another thing to look out for is redundancy. If, for example, something is already covered in the "Gender differences" section, it probably then does not need to be repeated in the "Women" or "Men" section. The "Gender differences" section is specifically supposed to be about the gender difference issues. And I repeat that you should not be adding in terms unless those terms are supported by the sources. One last thing: You should mainly stick to WP:Secondary sources, and some material should be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. WP:Primary sources should be used sparingly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding WP:Pipelinking "centrism" with the "CDC," that is a WP:EGG issue. I fixed it. The CDC does have a Wikipedia article; see Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I apologize! I must have accidentally linked 'centrism' instead of the CDC. :Thanks for fixing that!

And thank you again for pointing me towards the relevant policy articles. Jayx80 (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Jayx80, thanks for explaining. This is not a minor edit, by the way. See WP:Minor. And, again, be careful with changing the words of text; if the sources don't support the word, don't use it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

______

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-19/world/uae.court.ruling_1_islamic-law-sharia-law-ruling?_s=PM%3AWORLD
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.measuredhs.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029203959/http://www.adn.com/2011/07/22/1980301/readers-blast-valley-paper-over.html to http://www.adn.com/2011/07/22/1980301/readers-blast-valley-paper-over.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150314062136/http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Power_and_Control_wheel_NCDSV.pdf to http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Power_and_Control_wheel_NCDSV.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The review also found that IPV mediated the satisfaction of the relationship for women but not for men

"The review also found that IPV mediated the satisfaction of the relationship for women but not for men".. What does this statement mean?

If it is suggesting that a study undertaken by specialists in dealing with male perpetrators of domestic violence reports no change in the male perpetrator's satisfaction of their relationship, then maybe it makes some sense, somehow.. maybe abusive males neither happy nor unhappy about being abusive..

However, from what I gather, that's not what they mean. If they actually studied, and took seriously, cases where female perpetrators abuse male victims, and actually concluded "this does not mediate their satisfaction of their relationship" then I have even more disgust for the researchers who work in this field. The self identified feminists who conducted this study, publishing it in the journal run by more self identifying feminists, tells the men of the world "You don't feel pain like we do, or.. AT ALL. You won't even care when women do it, as we have discovered it cannot be a problem in any of your relationships. Relationship satisfaction is guaranteed, regardless of whether you suffer at the hands (and mouth) of an abusive woman.".. is this really what it means? If so, how do these people get paid to write this totally biased drivel? Perhaps they could look outside their specialism, and actually include cases where there IS clearly a female perpetrator before reporting on the effects of it.. if their first instinct wasn't to try to hide this abuse? Ask ANYONE affected by IPV, and then tell them "but we did a review, and your sex doesn't mind about this", anyone can see that is clearly partisan stat fudging (and abuse hiding), by the myriad of ways available in this kind of research. This would be the equivalent of Mens Rights activists (at the height of any western "patriarchy", with vast areas of research funding going into mens studies, gender studies courses all run by men, plus an industry of powerful men's only support groups and lobbies).. doing a study on suicide, finding (unsurprisingly) that men commit suicide more often, and then reporting "having suicidal thoughts was found to mediate life satisfaction for men, but not for women", and then going on to justify even more underfunding, and victim blaming for women with suicidal thoughts. Every single man I have known, affected by IPV, has had his LIFE destroyed by it, and the long forgotten about "relationship satisfaction" at -10, along with struggling to even talk about it whatsoever, especially to a feminist researcher looking for every opportunity to excuse his partners behaviour to him. Perhaps they just want to tell themselves that their husband/partner still loves them? How is this not career suicide? Can't they see what they look like to people in the real world outside their echo chamber? At every glance, feminist slanted researchers are toxic, in attempting to solve one problem, they create (and hide) another while working to unhide the issues they see women face, full of contradictions "men and women are the same.. except where we say they're not", and attempting to "smash patriarchy" by creating the ideological opposite. Maybe this is "original research".. but go and ask a man that has been abused by a partner, or ask a friend of a friend if you know he won't say because he likely won't talk about it, how it affected his "relationship satisfaction".

I suggest removing this as it is biased, by definition. They have not sufficiently researched males that have suffered IPV if their "relationship satisfaction" is unaffected.

