Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:36, 23 November 2015

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Domestic violence. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Domestic violence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Domestic violence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Men's rights article probation (portions)

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Domestic violence. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Systems Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the field of Systems psychology. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Family and relationships (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships Template:WAP assignment

	Domestic violence is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 4, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

Factor: education-difference between spouses

I read an abstract once of a study saying women with higher education married to men with lower education than them had higher risk of being abused. Does anyone happen to have the citation of this? (I know the reverse seems to be the case in Bangladesh, so presumably there's some confounding factor here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwibird (talk • contribs) 08:03, 24 February 2009‎ (UTC)

Ah, now I found it. Martin (2007) , cites Johnson (2003) as saying that "women with higher education were at greater risk of being physically and sexually assaulted by their partners", although other studies have also shown that unemployed women are at higher risk of marital rape, not sure how to interpret all this. (Martin 2007 seems to be a very good review.)

References

1. http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/demography/v040/40.2koenig.html
2. Elaine K. Martin, Casey T. Taft, Patricia A. Resick, A review of marital rape, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Volume 12, Issue 3, May-June 2007, Pages 329-347, ISSN 1359-1789, DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2006.10.003. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VH7-4MM95WJ-1/2/c7a5b2cdc68b6cb4cc0ff35af32637d0
3. Holly Johnson. (2003). The cessation of assaults on wives*. Journal of Comparative Family Studies: Violence Against Women in the Family, 34(1), 75-91. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from Academic Research Library database. (Document ID: 344327771). http://proquest.umi.com/pqdlink?did=344327771&Fmt=7&clientId=32064&RQT=309&VName=PQD

Seriously?

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

Misplaced Pages Primary School invitation

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

Claim about male self overestimating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Domestic violence affects both genders and children

I included statement "Domestic violence affects both genders" to appease other editors. I have not said "equally" or even "significantly" but we need to qualify this paragraph. At least a third of all DV is women against men. And that is very conservative. We cant be distorting or skewing things, regardless of your frustration flyer 22. Does this sound fair? Lets get a good outcome here.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte135 (talk · contribs), I already replied to you above. I do not distort or skew facts, but it appears you do. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I was not accusing you of skewing I was saying the way it is currently worded is very very biased and skewed toward women! Please dont accuse me personally though. Please be civil flyer 22. Thanks. Charlotte135 (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Editors should agree to play the game and be civil (as has occurred), but let's not beat around the bush: your account has under forty edits and is just over two weeks old, and your edits in this topic focus on men's rights activism—see WP:MRMPS. Such activism has not taken over this article in the past and is unlikely to be successful in the future. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Not at all! please dont go accusing me of that. How? please dont make this personal. That is ridiculous and very biased. Its like saying all your edits are from the feminist movement! How have you come to your subjective accusation. Stats clearly indicate anywhere between 30 & 50% are men. I have no affiliations or interest in any men's groups. However the paragrapgh is terribly biased. Can we get some dispute resolution instead?Charlotte135 (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed this hand picked sentence ..."largely because men are stronger on average than women" thats not true necessaarily. Many women are much stronger than men too! seems very biased and non neutral. removed.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

An improper removal. The literature thoroughly supports that material (of which gender is more injured). Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Domestic violence can take a number of forms including physical, verbal, emotional, economic and sexual abuse why are you focusing on physical violence? that sentence is talking about all forms of DV not just physical. You see?Charlotte135 (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The sentence says .."A 2010 review article entitled "Are Men the More Belligerent Sex?" in Scientific American indicated that rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women." why then would we include an abstract quote about physical violence and men being bigger? My removal is sound!Charlotte135 (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied above. Keep the issue in one section. There is no need to reply in two different sections about these topics. Flyer22 (talk) 04:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. You have responded in 2 different sections. Please apply my response above to your questioning.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the misleading language of "although...." written by flyer 22. Replaced it with the balanced, neutral statement "Domestic violence affects men, women and children." This seems much more neutral for Misplaced Pages. Stating the fact. Hope this is ok. Maybe we can discuss and compromise please? But please don't discount or attack me for simply attempting to bring to light the fact that DV is not gender based, but affects both men, women and children. In many reliable sources men & women seem to be affected equally. In other sections of the article this fact is included. Therefore it seems the article is currently suffering from internal conflict where statements in different sections contradict each other? Lets discuss in a civil, respectful manner.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I propose to solve the issue that this misplaced statement by flyer 22 "However a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse, worldwide" be put in the section of the article on gender? It seems strangely placed in the paragraph currently? I will boldly move this sentence into the more appropriate section in the article on gender. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears this article has suffered in the past from parties like flyer22 and others, feuding over gender issues, which should not be the case!Charlotte135 (talk) 00:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The "a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim" bit was already in the lead, and I did not add it. I tweaked it, and added references to it because of the redundant "both genders" text you added in front of it and because of the silly "citation needed" tag you added to it; I was clear above that I sourced that sentence and why. That sentence belongs in the lead, per WP:Lead, which states in part, " should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." That domestic violence disproportionately affects women is lead material, and the text is placed in a paragraph specifically about who is affected by domestic violence and the prevalence of domestic violence; so calling it "misplaced" is nothing but more of your bias showing through. That domestic violence disproportionately affects women is already covered lower, so it does not need to be placed in the Gender aspects section. And before your recent change to that sentence, it stated, "Although men, women and children can be victims of domestic violence, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse, worldwide." There was nothing misleading about that sentence, as is clear by the sources supporting it. I added the "although" wording because that domestic violence affects men, women and children is already made clear by the first paragraph, as you surely know. That makes the "Domestic violence affects men, women and children." sentence redundant. That is the sentence that should be removed. When it stated "Domestic violence affects both genders.", not only was that redundant, it left out "children" and made it seem that gender is strictly binary these days; as is clear by genderqueer and third gender topics, it isn't. So the wording would have been more accurate as "Domestic violence affects men and women.", which I thought about adding. Then I opted to add "children." And now it's changed again.

As for your assertion that "this article has suffered in the past from parties like flyer22," I suggest you point to an example of the article having suffered because of me. I do not consider adhering to the WP:Due weight policy and following other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines ingredients that make an article suffer. And, yes, it indeed should not be the case that editors come to this article seeking to give false balance to things; you know, like you've been doing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. No, I was simply saying that lower down in the article it alreay talks about gender issues. In that section it appears that the statements that DV affects both genders equally is in direct internal conflict to the statement higher up in the article that women are affected disproportionately? Therefore people reading this article are being presented with 2 divergent and conflicting statements within the one article? Again you comment on me personally. Again, I ask you to stop this immediately please, and instead focus on this internal conflict issue we are presented with and how we can bring consistency within the article. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

While I agree with some of your points I will make this point more succinctly, if I may. In the second paragraph it says "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." But then in the gender aspects section of the article it directly conflicts with this statement by saying ".... in Scientific American indicated that rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women." Obviously Flyer 22 this internal conflict within the article just needs to be addressed IMO?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

From the SA source: "Yet research by Archer and sociologist Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire calls this scenario into question. Surprisingly, their analyses demonstrate that men and women exhibit roughly equal rates of violence within relationships; some studies hint that women’s rates of physical aggression are slightly higher." Someone needs to find out more details about this study - methodology, scope, reception of results, etc. --NeilN 02:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte135, the "a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse" part belongs in the lead, per what I stated above; I see nothing left to state on that. The Scientific American source, which was added by an IP (who added content similar to what you added), shouldn't even be there. I indicated that soon after it was added; I stated, "Moved, and removed some poor medical sourcing. I am letting Scientific America stay because of Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Popular press. If it's not replaced, I will remove it as well." That was in December 2014. Well, it's definitely time to remove it. And either way, studies on the prevalence of domestic violence vary, including with regard to the gender disparity. We are supposed to give appropriate WP:Due weight to the majority viewpoint/aspect (read that policy if you have not); and when it comes to which gender is more affected, there is broad consensus that women are the more affected gender, as is also made clear in the Violence against women section of the article. We are supposed to leave the lower part of the article to address statistical data in depth, including contradictions, with WP:Due weight of course. As for the rest, if you don't want me commenting on what I suspect your motives are, don't make comments like "It appears this article has suffered in the past from parties like flyer22 and others."

Yes, NeilN, like I recently noted, "Bertaut stated , 'As someone who has conducted a great deal of research into gender symmetry in several western countries (USA, UK, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Germany), to say it's accepted as fact in the western world is simply inaccurate. Perhaps it's accepted as fact in Scandanavia, but certainly not elsewhere. That's why, when I was writing the gender symmetry section of this article, I was very careful to a) make sure to acknowledge the controversial nature of the topic, b) include sources providing empirical data for both sides of the argument, and c) make sure to point out that even researchers who argue for gender symmetry (such as Straus and Archer for example) acknowledge that violence against women is a more serious and immediate problem. If you don't believe me, or if you are unwilling to accept the argument that gender symmetry is controversial, go ahead and email Murray A. Straus. Just Google him, and you'll get his email address. He's very happy to talk to people researching the subject. As regards your CDC source, you're correct in saying it reveals men experienced more IPV in 2010 than women. But it also says women experience considerably more IPV over their lifetimes, something which would need to be acknowledged if the data from the survey is to be included." Flyer22 (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the Scientific American source, per my, Bertaut's and NeilN's commentary above; I stated in my edit summary, "Removed per talk page; this not a review stating that. It is based on how Straus defines domestic violence, which is clearly debated, per the conflict tactics scale debate." If I had read the article at the time, I would have removed it then. It even states, "Still, domestic abuse within intimate relationships poses a greater threat to women than to men. Women suffer close to two thirds of the injuries, largely because men are stronger on average than women. In addition, women and men differ in the severity of their actions; women are more likely to scratch or slap their partners, and men more commonly punch or choke their partners." And, on page 2, it ends by concluding that men are the more belligerent sex, stating, "Until recently, most psychologists thought differences in the degree to which men and women exhibit physical aggression stemmed largely from societal reinforcement of traditional gender roles. Social factors undoubtedly account for a part of the differences. But in a study published in 2007 psychologist Raymond Baillargeon of the University of Montreal and his colleagues reveal that as early as the age of 17 months, 5 percent of boys but only 1 percent of girls engage in frequent physical aggression, such as kicking and biting. What is more, this gap does not widen between 17 and 29 months, as might be expected if environmental influences such as socialization by parents were to blame. These findings suggest that biological factors—such as the effects of testosterone on brain function—contribute to sex differences in violent behavior. Bolstering this hypothesis is the fact that males are the more belligerent sex in virtually all mammalian species that biologists have studied. Even the one marked exception to this trend—the spotted ('laughing') hyena—may prove the rule. The female hyena, which is more physically aggressive than her male counterpart, has higher testosterone levels than the male does."

The IP cherry-picked a sentence from the article, without giving it appropriate WP:In-text attribution. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you must have made an error Flyer 22 removing the section you did. I just restored it. I'm not sure who originally added it but I've read the secondary source and it's solid. Discuss here first next time please Flyer 22 before removing well referenced sections of the article. I have no idea why you did that to be honest. I also agree with NeilN in that many studies indicate that women are guilty of more aggression and other forms of DV like verbal/psychological/emotional violence. I made this point before Flyer 22, that the sources you are quoting and your own focus, are on the physical DV, rather than the many other forms of DV, which are equally important! Domestic violence is not just the physical! The article needs to be balanced. Removing other significant reliable sources which provide a different perspective is not the answer Flyer 22.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take out both statements for neutrality? The fact is statistics vary between countries. Sts are quickly outdated. Some studies focus only on pohysical DV to the exclusion of other equally important forms of DV etc. For these reasons and the fact that this seems to be a very contentious and controversial article and topic I suggest we delete both statements? Just a suggestion. But the way the article is right now it certainly does not present a neutral nor balanced point of view, based on what all of the major reliable sources say.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've made no error, and this bit will be staying out of the article, per what I stated above, even it it takes a WP:RfC for that to be achieved. And since you continue to fail to understand what type of sourcing should be in this article, with what context, and continue to disregard the WP:Due weight policy, it's best that I speak with you as little as possible. Flyer22 (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