If this is not the meaning, and it was the first meaning I suggested, then that meaning instead should be explained e.g. "Men suffering IPV have not had their relationship satisfaction studied".. (and guess what they would report..)188.29.164.247 (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414075336/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/child_marriage_20130307/en/ to https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/child_marriage_20130307/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140613053510/http://www.ramoscriminallawyer.com/domesticviolence-restrainingorders.html to https://www.ramoscriminallawyer.com/domesticviolence-restrainingorders.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501075026/http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/full_en.pdf to https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/full_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307192918/http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77432/1/WHO_RHR_12.36_eng.pdf to https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/77432/1/WHO_RHR_12.36_eng.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150501075026/http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/full_en.pdf to https://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/full_en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150908195535/http://www.who.int/ageing/projects/elder_abuse/en/ to https://www.who.int/ageing/projects/elder_abuse/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150912101207/http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/fv-vf/about-apropos.html to https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/fv-vf/about-apropos.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414100345/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/ to https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208152718/http://hhpronline.org/publication/previous-issues/spring-2002/ to https://hhpronline.org/publication/previous-issues/spring-2002/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151229091723/http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allArticles/807B10B75C9F425487257A740056F9CD?OpenDocument to https://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allArticles/807B10B75C9F425487257A740056F9CD?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131001160443/http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/2f5665ae20b956cb8025675a0033cafb?Opendocument to https://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/2f5665ae20b956cb8025675a0033cafb?Opendocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130728112917/http://www.everyculture.com/Ja-Ma/Maldives.html to https://www.everyculture.com/Ja-Ma/Maldives.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160622121418/http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47387b712f.html/ to https://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/47387b712f.html/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150929111222/http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2012/12/confronting-dowry-related-violence-in-india-women-at-the-center-of-justice to https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2012/12/confronting-dowry-related-violence-in-india-women-at-the-center-of-justice
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151128012802/http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/resources/publications/med_leg_guidelines/en/print.html to http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/resources/publications/med_leg_guidelines/en/print.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150821210120/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ to https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208160347/http://www.thehotline.org/2011/02/1-in-4-callers-to-the-national-domestic-violence-hotline-report-birth-control-sabotage-and-pregnancy-coercion/ to https://www.thehotline.org/2011/02/1-in-4-callers-to-the-national-domestic-violence-hotline-report-birth-control-sabotage-and-pregnancy-coercion/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730034422/http://www.bioline.org.br/request?rh04047 to https://www.bioline.org.br/request?rh04047
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130718111324/http://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/popsyn/PopulationSynthesis1.pdf to https://www.popcouncil.org/pdfs/popsyn/PopulationSynthesis1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210427/http://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=210&CM=&DF=&CL=ENG to https://www.conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=210&CM=&DF=&CL=ENG
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924035459/http://www.interights.org/opuz/index.html to http://www.interights.org/opuz/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151207171540/http://www.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/PCAA_DVandChild.pdf to http://www.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/PCAA_DVandChild.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150102115825/https://libraries.ucsd.edu/info/resources/unicef-monitoring-situation-children-and-women to https://libraries.ucsd.edu/info/resources/unicef-monitoring-situation-children-and-women
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924095119/http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/FINALChild_Protection_in_the_Somali_Region_30511.pdf to http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/sites/default/files/docs/FINALChild_Protection_in_the_Somali_Region_30511.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111220151029/http://mobihealthnews.com/13989/app-to-help-physicians-screen-for-domestic-abuse/ to https://mobihealthnews.com/13989/app-to-help-physicians-screen-for-domestic-abuse/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Coercive control the main tenet of domestic abuse

I tweaked the definition to accurately reflect what DV scholars define as battering. IPV is a broad term that can include battering and Common Couple Violence (IPV without the presence of control).

From Johnson, a primary DV scholar: "We would agree that "domestic violence" or "battering" as it is generally understood by professionals and by the public is primarily a problem of heterosexual male control of women partners. Nonetheless, battering does happen in gay male couples and in lesbian couples, and some heterosexual women do physically assault their male partners and there are forms of partner violence that are quite different from the systematic violence that we call battering." - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00948.x/full

Johnson makes the distinction between domestic violence and IPV clear.

Jayx80 (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I rolled it back because you did not add sources to the changes. It is not enough to add it here on talk, they need to be added to te article. Additionally, legally there is no distinction and the lede may need revision to reflect that there are different working definitions in different academic disciplines. Also, I see you are a new editor so please review WP:MINOR, you have marked as minor some edits which are not minor. Seraphim System ^(talk) 11:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for explaining. Jayx80 (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Jayx80, I reverted you here (followup note here) because we should not be basing the definition on one or few authors' definitions (meaning when their definition is not the general definition), the lead paragraph is already big enough and does not need to be bloated further, and because domestic violence is not always about control. Sometimes it is purely about anger, frustration or self-defense. As for Johnson making a distinction between domestic violence and IPV, many others sources do not. The vast majority of the domestic violence literature treats domestic violence and intimate partner violence (IPV) as one and the same, which is why we note in the "Etymology and definitions" section that the terms are often used synonymously, and is why this article is mostly about IPV, and is why there have been talks of merging the Domestic violence and Intimate partner violence articles. For previous discussions on the matter, see Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 5#Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title) and this section. The term domestic violence certainly does not refer solely to violence among romantic couples, or specifically romantic heterosexual couples, and I don't think Johnson was stating so by noting that domestic violence is "primarily a problem of heterosexual male control of women partners." The rest of his comment clarifies that. And we should not be stating that "Johnson makes the distinction between domestic violence and IPV clear." unless he explicitly states so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

With this edit (followup note here), I removed "battering" from the lead, which is what I'd been considering doing for sometime, since it's commonly associated with "wife battering" and "wife beating," which are outdated terms, as noted in the "Etymology and definitions" section. Battering also does not redirect here. So there is no "it redirects here" argument for it in terms of WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn The problem is that not all violence is abuse, and when professionals or scholars talk about domestic violence, they mean battering, which Coercive Control is the primary feature. See Gelles, Bancroft, etc. Random violence within an intimate relationship is not abuse unless there is control. This is not disputed by any violence scholar. And the public is already terribly misinformed as to what constitutes abuse.