And do stop misquoting NeilN; he did not state or imply that "many studies indicate that women are guilty of more aggression and other forms of DV like verbal/psychological/emotional violence." He was quoting what the source actually states; in other words, he gave it context; it is not a review that has found that "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women." It is an article commenting on Straus's analyses, which is analyses based on the highly criticized conflict tactics scale. NeilN then stated, "Someone needs to find out more details about this study - methodology, scope, reception of results, etc." And why do you suppose he stated that? Let's leave that to him to answer. Your idea of "balance" is completely out of step with the WP:Due weight policy, which you either have not read or do not comprehend. The WP:Due weight policy, which is a part of the WP:Neutral policy, is quite clear that we give most of our weight to the majority viewpoint/aspect, and that we do not try to make the minority viewpoint/aspect appear more prominent than it is, or as prominent as the majority viewpoint/aspect. Once again, domestic violence disproportionately affects women; this is widely supported, far more supported than any notion that domestic violence disproportionately affects men. And it is not based only on physical domestic violence. You keep acting like I am speaking solely of physical domestic violence; I am not. The fact that the conclusion that domestic violence disproportionately affects women is widely supported, far more supported than any notion that domestic violence disproportionately affects men, means that the statement that "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" is the minority viewpoint/aspect. As is made clear by the Bertaut quote above, gender symmetry is highly debated and doubted, and even Straus "acknowledge that violence against women is a more serious and immediate problem." The "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" statement is problematic because of the way it was presented and because of the sourcing; the text was presented in the article as though it is some review that found that matter to be the case, when it is actually an article commenting on Straus's analyses. Do you not understand that? Because of your editing and commentary, I am on the verge of starting a wide-scale WP:RfC with high-quality sources (book sources and reviews) to highlight how out of step with the WP:Due weight policy you are; if that WP:RfC comes to fruition, we will see what the community has to state on the matter. No doubt the WP:RfC will attract men's rights editors as well, but it's the price to pay. Flyer22 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer. I honestly don't think you read my comments. I am an individual by the way and I do believe I am being pretty bloody objective and neutral here. I am concerned about people rights, not just men's rights as you keep quoting or female rights or children's rights. Domestic violence affects all of these groups, not equally perhaps but the article needs to reflect what the reliable sources say. I agree that most secondary sources indicate that women are more affected by physical violence. But then again all of the secondary sources also state that there is a huge level of under-reporting of domestic violence to police and authorities by men. You seem very intelligent. So, common sense would tell us that if this was the case and men are very resistant to report domestic violence for a plethora of reasons, perhaps current statistics are an inaccurate reflection of how DV affects one group more so than another? Or how different forms of domestic violence affects. Also statistics vary widely between different countries and can change significantly. So, I suggested we perhaps leave statistics and associated statements out of this Misplaced Pages article altogether? This suggestion was ignored. So, I am suggesting it again?Charlotte135 (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I think an RfC is a really good idea. I dont believe the PAGs are being correctly cited and applied here. The SA content and source should not have been removed, as it's a reliable secondary source reporting about notable studies. Disagreeing with what the reliable source says is not a legitimate reason to remove the content. Theres no reason this article shouldnt contain information about DV against non-female adult victims. Minor4th 12:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte135, I'm not interested in anything else you have to state; I've comprehended you and your actions very well.

Minor4th, I was expecting you to revert this, and, like clockwork, you did. Per our debates at Talk:Domestic violence against men, I also have nothing more to state to you, except that the content you added does not belong, for the reasons I've already made perfectly clear. The WP:RfC will indeed be coming, and will be heavily advertised. Flyer22 (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Good deal. Further, you actually made nothing perfectly clear about why you keep removing that content. All I see from you is further quotes from the article - which you would, of course, be free to add to the article as additional context. By your tone and word count this seems very personal to you. No one is trying to change the meaning of the article - it's an addition of a single sentence cited to a reliable source. UNDUE does not require that divergent studies and viewpoints be completely suppressed, and it really makes no sense to argue that the inclusion of one well sourced sentence somehow unbalances the article or creates a weight problem. Yes, in the past I gave up on editing in this topic area because of the talkpage shout-downs and fillibustering - not worth it, even though I'm somewhat of a SME on the topic. Minor4th 13:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

As is clear at Talk:Domestic violence against men, you have shown a complete disregard for the WP:Due weight policy and WP:MEDRS guideline, and don't seem to understand that policy or guideline well at all; BoboMeowCat created an entire section just about it. You call the material you reverted to well-sourced, when it is not, and when it is presented in a misleading way. As is clear from what I told Charlotte135 at my talk page, what is personal to me is being tired of certain editors "trying to present men and women as equally (or close to equally) affected by something or committing something, whether it's child sexual abuse, rape in general, pedophilia, paraphilia in general, aggression, crime in general, sexism or domestic violence. The literature on these topics generally show a significant gender difference; there is nothing equal, or close to equal, about it." I also told Charlotte135, "You speak of male domestic violence victims undderreporting their victimization. Well, as you can see from this 2013 Domestic Violence in Iran: Women, Marriage and Islam source from Routledge, page 1, 'According to many criminologists, domestic violence against women is the most under-reported crime worldwide.'" Despite that, Charlotte135 is still going on above about male domestic violence victims undderreporting their victimization, as if this means that if more men reported their victimization, we'd generally find equal gender victimization with regard domestic violence. Charlotte135 speaks of common sense. Well, when the literature on domestic violence, including literature from the World Health Organization (WHO), is consistently clear that domestic violence disproportionately affects women, and that female domestic violence victims undderreporting their victimization is very prevalent, it should be common sense that more men and women reporting their victimization would not mean that we'd generally find equal gender victimization with regard domestic violence. It isn't even true that, as Charlotte135 stated, "all of the secondary sources also state that there is a huge level of under-reporting of domestic violence to police and authorities by men." But, yes, I'm turning to a WP:RfC for the inclusion of that Scientific American source. And if I see any suspicious accounts popping up weighing in on it, I will be noting that, so that it is perfectly clear to the closer of the WP:RfC what is going with that sudden influx. Flyer22 (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22. That is not at all what I said. Why are you being so aggressive toward me? I have asked you to stop these personal attacks a number of times now, but you persist. Please work with other editors in a civil way so we can get some objectivity in this article.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your "Flyer22 is being aggressive and uncivil to me" accusations are tiresome. I don't agree with your kind of objectivity, and I've been very clear about that. Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included?

This RfC concerns this Scientific American text; the source is here. See the section (which this section is a part of) above for further detail. For those viewing this from the WP:RfC page, click on Talk:Domestic violence#Domestic violence affects both genders and children for such detail. One argument is that "the conclusion that domestic violence disproportionately affects women is widely supported, far more supported than any notion that domestic violence disproportionately affects men, means that the statement that 'rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women' is the minority viewpoint/aspect. The rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women statement is problematic because of the way it s presented and because of the sourcing; the text s presented in the article as though it is some review that found that matter to be the case, when it is actually an article commenting on Straus's analyses." Domestic violence disproportionately affecting women is not simply about the physical evidence, and female domestic violence victims undderreporting their victimization is very prevalent. If the Scientific American content is to stay, its format should be changed, per the WP:Due weight policy; we should not be giving false balance to these matters. Ideally, we should also be using better sources for health content, per WP:MEDRS. The other argument is that "many studies indicate that women are guilty of more aggression and other forms of DV like verbal/psychological/emotional violence. Domestic violence is not just the physical! The article needs to be balanced. Removing other significant reliable sources which provide a different perspective is not the answer Domestic violence affects all of these groups, not equally perhaps but the article needs to reflect what the reliable sources say. most secondary sources indicate that women are more affected by physical violence. But then again all of the secondary sources also state that there is a huge level of under-reporting of domestic violence to police and authorities by men. So, common sense would tell us that if this was the case and men are very resistant to report domestic violence for a plethora of reasons, perhaps current statistics are an inaccurate reflection of how DV affects one group more so than another? Or how different forms of domestic violence affects. Also statistics vary widely between different countries and can change significantly."

Below are good-quality or high-quality sources reporting that domestic violence disproportionately affects women; some of them include commentary on men as victims of domestic violence. Also see the #Discussion section below, for sources that focus on women as perpetrators of domestic violence.

I will alert the WikiProjects associated with this talk page to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Alerted here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes (and if so, in what way?)

• Yes - though the RFC phrasing above is a bit askew, it is presenting two arguments and asking if both significant sides should be mentioned, which seems an obvious yes. Since the article is stated as part of a series of violence against men, and the current article structure has a section for Gender differences, it seems to fit best in there. In particular, I would suggest start by just limited focusing on gender may make for differences in the form of domestic violence and its reporting. I do not see that mentioned WP:MEDRS really fits to this. I also think mention of WP:WEIGHT is odd since that is part of WP:NPOV to fairly represent all significant viewpoints, and really asks how to treat it after included. Other than that I would suggest looking at the 'nature of' and 'diversity in' aspects some more for this field of many situations and many cases and many resources. Markbassett (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Markbassett, WP:NPOV stating "represent all significant viewpoints" does not mean that the source/text in question should be in the article. Also notice that it states "significant." WP:Due weight states, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." And that is what I mean about the text in question, for reasons I've noted in this WP:RfC. The text is at odds with what the literature on domestic violence generally states about the male/female dichotomy, and it is right there in the second paragraph unchallenged. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn Please delete your post above and this request, isn't the place for them. This RFC is structured to gather inputs here, so getting my view was provided, and I gave some explanation. As it looks like a separation of Voting and Discussion is being done, this area is just to collect and understand outside views, so again please remove your post and this. Markbassett (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Markbassett, since I was interested in a quick response to you, not a discussion with you, and since the Discussion section has turned into a lengthy, bickering display, I decided to respond here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No

• What is clear is that women are primarily seriously injured due to the greater strength of men. This ref says "Women account for 70% of victims killed by an intimate partner." It also says "Certain factors such as young age, female gender, and having a lower income are associated with higher rates of violence, but IPV affects all socioeconomic and demographic groups. As noted earlier, although women are more likely to be injured in violent relationships, men are also victims of violence. The prevalence rate among men is significant and the NISVS study found that nearly two-thirds of men affected by IPV did not receive the services needed." and "More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and 1 in 4 men (28.5%) have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetimes." and "When women experience rape, physical violence, or stalking they are 3 times as likely to be injured compared with men (41.6% vs 13.9% respectively)." and "Women are nearly twice as likely to experience severe physical violence (eg, being hit with fist, kicked, choked, beaten, burned, or the use of a knife or gun) compared with men (24.3% vs 13.8% respectively)." So says that being female is a risk factor and a much better ref than scientific america. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• No Per sources and WP:REDFLAG. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• no per WP REDFLAG--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• No, I've looked into this body of research during the past year, and know that the claim to be equal is not valid from better research and other places where statistics are collected. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• No: per reasons given by the others Gandydancer (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• No per WP:REDFLAG. For a claim of this nature, I would prefer a citation from a textbook or well-known NGO (or an actual academic peer reviewed review article at the least). The Scientific American article seems to be little more than a pop-science opinion piece. Kaldari (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• No per Doc James and WP:REDFLAG. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
• No per Doc James and WP:REDFLAG. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• No Per Doc James and Kaldari. The data from Doc's 2015 review should be used instead. petrarchan47คุก 07:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• No. Apart from the NIH piece that Doc James mentions, and refs 1 and 2 - as this secondary source states, the incidence of lesser forms of violence is disputed, but: "At the extreme, the statistics are indisputable when violence results in death. In the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and around the world, women are far more likely to be killed by their intimate partner." The dissenting authors' viewpoints could go into their own WP bio articles. Their viewpoints about this could reasonably be called fringe-y. Novickas (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• No, per all above. Clearly fringe. Michael P. Johnson sums it up nicely. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't have a problem with reporting women as perpetrators of domestic violence; indeed, some solid sources define domestic violence more broadly or in some other way, resulting in data reporting that women commit close to or as much domestic violence as men. My issue in this case is, as I've stated above, how the Scientific American source is presented (the wording and the WP:Due weight issue, given that the literature on domestic violence generally reports opposite of that) and that we could do with a better source, such as this 2010 "Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women's motivations." reference. If we add sources to the General aspects section of the article indicating that "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women," then, per the WP:Due weight policy, we should also make it clear in that section that the majority viewpoint/aspect is that "Although the exact rates are widely disputed, especially within the United States, there is a large body of cross-cultural evidence that women are subjected to domestic violence significantly more often than men. In addition, there is broad consensus that women are more often subjected to severe forms of abuse and are more likely to be injured by an abusive partner." Something like that. But we already have that content in the Violence against women section. The General aspects section is meant to be a general section.