Scholars still use the term battering to refer to domestic abuse. I think this still needs to be kept. Batterer Intervention Programs still use such terms. Jayx80 (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Jayx80, what you cite as a problem is not a problem. The fact of the matter is...."domestic violence" and "domestic abuse" are synonyms. I can provide a number of reliable sources showing (explicitly stating) this to be the case. What reliable sources do you have explicitly stating that domestic violence is not domestic abuse? Notice that I stated "explicitly," meaning not subject to your interpretation. You stated that "when professionals or scholars talk about domestic violence, they mean battering." The literature shows otherwise. We have a sourced "Etymology and definitions" section that states otherwise. "Battering" (which, again, is an outdated term) is one form of domestic violence, as the sourced section states. We give more weight to what the literature generally states, not to what one or a few scholars state. Yes, when professionals or scholars talk about domestic violence, they are most commonly talking about intimate partner violence; the same goes for domestic abuse (one of its synonyms). I noted this above -- that the domestic violence/domestic abuse literature is mostly about intimate partner violence, which is why there was talk of merging the Intimate partner violence article with this one. Also take the time to read some of the Violence article and some of its sources. "Violence" is a broad term that most certainly includes abuse. Furthermore, to many, all violence is abuse, but not all abuse is violence.

And, remember, there is no need to ping me to this talk page since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm licensed and work in this field. Professionals still use the term 'battering' to refer to the abuse featuring fear and Coercive Control. That is the most lethal and the one demanding the most immediate attention. The clinical definition of abuse requires a pattern of control or fear. Violence is not automatically abuse. Plenty of mental illnesses/substances can increase a person's potential to be reactively violent when triggered due to the amygdala dysregulation of emotions. PTSD and BPD are two. Only those who do not understand victimology or the effects of battering think otherwise, and they are in the minority of professionals. The past 30+ years of research shows us that a main part of Battered Persons Syndrome (ie being a battered victim) includes using violence to resist Coercive Control/fight back against an abuser. Have you read the battering literature? It says this. "Emotional abuse is any nonphysical behavior or attitude that is designed to control, subdue, punish, or isolate another person through the use of humiliation or fear (Engel, 2002)." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3876290/ Victims frequently use violence to resist their batterers abuse. There is no such thing as "mutual abuse". Victims are not also abusers when they use violence. Abuse is one-way. It's referred to as 'mutual combat' or 'mutual IPV' etc when two partners use violence but there is no clear battered victim/batterer dynamic involved. "...mutual battering is dismissed by a majority of research as a myth." -

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260504268762

The Dept of Justice defines domestic abuse in such a way: "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." - https://www.justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violence

All the national Batterer Intervention Programs distinguish between battering and other forms of IPV. They are based on the research. The abusers in these programs are referred to as batterers. The term "battering" is still very much relevant. - https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/domviolence/treatment/intervention/ Jayx80 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Jayx80, it matters not that you are licensed to work in this field. Read WP:Activism; your edits continue to resemble activist editing. Wikipedia has rules and you will follow them. For the last time: We follow the literature with WP:Due weight. Read that policy since it is clear that you do not understand it. It means that we go by the general literature, not by one or a few scholars' terms or definitions. You stated, "Professionals absolutely still use the term 'battering' to refer to the abuse featuring fear and Coercive Control." But nowhere did I state that no professional uses the term battering anymore. I stated that the term battering is outdated, and it is, as noted by this 2014 "Women, Crime and Criminal Justice: A Global Enquiry" source, from Routledge, page 80, which states, "Finally, 'battering' and 'wife abuse' are now relatively outdated terms but still in use in certain contexts around the world." You using one or two old sources from the 90s or 2000s to make claims that even the sources themselves do not state does not stop that fact. My issue with your latest edits is that you are trying to distinguish "domestic violence" and "domestic abuse"...even though they are synonyms, and you seem to be trying to state that "domestic violence" only refers to males beating up on their wives (despite even the "We would agree" Johnson source above not stating that). The literature shows that this is not true. Regardless of any assertion that violence is not automatically abuse, nowhere does the literature distinguish between "domestic violence" and "domestic abuse." You asked, "Have [I] read the battering literature?" This implies that the battering literature is separate from the "domestic violence" and "domestic abuse" literature. It is not. It is all the same thing, with different terms and some scholars using some of the terms for specific aspects. I know this because I am thoroughly educated on the battering/domestic violence/domestic abuse/intimate partner violence literature.

Yes, many sources, especially older sources, define "domestic violence" solely to mean intimate partner violence and are mainly talking about males' violence against women, but even a number of those sources note "domestic abuse" as a synonym. For example, this 2007 "Legal Medicine E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 551, states, "Synonyms for domestic violence include partner violence, relationship violence, dating violence, teen dating violence, intimate partner abuse, spouse abuse, domestic abuse, wife abuse, wife beating, and battering." And, as I noted above, over the years, domestic violence and domestic abuse have expanded to include any family violence. For example, this 2007 "Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence" source, from Routledge, page 549, states, "Domestic violence is an altercation of sufficient severity or harm to require police response where the parties are legally recognized and the allegation is that a crime has been committed or is being committed or that an order of protection has been violated. The most common types of domestic violence include child abuse, intimate partner abuse, and elder abuse." And that was 2007. Various newer sources are also clear that child abuse, intimate partner abuse, and elder abuse are domestic violence. Also notice I am keeping Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources in mind by citing the sources I do? Primary sources are not ideal. Secondary and tertiary sources are better because they review the primary sources or literature as a whole and report on them/it. They are not simply going by one scholar's viewpoint.