Even this 2008 "A review of research on women's use of violence with male intimate partners." source would lend for a better summary than the Scientific American source; its abstract states, "This article provides a review of research literature on women who use violence with intimate partners. The central purpose is to inform service providers in the military and civilian communities who work with domestically violent women. The major points of this review are as follows: (a) women's violence usually occurs in the context of violence against them by their male partners; (b) in general, women and men perpetrate equivalent levels of physical and psychological aggression, but evidence suggests that men perpetrate sexual abuse, coercive control, and stalking more frequently than women and that women also are much more frequently injured during domestic violence incidents; (c) women and men are equally likely to initiate physical violence in relationships involving less serious "situational couple violence," and in relationships in which serious and very violent "intimate terrorism" occurs, men are much more likely to be perpetrators and women victims; (d) women's physical violence is more likely than men's violence to be motivated by self-defense and fear, whereas men's physical violence is more likely than women's to be driven by control motives; (e) studies of couples in mutually violent relationships find more negative effects for women than for men; and (f) because of the many differences in behaviors and motivations between women's and men's violence, interventions based on male models of partner violence are likely not effective for many women." Flyer22 (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The article seems reliable, and should not be censored. However, if it is going against the prevailing consensus in the literature, we should be able to cite sources saying that "most sources conclude x , but states that." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree the article seems reliable. I also agree we should not censor reliable sources. The most sensible approach is to do exactly what User:Piotrus says directly above. This method of presenting various conflicting sources seems most beneficial and is also Misplaced Pages policy, is it not. There are other major reliable sources indicating equal or near equal rates for DV as well and could be added.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There just is not consensus worldwide, despite how loud you are yelling it that there is Flyer 22. Could we therefore just say as a compromise, and for due weight, something like some studies indicate that women are more affected than men, cite a couple of sources, other studies indicate there are equal levels, cite a couple of sources and leave it at that? Seems more logical than deleting from existence, one or the other?Charlotte135 (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

An interesting example of the issue here with global stats, cultural differences and us including wide sweeping statements such as "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse"... is this study. Chang, D. F., Shen, B-J., & Takeuchi, D. T. (2009). Prevalence and demographic correlates of intimate partner violence in Asian Americans. International Journal of Law & Psychiatry, 32, 167-175. (Study reports the first national estimate of IPV among Asian Americans. Sample consisted of 1470 <47% men, 53% women> individuals of varying Asian ethnicities who responded to items on the CTS. Data reveals that 5.02% of men and 8.48% of women perpetrated minor violence on their partners. With regard to severe violence women were more than twice as likely as men to perpetrate violence <1.54% vs .71%>).Charlotte135 (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And before you rip into me again Flyer 22, I do realise this is only a primary source..but it illustrates this issue is far from cut and dry!Charlotte135 (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Piotrus, thanks for weighing in. It's not about censoring; I've not suggested that and didn't mean to imply it. What I meant is what I've stated above.

Charlotte135, I'm not shouting anything. I've made my case above with various WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. I see no need for me to list more when the literature on the matter is explicitly clear that "globally a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of domestic violence." That is not a sweeping statement, nor is it a statement that I have to cherry pick sources to support (not that I would cherry pick sources anyway); it is a statement broadly supported by the literature on domestic violence. It is a statement supported by high-quality sources, including the World Health Organization (WHO), which I will remind you is an authoritative source and is international. There is no such valid source making any sort of claim with regard to domestic violence against men. And there is no need to cling to the Scientific American source (see again Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Popular press) when we have better sources. And there is certainly no need to misrepresent it as a source that reviewed the literature and is reporting on the matter based on its own findings, when it is actually an article commenting on Murray A. Straus's analyses. And it most certainly should not be presented in the non-WP:Due weight way it is presented in. Flyer22 (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22 My use of the words censorship was probably ill-thought, I agree you did not mean to censor it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Piotrus. Flyer22 (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again you completely misunderstood the points I and some other editors have made flyer 22. I'm pretty sick of you jamming words down my throat to be honest.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Are other editors (particularly flyer 22) ok with me including this reliable source: Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review John Archer Psych Bulletin Vol. 126, No. 5, pages 651-680, 2000, which showed that women were slightly more likely than men to use physical aggression, especially among younger women? if not, why not?Charlotte135 (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Archer looked at 82 studies that found gender symmetry to reach the above conclusion! Yes? No? for inclusion? Reliable enough flyer 22?Charlotte135 (talk) 11:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Per what I've stated above. I shouldn't need to keep repeating myself. We have a Gender aspects section; of that section, we have the General subsection, the Violence against women subsection, and the Violence against men subsection, among others. The General section should be general, and it should not present the minority viewpoint/aspect that women are slightly more likely than men to use physical aggression, without the section being very clear on the majority viewpoint/aspect that men are more likely than women to use physical aggression. In the Violence against women subsection, we have the majority viewpoint/aspect. And in the Violence against men subsection, we have information contrasting that, including the following: "A 2014 study of intimate partner violence by the British Psychological Society concluded that women are more likely to be physically aggressive in domestic scenarios than men." If your Archer text is to go in the article, it would be better suited in that section. But I don't agree with it being included. The Domestic violence against men article covers the gender symmetry debate. And I again refer you to the Bertaut quote in the #Domestic violence affects both genders and children discussion above, which states, "As someone who has conducted a great deal of research into gender symmetry in several western countries (USA, UK, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Germany), to say it's accepted as fact in the western world is simply inaccurate. Perhaps it's accepted as fact in Scandanavia, but certainly not elsewhere. That's why, when I was writing the gender symmetry section of this article, I was very careful to a) make sure to acknowledge the controversial nature of the topic, b) include sources providing empirical data for both sides of the argument, and c) make sure to point out that even researchers who argue for gender symmetry (such as Straus and Archer for example) acknowledge that violence against women is a more serious and immediate problem. If you don't believe me, or if you are unwilling to accept the argument that gender symmetry is controversial, go ahead and email Murray A. Straus. Just Google him, and you'll get his email address. He's very happy to talk to people researching the subject. As regards your CDC source, you're correct in saying it reveals men experienced more IPV in 2010 than women. But it also says women experience considerably more IPV over their lifetimes, something which would need to be acknowledged if the data from the survey is to be included."

You've ignored that commentary by Bertaut. On a side note: I haven't completely misunderstood anything you or others have stated. You, however, either keep disregarding what I've stated and/or you don't understand what I've stated. You don't seem to understand the WP:Due weight policy either. And you keep twisting my words. Also, there is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page; this ping didn't work, though. Pings only work with a new signature. Flyer22 (talk) 12:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This edit of yours, which I reverted, shows that you aren't comprehending a thing about what you are doing wrong. That material is not WP:Lead material in the least, and was a complete WP:Due weight violation. Do cease your disruptive WP:Valid violations. Flyer22 (talk) 12:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not ignored anything and I completely reject your accusation that I misunderstand WP:Due weight policy. I believe you clearly misunderstand the policy despite having more experience at Misplaced Pages than I do. If that remains, I have balanced it with the psych bulletin article which examined 82 gender symmetry studies to reach a different conclusion to the one you appear to be pushing. DV is simply not a gender issue as you state flyer 22. Although you keep pushing your 'gender issue' theme I don't agree and other reliable secondary sources are contrary to your statement that you believe DV is a gender issue. Please discuss here and don't go delting my psych bulletin meta-analysis too quickly. ThanksCharlotte135 (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Per this and your continued disruption, I am very close to taking action against you, and anyone who reverts to your WP:Valid violation, by reporting this via Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Flyer22 (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what the heck has this got to do with mens rights movement??? Please calmly and in a civil manner, discuss my edit on this current article and stop referring to other articles you appear to have had wars with other editors on.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss your concerns but I put effort into that edit. If you have an issue with it stop being so rude and aggressive and just discuss it with me here please.Charlotte135 (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Per this, you should prepare for a sanction. I will be gathering all of the evidence against you and reporting the matter if that material stays in the lead past today and if you continue editing in the disruptive way you've been editing. Flyer22 (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Or you could calmly discuss your concerns with me as a new editor instead of acting so aggressively toward me. I shouldn't be forced to remove it because you say so. Just calmly discuss with me instead eh? I have many examples of your rudeness, aggression, personal attacks, rash deletions etc so, its your choice but I'm more than open to discussing things and coming to a respectful outcome instead?Charlotte135 (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing left to discuss. You have repeatedly disregarded Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, after repeatedly being informed of them. You have even disrupted this WP:RfC. This is a major WP:Lead and WP:Due weight violation. I already told you at my talk page that I have no patience for editors like you. And you most certainly are not new, no matter how much you pretend to be. Since you apparently cannot stop your disruptive editing, I will be stopping it for you. I am now ignoring you at this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you really are becoming highly offensive. No, I have been here about 4 weeks. Big deal. So, I Haven't got your experience, does that make me less important than you?? How rude! Who do you think you are? I have continually asked you to stop. I also genuinely do not understand how you believe I am violating any policies. You are a very intimidating person Flyer 22. I put effort into my edit. I'm open to discussing it. But I won't be forced to delete it!Charlotte135 (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

: And if you truly wanted to discuss, you would have let this WP:RfC play out without disrupting it; you would not have been editing a major WP:Lead and WP:Due weight violation into the article. It would be best that you cease talking to me from here on out. I will see to it that your disruption is stopped. You should expect a case on you at WP:ANI, if that major WP:Lead and WP:Due weight violation stays in the article past today. Flyer22 (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Given I am a pretty new editor here, 3.5 weeks, and still learning, would you mind cutting me some slack! I feel very intimidated by you. You obviously are trying to scare me away from this article. If you could instead calmly and respectfully explain what you are talking about I am open to discussing things? But I don't think I should be intimated, threatened and bullied away like you are obviously trying to do! I made a genuine inclusion. We were all discussing another section of the article not the second paragraph, so why not just discuss things with me. I'm a very reasonable person flyer22!Charlotte135 (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Just deleted my own edit and the reliable source I had added, to deflate any unnecessary tension, but am left pretty confused and battered here?Charlotte135 (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And I apologize to other editors if I did disrupt the flow of this discussion. It was not my intention.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Charlottel35 I've been here a long time and I frequently work on articles that are related to women's issues. Reading through the discussion it is not my impression that flyer22 has been harsh or abusive at all. It can take some time to understand how things are done here. Best, Mary Gandydancer (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Mary, I disagree. I reverted my edit to cool things down with Flyer22 and read some more policy myself. However Flyer22's negative comments and behavior toward me are completely separate to this wrongly timed edit. Enough said here though.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 has displayed textbook WP:OWNER attitude, and it's not acceptable. Archer is a quality peer reviewed meta-analysis from a respected journal and ample use by others. That's precisely the kind of source you want to form the backbone of an article. Rhoark (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Rhoark, nice to meet you too. Feel free to report me for any policy violations. Note my history, and I'll be sure to note your history on topics such as these as well. I'm sure that your definition of WP:OWN and what is appropriate WP:Lead material will be at odds with what the more experienced Wikipedians think. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

More on your opinion stated here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

When I teach about domestic violence, I find it best to stick to what we know and don't know. The truth is, we don't know actual numbers for domestic violence. What we DO know is that, in heterosexual and same sex relationships, women more often report domestic violence and violence with injury than do men. We can then talk about the differences and why that may be the case. See Whitacker et al. (2007) Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence. Am J Public Health May; 97(5): 941–947 doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020 and CDC releases data on interpersonal and sexual violence by sexual orientation January 25, 2013 Division of News & Electronic Media, Office of Communication, http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0125_NISVS.html . Meclee (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a very poorly formed RfC and is therefore invalid in whatever conclusion is ultimately arrived at. The RfC clearly suggests the "right" answer and strongly advocates for a certain outcome. The purpose of the RfC is to get more people to look at the issue objectively, and that obviously cannot happen with this value-laden RfC (as written). Flyer22 could you olease consider withdrawing this RfC and rewording it in a neutral way and re-notifying projects? Minor4th 19:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