Your most recent edits were inappropriate not only because of your first quote having neglected use of WP:In-text attribution, but also because of your WP:Undue weight blockquote sourced to Johnson. That is why I reverted you with this edit and made this and this followup note. Per WP:Close paraphrasing, superficial modification of material from another source or quoting a source without the use of in-text attribution can also be a problem. It is partly why Diannaa left you a WP:Copyright message on your talk page in August. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Would you prefer if I just refrained from using any of Johnsons terminology then in this article? Because I thought you had said to not use it in the lead. I saw it was used in other parts of the article so I figured it was acceptable to use. Jayx80 (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Jayx80, regarding this, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments. It is bad practice to significantly change your comment after someone has replied to it. As for the lead, it is not just a lead matter. Try to understand what I've argued above and why. Understand why you were reverted on this at the Abusive power and control article by a different editor. It seems that the Wikipedia rules I keep informing you of are falling on deaf ears. Are you taking the time to read these policies and guidelines I am pointing you to? You even keep changing terms to terms the sources don't use and you keep adding in content that the existing sources in the article don't explicitly support. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Regarding you altering your previous comment, you actually didn't change it much. So it's fine that you edited it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222111056/https://www.christenebrowne.com/books/two-women/ to https://www.christenebrowne.com/books/two-women/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151227023424/http://www.hotpeachpages.net/index.html to https://www.hotpeachpages.net/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

More problematic editing

Jayx80, I've warned you about this type of editing more than once. And I did so extensively at Talk:Rape. And yet you are still doing it. Do not add in words/terms that are not supported by the sources. How difficult is that for you to do? At this, point, I have no doubt that I will eventually be reporting you at WP:ANI. I reverted your latest add-ins, including that lone study (followup note here). To quote Doc James (at the Miscarriage article, where you also tried to add the study), "Please use secondary sources." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. I am just going to refrain from editing until I have taken plenty of time to make sure I thoroughly understand Wikipedia's rules/guidelines. I thought I had a good understanding of them but I guess not.

May I just ask you if an edit is appropriate before I make one next time? Jayx80 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Men

The final sentence of the section on men says the opposite of what the source's abstract says. Wikipedia: "A consistent finding throughout the literature is that the majority of women arrested for IPV perpetration against male partners are victims using violence to resist and defend themselves against their batterers." The abstract says: "Several explanations are posed in the literature that attempt to explain such a rise, including the hypothesis that women are being arrested not for offensive violence but rather for defensive violence. Few studies, however, have used empirical data to support such arguments." I am changing it unless someone else objects. Sewblon 17:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talk • contribs)

WP:Due weight should have more of a focus on the most consistent finding(s), not on theories and hypothesis that are not cited as often. Also keep WP:Copyvio in mind. You need to summarize sources. Not just quote abstracts, and especially not without quotation marks and making it clear where the quote came from. You also need to try reading past abstracts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Gender differences

Gender differences section states "women use control to gain autonomy in abusive relationships, whereas men use control to assert authority over their partner" however cited source (in Abstract) has text: "Females reported using violence in response to prior abuse, citing revenge and retaliation as a primary motivation. Because treatment approaches are commonly derived from the power and control model, which indicates that violence is used to gain power and control, batterer intervention counseling may not be appropriate for women, who appear more motivated by the desire to maintain personal liberties in a relationship where they have been victimized."

This Wikipedia statement appears misleading as:

1. It does not mention "revenge and retaliation", only reasons behind this behavior from women's perspective (victimization).
2. The source (at least Abstract) does not explicitly state that "men use control to assert authority over their partner".
3. The statement does not mention any reasons behind men's behavior from their perspective (thus comparing reasons of behavior with behavior itself)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DavisNT (talk • contribs) 01:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC) 

In the gender differences section, it says: "A 2010 systematic review of the literature on women's perpetration of IPV concluded that with male partners, women's use of IPV is overwhelmingly in response to their partner’s violence either in self-defense or in retaliation." But in the source cited "Why Do Women Use Intimate Partner Violence? A Systematic Review of Women’s Motivations." by Megan H Bair-Merritt et al. It counts 35 studies saying that self-defense and retaliation as the primary motive, and 40 studies counting other motives as primary. So, I contend that the Wikipedia statement is not an accurate summary of the article's content and should be re-written. Sewblon 16:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talk • contribs)

Why was Hamby's language about most female perpetrated IPV not being in self-defense removed? Also, why was Strauss's statement that most female perpetrated IPV not in self-defense treated as his opinion, whereas sources reaching the opposite conclusion were treated as fact? I guess what I am trying to ask is: why is this section written under the assumption that most female perpetrated IPV having different motives from male IPV the majority view, when it is so easy to find reviews of the literature saying the opposite? Sewblon 17:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, first...there was a grammatical issue. Look at the following: "She found that The most commonly reported IPV motives for both men and women are anger, reacting to a verbal or emotional insult, or to 'get through to' the partner." Second, simply stating "coercive control" was enough. Well, that...and then explaining what coercive controls means and which sex uses it more. Third, Murray A. Straus's research is based on the highly disputed gender symmetry viewpoint and the highly debated conflict tactics scale. So, yes, conclusions from his research often are not fact. Per WP:Due weight, we give more weight to what the vast majority of reliable sources state. More sources agree with the self-defense aspect, at least in part, for women than with the "not for self-defense at all" conclusion. And the research didn't state anything. It's the researchers stating this. So "suggests" or "indicates," which are terms we sometimes use for medical/health topics (and, yes, this is one), are more accurate when noting what the research shows. As for "presented as fact," I prefer "suggests" and "indicates" for research unless the research is the majority viewpoint, is speaking of what the author(s) rather than what the research found, or unless the word "found" is clear that it is specifically about the study in question rather than about the topic as a whole. "Found" has a degree of "this is a fact that applies to all or most cases" authority to it that I avoid. Also, make sure that you have a grasp on what a literature review is. It's not the same as peer review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If the statement has to do with gender symmetry, I definitely avoid "found," per what I stated above about that area of research being heavily debated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