If not, I believe someone needs to close or request close. Minor4th 19:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) 19:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I certainly second that. Hoping Flyer22 can take this advice onboard and start this again in a more neutral way then?Charlotte135 (talk)

Flyer22 worded the WP:RfC neutrally. She always words WP:RfCs neutrally. Providing good-quality or high-quality sources that showcase what literature generally states about the topic of domestic violence, especially with regard to the gender difference aspects, does not make a WP:RfC non-neutral, especially since this dispute is specifically about the following text: "A 2010 review article entitled "Are Men the More Belligerent Sex?" in Scientific American indicated that rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

So, I take that as a NO to the valid and very well framed request by User:Minor4th, which I had agreed with. But, I would still like to introduce the 2000 Archer meta-analyses into the body of this article, as suggested by Flyer22Reborn. How best to do so, then for it to be accepted, that is? Is this still ok Flyer22Reborn?Charlotte135 (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, please see and . Those should give you some guidance about how to lay out a neutral and concise RfC, which yours is not.

Specifically, you will find the following: "In general, avoid writing anything that could predispose the reader towards a particular conclusion. Also be careful not to do this by implication: avoid rhetorical constructions and wording choices that indicate preference towards a particular outcome." and "A good rule of thumb: another editor who doesn't know your opinion shouldn't be able to guess from reading the question." and "The RfC question should not include arguments supporting or opposing any particular outcome", among other helpful guidance.

Since you do not wish to rephrase the RfC, I intend to submit a separate RfC on the Scientific American source and its reliability as a source for the content about the studies it discusses. I have never done an RfC before, so it will take me some time to figure it all out. Thanks. Minor4th 01:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Charlotte, this RfC discussion is specifically about the Scientific American article - it's really not the place for general talk page discussion about other matters like the Archer article. You can start a new talk page section or even start an RfC about the article, or you could address it at any one of various notice boards, like Reliable Source Noticeboard or NPOV noticeboard. Let me know if you need help with this. Minor4th 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Minor4th. And thanks for letting me know in such a decent way! Will follow your advice.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, WP:RfCs commonly present both sides of a dispute. That is neutral. And is seen with this link (which is a WP:Permalink) at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All. In the case above, the WP:RfC is done without naming any editors, which is the correct way to do it. Examples of a similarly formatted WP:RfC are this one and this one. As is indicated by those examples (especially the second one which has more participants), the ones at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/All, and most of those weighing in on the WP:RfC above, never is there an issue with such WP:RfCs if they give both sides of the dispute neutrally. You only know the opinion of the editors quoted in the above WP:RfC because you were involved in the dispute before the WP:RfC started. There was no valid reason whatsoever to present a vague WP:RfC without giving it appropriate context, as to the literature at hand. As you can see by the comment by FloNight above, it is indeed vital that editors are familiar with the body of literature on this topic. Suggesting that they should have been left in the dark about it is highly misguided. Since you insist on disrupting this WP:RfC by starting another one, as if both WP:RfCs are supposed to compete with each other, I suggest you read WP:OTHERPARENT. If this WP:RfC were going your way, you wouldn't be eager to create a new one. If, in your WP:RfC, you do not highlight the fact that there is already a WP:RfC occurring on the talk page, I will. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, I'm not going to get into it with you because I know you will post and post and post until an editor is worn out. Suffice to say, I disagree with your evaluation of your RfC as neutral and you are wrong in stating that I'm making this suggestion just because it's not going my way. I haven't even stated an opinion or cast a vote because it's not a proper RfC, and it cannot result in any conclusion that the community can have faith in. I'm not suggesting that we have "competing" RfC's - I am simply asking that it be presented neutrally to the community so that we can get some objective and reliable results. Before mentioning another RfC, I asked you to reword yours - you declined. Minor4th 02:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Declaring that you intend to start another WP:RfC, and actually going through with the plan, is indeed suggesting that we have "competing" RfCs. All it takes is common sense to know why you want another one. Suffice it to say, I disagree with the entirety of your "02:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of this RfC, the Scientific American statement isn't even in the right place. It's awkwardly shoved into the middle of a paragraph about differences in reporting rates (not perpetration rates). This clumsy POV-pushing is not improving the article. Kaldari (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

*sigh* Can I recommend the article is 'pattern of behaviour' and ... really the diversity of field and situations seems more important in it and the psychology or sociology seems more the approach, the things to focus on. Polarization to two sides and statistics seems just stereotyping with no definition or explanations, an oversimplifying and inappropriate to understanding. Also seems not related to the article sections or sub-topics of child abuse, elder abuse, same-gender situations, difficulties in statistics or responses, etcetera and --- if it's not relevant to that much of the article, and is this contentious, why go after it ? Do we need this for this topic ? Does it even need discussion / belong in  ? Markbassett (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: per Piotr Konieczny and Flyer22's suggestions about "reporting women as perpetrators of domestic violence", I suggest they read the current article, which clearly discusses these aspects, and is even gender-neutral in the lede. If we need to change the language or the points raised throughout certain sections in the article due to weight issues, then that's the domain of another RfC. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Archer source taken to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

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

How best to incorporate significant viewpoints into lead of article?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Info/study removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For NPOV sake

We are left with this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, this review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615 and this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract. All secondary. All from reputable journals. They clearly represent a significant viewpoint that needs to be represented in this article. IMO they should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints which represent what the majority of sources say. However they are far from fringe! In the second paragraph can we say something like most sources say that a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse. However some other sources (insert the three accepted reviews above) say....." and leave it at that as other editors have suggested? Sound reasonable?Charlotte135 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the abstract for the first review you suggest, what wording do you have in mind?