1. "Murray A. Straus's research is based on the highly disputed gender symmetry viewpoint." Its not "based" on the gender-symmetry viewpoint. It supports the gender-symmetry viewpoint. The gender-symmetry conclusion comes from the research rather than the other way around. 2. "highly disputed" by whom? 3. "highly debated conflict tactics scale." Its true that the conflict tactics scale is has been criticized by other sociologists like Michael Kimmel. However, it is still the most frequently used research tool to study domestic violence. If you exclude research based on the CTS from your definition of "fact" then you are excluding at least a plurality of the peer-reviewed and published literature on the subject. That is necessarily going to skew your account. 4. "we give more weight to what the vast majority of reliable sources state. More sources agree with the self-defense aspect, at least in part, for women than with the "not for self-defense at all" conclusion." That is not an accurate description of the dispute. The argument isn't "no self-defense" vs "at least a little bit of self-defense." Its "Who is more likely to use IPV in self-defense? Men, Women? or neither?" As far as I know, No one has ever directly responded to Hamby and Straus's claim that men and women commit IPV in self-defense against each other at approximately equal rates. 5. "Also, make sure that you have a grasp on what a literature review is. It's not the same as peer review." Peer-review means that other academics have vetted the work in question for soundness. A literature review is a secondary source that summarizes empirical research done by other scientists. I was under the impression that the sources from Hamby and Straus were literature reviews in that sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC) Sewblon 20:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Your first point is semantics. I stand by my statement that "Straus's research is based on the highly disputed gender symmetry viewpoint." As for "highly disputed by whom?"...the literature. It's made clear in this article and in the Domestic violence against men article, via sources, that gender symmetry is a highly controversial/highly disputed area of research. Not focusing so much on what Straus states is not about excluding material. It's about following WP:Due weight. Have you read that policy? It's clear about giving more weight to the majority viewpoint. It's also clear that undue weight can be given in a variety of ways. The notion that women don't commit IPV for self-defense at all or only occasionally is indeed a minority viewpoint. And your edits are trying to make it seem like self-defense is not a primary motive or the main motive, despite the literature repeatedly and overwhelmingly supporting self-defense as at least one big motive for why women commit IPV. You stated "[the more sources agree with the self-defense aspect, at least in part, for women than with the 'not for self-defense at all' conclusion] is not an accurate description of the dispute. The argument isn't 'no self-defense' vs 'at least a little bit of self-defense." And yet you added Straus stating that "most IPV committed by women against men is not in self-defense." That statement is focused on "a little bit of self-defense," in that it is stating that few women use self-defense, or that self-defense is only used occasionally by women, in these cases. You stated, "No one has ever directly responded to Hamby and Straus's claim that men and women commit IPV in self-defense against each other at approximately equal rates." Without getting into everything that Hamby states, I'll note right now that no one needs to specifically challenge the claim that "men and women commit IPV in self-defense against each other at approximately equal rates" when the literature repeatedly supports self-defense as being one of the main reasons, or one of the suspected main reasons, that women commit IPV. There is debate on what women's primary motive is; self-defense is a big part of that debate. Self-defense as a motive is commonly reported for women while it is significantly less reported for men. There is no big debate on whether men's primary motive for IPV is self-defense, but that debate does exist for women. As for reviews, I was simply trying to make it clear since we have had editors confusing the matter and sometimes citing primary sources for their arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hamberger research review findings

Hi, I was just wondering why the sentence summarizing Hamberger's findings about men responding to female-initiated-IPV with humor and laughter was removed? This seems like quite a significant gender difference that ought to be added, no?

Thanks Jayx82 (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed it because I fail to see why it is needed, especially since it's not reported in most sources on the topic. It's what I mean by you being over-detailed with your editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.

Also I wanted to ask why this was removed: "women use control to gain autonomy in abusive relationships, whereas men use control to assert authority over their partner"? It was about coercive control and the gendered tendencies. If it was because the source didn't say that, I just realized I cited the wrong source. I'll try to find the review that stated it. Jayx82 (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Like I stated on your talk page, I still don't see that the laughing piece is needed, but I don't strongly object to a brief mention. I'll re-add it. As for the other part, I didn't focus on removing it, and I don't mind you re-adding it as long it's sourced. Just remember to discuss more before adding text, especially a lot of text, to this article. And as always, avoid WP:Editorializing and changing wording to wording the sources don't support (unless it's synonyms and/or doesn't change the meaning). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV discussion on Domestic violence#Gender differences

Maybe the research does say that women use violence mainly for self-defense, but that just sounds like an excuse. It sounds to me as a person who knows nothing of the studies as a way to say women who use violence against men are not at fault, and that it's justified when they do. It feels like there's just barely any acknowledgment that women do abuse men too on here. I mean are there really NO studies out there that can be cited by someone that acknowledges that women aren't the only ones who are abused by their partners and that not all women are solely using violence against their partners in self-defense? I mean I do see that it isn't outright saying it never happens but when you say the majority of the time it's in self-defense that to me seems to imply implicitly that it's rare and less important to even mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Destroyedsoul (talk • contribs) 02:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• If there are such sources, find em and discuss. Until then, your gut feelings aren't really much to go on. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Destroyedsoul, self-defense is an excuse. Read the Self-defense article. Should the woman just stand there and be hit? If a person threatens someone with a gun or knife, should the other person not physically defend themselves? What you have stated with regard to self-defense is like blaming the victim. That stated, self-defense might also be defined differently among people. Like the "Gender differences" section currently notes, "A 2010 systematic review of the literature on women's perpetration of IPV found that anger, self-defense and retaliation were common motivations but that distinguishing between self-defense and retaliation was difficult." It also states that "Family violence research by Murray A. Straus concluded that most IPV perpetrated by women against men is not motivated by self-defense. This has been criticized by scholars for using a narrow definition of self-defense." Either way, the article is also clear that it's not solely about self-defense when it comes to women hitting or verbally abusing men. In addition to self-defense being interpreted differently by some people, the section notes that "Hamby also reports that both men and women use IPV for coercive control." But yeah, the section also notes that coercive control is generally used by men against women. My point is that it's clear that women might use it against men as well. The section also notes that "A 2013 review examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence. The authors found that when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first, partner abuse is relatively even." But, yes, it is also clear that "if one examines who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, and experiences subsequent psychological problems, domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims." Also, see the Domestic violence#Age groups section, which concludes that intimate partner violence among adolescents is more equal, except for the fact that girls are more physically and emotionally harmed than are boys by the incidents, and that girls are likelier to perpetrate violence in self-defense. In any case, the "Men" section does need work since it's currently focused more on women as victims. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

What you do yourself is blaming the male victim for the female violence - "it is usually just self-defense". That is contrary to a number of research findings. Compare the paragraph here with the article on Domestic violence against men - completely different picture. Galant Khan (talk) 08:43, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Galant Khan, I fail to see what you are arguing. Well, I do, but it is a poor argument per what I stated above. Your view that I am "blaming the male victim for the female violence" is your own. I have reverted you per WP:Due weight and the fact that adolescent/young adult behavior already has a section in the article. And, yes, as even that section notes, research has consistently found that girls more often than boys use domestic violence as a form of self-defense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I did remove this as redundant, however. And I wouldn't point to the Domestic violence against men article as proof of anything. That article needs significant fixing up and has been subject to POV-pushing from men's rights activists and similar. Furthermore, on Wikipedia, review articles are preferred to primary sources (see WP:Primary sources and WP:MEDRS). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Great, you found a reason to downplay it as just "findings among adolescents". The students were up to 28 years old. And the article Domestic violence against men I pointed you to has numerous more that are not based on "adolescents". The last study is a review of 1700 previous ones. The finding that females are not significantly less frequently violent than men in their relationships is already from the 70s. And the abstract already clearly says: "These results, in combination with results from many other studies, call into question the assumption that PV is primarily a male crime and that, when women are violent, it is usually in self-defense." The only difference is that when men become physically violent it more often has severe physical consequences. What you do is spin this with entirely undue weight. Galant Khan (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at your most recent source (2010) I find that in this eight-year-old study the figures he uses are even older:Self-defense is a motive for only a small proportion of PV perpetrated by women (or men) (Carrado, George, Loxam, Jones, & Templar, 1996; Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Felson & Messner, 1998; Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian, 1991; Pearson, 1997; Sarantakos, 1998; Sommer, 1996). Gandydancer (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't assume that such basic patterns of behaviour change so much over time and they apparently haven't between the 1970s and the 2010s according to the research I've seen but you are of course welcome to add more recent research. domesticviolenceresearch.org has copyright from 2016 and according to the article Domestic violence against men covers studies until 2012. I could not see directly if the project is still updated. As long as the evidence cannot be shown to come to the consensus that female domestic violence is significantly less frequent than male but this information is suppressed here I add a warning that the section is not neutral and puts undue weight on violence against women (which by the way plays right in the hand of those who use female violence to downplay the problem of domestic violence against women). Galant Khan (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't downplay anything. Above, I stated "adolescents/young adults." And the source you are citing is undue weight compared to the literature as a whole. You are just going to ignore the literature reviews cited in the article, I see. That won't do, and neither will you pointing to the poor Domestic violence against men article or domesticviolenceresearch.org (as if that source even comes close to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources). I already cited different views above, including that the definition of self-defense is not always consistent among researchers. Clearly, you are defining it in some way that a number of researchers would disagree with. That domestic violence is symmetrical is highly disputed for various reasons. If you want to sit here and compare sources, we can do that. But I'd rather not since it would be a waste of my time and I've been through this type of thing at this article before. I suggest you check the archives. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

And just so we're clear, I've already stated, "The literature repeatedly supports self-defense as being one of the main reasons, or one of the suspected main reasons, that women commit IPV. There is debate on what women's primary motive is; self-defense is a big part of that debate. Self-defense as a motive is commonly reported for women while it is significantly less reported for men." The "usually self-defense" aspect is already challenged in the initial part of the "Gender differences" section. What I object to is challenging it more than should be allowed, per our WP:Due weight policy. This was also made clear by me in the #Gender differences section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Galant Khan and Flyer22 Reborn: Fighting over statements from individual primary sources isn't going to accomplish much. There is no shortage of research on domestic violence, and as we all know, sources can be cherry-picked to make whatever argument you want. For broad statements about the epidemiology of domestic violence, we should be looking at secondary and even tertiary sources such as textbooks, medical references, and NGO reports. Kaldari (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Kaldari, "secondary and even tertiary sources" is what I have repeatedly argued on matters such as these. It's why I stated above "review articles are preferred to primary sources (see WP:Primary sources and WP:MEDRS)" and "You are just going to ignore the literature reviews cited in the article, I see. That won't do." On a side note: Since this article/talk page is on my watchlist, there's no need to ping me to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I have the impression you are unaware of the fact that no one owns an article. If you don't want a discussion, ok, but then also stay away from articles. What is wrong with domesticviolenceresearch.org? According to the article Domestic violence against men it is by researchers from three countries, they set up a research database covering 1700 peer-reviewed studies, and the website says it is sponsored by a scientific journal published by Springer.? Why did you not answer my questions how you explain higher numbers among lesbians if violence is predominantly male? Galant Khan (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Nope. I am aware of WP:OWN. I have the impression you are unaware of what sources are preferred and how WP:Due weight is supposed to be applied. Otherwise, you wouldn't keep disregarding what has been stated and wouldn't keep pointing to domesticviolenceresearch.org, the Domestic violence against men article, or speaking of peer-reviewed studies as if peer review is the same thing as literature review (it isn't). If you took the time to read WP:MEDRS, you would know what is wrong with domesticviolenceresearch.org. But you are not listening. And as for lesbian couples, I did answer your argument (with reliable sources). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You seem to define due weight as "according to my preferred world view". The article cites numerous primary sources that are not reviews at all but are portrayed as authoritative. You pick on those that you don't like and suppress their information. If you don't like the website, there may be good reasons, but you have to explain them. The article does not even mention numbers for female domestic violence, which according to many studies are even higher than those of male violence. Consensus is just that there are far more cases of severe male domestic violence like rape, injuries that lead to hospitalization and murder. I saw your response regarding lesbians, which did not address the question about the weird interpretation at all. As you will have seen I've removed the warning that neutrality is contested and certain aspects may be given undue weight first to the larger section on gender differences because a statement like "the overwhelming majority of female on male violence is not abusive" is just absurd, and I think even you know that, and then I placed it to the top of the article, because it even starts with the wrong statement that the overwhelming majority of victims are women. No, not if all forms of domestic violence are included as in this article. By the way, female on male domestic violence includes violence of mothers on their sons or elderly male household members, which I guess you will agree will not usually be self-protective but is not covered here at all. Galant Khan (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

In cases like this, WP:Due weight means giving most of our weight to the majority view. I cannot help it if you do not like the way this site works. Your arguments and this and this tagging show that you need to read up on the way that Wikipedia works. Contrary to your belief, Template:POV is not to be used as a warning. And it's supposed to be justified, or it can be removed at any time by an editor. Read it. I'll give you some time to justify the tags here on this talk page. But the section in question is well-sourced and follows WP:Due weight appropriately. If I don't see valid justification for the tags, I will remove them...if no one beats me to it first. Of course, I can also take this matter to an RfC (my go-to during disputes, especially disputes that waste my time). But for now, go ahead...have the floor. Like I stated elsewhere, "no matter what we personally think, the research is consistent in stating that domestic violence disproportionately affects women (in terms of prevalence, health and fear). Do see Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 6#Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included?, which shows that this was extensively discussed before and that the Wikipedia community decided on the matter. In that RfC, I clearly used high-quality sources to dispute the claim that 'rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women.' [...]. Your statement that I 'pick out the [sources] that [I] don't like' is not supported by my edit history; sorry. I do shun sources that Wikipedia does not like. As for 'the article is full of primary sources,' [...] I'm not mainly responsible for its current state [...], but WP:Secondary and tertiary sources support the 'disproportionately affects women' and 'self defense' aspects." That you don't take the time to read and comprehend our rules to see why domesticviolenceresearch.org is a poor source, and that it's not a matter of not liking it, does not mean that I have not explained things to you. As that RfC shows, your claim that it's "a wrong statement that the overwhelming majority of victims are women" is at odds with numerous reliable sources, including two used to support that aspect in the lead. If you honestly think that we are going to remove that bit from the lead, you should think again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I like very much how this site works. I don't like the way you work here. I justified the templates and I disagree that the intro and the section on gender differences are neutral and give due weight to female domestic violence, which is not overwhelmingly non-abusive. There is a lot of debate on the question since the 70s as you know and this is very obviously not adequately covered here. Galant Khan (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The way I work here is the way you are supposed to be working here instead of engaging in WP:Advocacy. But if you want to waste the community's time, which you apparently do, by throwing up invalid tags based, in part, on your assertion that it's "a wrong statement that the overwhelming majority of victims are women," when the quality sources in that aforementioned RfC (and the two used in the lead to support that statement) show otherwise, then so be it. As for a lot of debate not covered here, read the WP:BALASP and WP:FALSEBALANCE aspects of WP:Due weight. Not every debate gets an addition, and certainly not a significant addition, here. Not only do we have due weight to worry about, but WP:SIZE and WP:Summary style; it's why we have spin-off articles for further detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It is certainly not up to you to decide which debate should be covered here. Numerous experts have noted the importance of female domestic violence, and you will not be able to block that here. As an example of how this article is biased: The book that supports the intro is 7 years old, by a lecturer whose publication titles exclusively cover violence against women, in journals like "Feminist Legal Studies", and come on, "Although there are cases in which men are the victims of domestic violence", are you serious? When reports of the year before say there are more male than female victims in the US? (as you know, tables 4.7/4.8 on pages 44-45 in the 2010 US National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. Galant Khan (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

And while I see the website you dislike so much should not be cited, and I changed that, what was cited came from a source that was covered there and that seems perfectly ok to me, as I wrote before, a Springer published peer-reviewed scientific journal: Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project Findings At-a-Glance, Sponsored by the Journal Partner Abuse, John Hamel, LCSW, Editor-in-Chief: "Higher victimization for male than female high school students, Lifetime rates higher among women than men, Past year rates somewhat higher among men, Male and female IPV are perpetrated from similar motives." (more specifically: Of the ten papers containing gender-specific statistical analyses, five indicated that women were significantly more likely to report self-defense as a motive for perpetration than men. Four papers did not find statistically significant gender differences, and one paper reported that men were more likely to report this motive than women." Check "Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK), an unprecedented 3-year research project conducted by 42 scholars at 22 universities and research centers in the U.S., Canada and the U.K. Beginning with Volume 3, issue 2 of the journal, published in April, 2012, findings from PASK have been appearing in multiple special issues of Partner Abuse and in a massive online data base, free to the public on the Springer Publishing website, containing summaries of nearly 2,000 research studies across four decades – a total of 2,300 manuscript pages." Many of the authors are female. Galant Khan (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It's up to the rules, which you obviously do not know how to follow. The tags will be removed, and not on your terms, and there is nothing you can do about that fact. Your personal opinions on the sources do not matter; what Wikipedia thinks about the sources do. Numerous reliable sources support the statement that domestic violence disproportionately affects women. Not a one states the same about men. As for Hamel, men's rights editors love to cite the Hamel source we have in the article. But the wording in the article clearly states, "A 2013 review examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence. The authors found that when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first, partner abuse is relatively even. They also stated if one examines who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, and experiences subsequent psychological problems, domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims." I think it's time for that RfC now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I fail to see how what 42 scholars at 22 universities and research center in the US, Canada, and the UK published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are only my personal views, very sorry for that. I never questioned that domestic violence disproportionately affects women. Rape, murder and hospitalization rates are way higher, as I wrote before and as is clear from the sources I cite, just move down in the same tables 4.7/4.8 on pages 44/45 to "severe physical violence". This article however covers all forms of domestic violence, and that changes the picture (tables 4.9/4.10 cover psychological violence where 18.1% of men were affected in the past 12 months compared to 13.9% of women). This aspect is not adequately covered here. Galant Khan (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The second source for the intro statement that victims are overwhelmingly female and they suffer more severe consequences (also written by two women) does not even support the first claim, it says "it disproportionately affects them" but "is not exclusive to them", so nothing about number of victims, only about severity, which is not contested by anyone. The whole wrong intro statement is thus just based on a single biased source that is contradicted by numerous others since the 70s: Steinmetz, Straus, official country reports, a very comprehensive review in which numerous experts participated and that was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal... Galant Khan (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your personal views about the sources are clear as day, and you still don't seem to know the difference between peer review and literature review. Whether it's "domestic violence disproportionately affects women" or "domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly female and they suffer more severe consequences," it's the same; numerous reliable sources support either statement, and sources do not distinguish between the two. As for biased sources, read WP:BIASEDSOURCES. I will start the RfC regarding the tags after gathering sources (some will be sources I used before). The sources will be placed in a collapse box. I suggest you try to gather quality sources (not primary sources or poor sources) that actually contest the "domestic violence disproportionately affects women" or "domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly female and they suffer more severe consequences" aspect. Similar goes for sources on the self-defense aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I know the difference between peer review and literature review very well, you make use of straw man arguments. And as I made abundantly clear no one questions that domestic violence disproportionately affects women. It is the prevalence of violence perpetrated by women that is downplayed, and the reason of self-defense is exaggerated. I showed quality sources for this but you choose to ignore that. Galant Khan (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

That's your argument and you're sticking to it. Per the RfC below, we will see what others think. If you want to present sources in a collapse box below in the Discussion section of the RfC, I suggest you create your own. And, per WP:Talk, do not place your collapse box above mine in that section. Also sign your username under your collapse box if you use one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

____

References

Abuse can also happen when the abuser is fully aware that it's wrong and will have consequences

In the introduction there is a sentence "Domestic violence occurs when the abuser believes that abuse is an entitlement, acceptable, justified, or unlikely to be reported." That does not cover the whole picture, many people know it is wrong and will have consequences but they have a conduct disorder or cannot control themselves, e.g., due to drug abuse. I think "often occurs..." improves on that but there may be better solutions. Galant Khan (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes important to leave room for other possible reasons.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No research implies that substance abuse causes domestic violence, only that it is a mediating factor. Research suggests that Borderline and PTSD may cause uncontrollable aggressive responses to perceived threat. Conduct disorder does not mean someone "cannot control themselves" and this is a ridiculous suggestion considering it frequently leads to clinical psychopathy once adulthood is reached. Jayx82 (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)