This article provides a review of research literature on women who use violence with intimate partners. The central purpose is to inform service providers in the military and civilian communities who work with domestically violent women. The major points of this review are as follows: (a) women's violence usually occurs in the context of violence against them by their male partners; (b) in general, women and men perpetrate equivalent levels of physical and psychological aggression, but evidence suggests that men perpetrate sexual abuse, coercive control, and stalking more frequently than women and that women also are much more frequently injured during domestic violence incidents; (c) women and men are equally likely to initiate physical violence in relationships involving less serious "situational couple violence," and in relationships in which serious and very violent "intimate terrorism" occurs, men are much more likely to be perpetrators and women victims; (d) women's physical violence is more likely than men's violence to be motivated by self-defense and fear, whereas men's physical violence is more likely than women's to be driven by control motives; (e) studies of couples in mutually violent relationships find more negative effects for women than for men; and (f) because of the many differences in behaviors and motivations between women's and men's violence, interventions based on male models of partner violence are likely not effective for many women.Gandydancer (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, like I noted in the #How best to incorporate significant viewpoints into lead of article? and #Info/study removed sections above, Charlotte135 is trying to inappropriately balance the lead because it states "Domestic violence affects men, women and children. Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." It's the "globally women are...." line that Charlotte135 takes issue with...because there is no mention of gender symmetry in that paragraph. I noted in the "How best to incorporate significant viewpoints into lead of article?" section that The "globally women are...." sentence is the mainstream statement on domestic violence, a statement that is also supported by the World Health Organization (years ago and currently); it does not need to be balanced with the minority viewpoint (gender symmetry), especially when gender symmetry covers different types of IPV and even sources that find gender symmetry are clear that women are worse off with regard to IPV...for a number of reasons. I noted that the "globally women are...." sentence is stating a fact, not one side of some big dispute. It is stating something that is not even disputed by the gender symmetry scholars. Nowhere in the domestic violence literature is the following supported: "Globally, a husband or male partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." Notice the word globally in the "globally women are...." sentence. I also did not object to including a bit of gender symmetry material in the lead, but I was clear that it should be done appropriately (for example, no text about a single study should be included there); I was clear that the counterargument to it should be included since the gender symmetry argument is very much disputed. As for this Scientific American text you moved, it's subject to the #Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included? WP:RfC above anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Also note that, in the #Discussion section above, I'm the one who pointed to the 2008 review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

So, we are again left with this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, this review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615 and this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract. All secondary. All from reputable journals. They clearly represent a significant viewpoint that needs to be represented in this article. IMO they should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints which represent what the majority of sources say. However they are definitely not fringe! In the second paragraph can we say something like, "most sources say that a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse. However some other sources (insert the three accepted reviews above) say....." and leave it at that, as other editors have suggested?

I think Flyer22rebormn has put their POV accross multiple times now. Thanks Flyer22, it's good to listen to other editors too if that's ok. Thanks. Based on my comments directly above,and the 3 quality secondary sources/critical reviews/meta-analyses of 100s of studies, my question is how would you word it Gandydancer if you were to apply Misplaced Pages policy?Charlotte135 (talk) 03:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@Charlotte Well, reading the abstract of source #1, I certainly could not complete your proposed sentence "However some other sources say....." by saying that the male partner is equally the victim. That's why I've already asked you to complete your proposed sentence drawing from the info from the abstract. I'm again asking you to complete your proposed sentence. Gandydancer (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should look for the consistent findings between each of these large scale critical reviews? Therefore the statement women use acts of physical aggression roughly equivalent to men. That seems the most conservative and well founded approach, IMO. Importantly, that statement should also be right alongside the "globally women....." statement for NPOV as outlined clearly above and qualified by stating that the majority of sources indicate an opposing viewpoint As I've already made clear. What do you think?Charlotte135 (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Roughly equivalent? I don't see anything in the abstract that suggests that. It seems that we are not even on the same page here. Perhaps you need to open a RfC if you wish to find support for your view on that study because I am in total disagreement with your suggestion that the study suggests that physical aggression is equal. Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your own 'cut and paste' of the abstract above Gandydancer, for the 2008 review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, the section in bold I will cut and paste also for total clarity: "(b) in general, women and men perpetrate equivalent levels of physical and psychological aggression, ...." Do you see it now? As I said, I'm open as to how we word it too. Charlotte135 (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please do not edit the wording of other editors. So then, you believe that we should just skip this finding?: "In an analysis of women’s motivations for violence (Swan & Snow, 2003), self-defense was the most frequently endorsed motive, with 75% of participants stating that they had used violence to defend themselves. In Stuart et al.’s (2006) sample of women who were arrested for intimate partner violence, women’s violence was motivated by self-defense 39% of the time." BTW, in the future assume that my reading and understanding of what I read are quite fine. I have an IQ that puts me in the upper 5% of the population. Gandydancer (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, the bolding was for illustrative purposes only. The couple of studies you quote are primary sources, whereas this critical review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, this critical review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615 and this critical review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract are all high quality secondary sources, all from reputable journals, all meet MEDRS 'guidelines' and review approximately 150-200 primary sources, to reach the same conclusion summarized in each of their abstracts.Charlotte135 (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Those studies don't support the point you're trying to make though. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The words that I copied here are copy/pasted from the 2008 review article. Gandydancer (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the abstract for https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract to support the proposed wording changes. If someone has access to the full article, could you elaborate on why that study is relevant to this discussion? Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You can read it for yourself here: As you will see, one needs to look at the variables including the population that was studied. Gandydancer (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

We are getting a bit off track here. And my sincere apologies for repeating myself, but I do want to focus on the NPOV point, I am clearly making again below. And there are actually 3 critical reviews, not just one, (2 of which editor whatamIdoing located).

This critical review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, this critical review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615 and this critical review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract. They are all quality secondary sources, all from reputable journals, all meet MEDRS guidelines and review approximately 150-200 primary sources, to reach the same conclusion.

The significant viewpoint they represent, should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints, which represent what the majority of sources say. So, in the second paragraph can we say something like most sources say that a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse. However some other sources (insert the 3 accepted critical reviews above) say....." and leave it at that, as other editors have suggested? Does this comply with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view or am I missing something in these core policies?Charlotte135 (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You said, "2 of which editor whatamIdoing located." Could you please point me to her post of this info? Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Best you ask her. She may also have an opinion as to how NPOV can be applied here. I'm interested in content and applying Misplaced Pages policies correctly gandydancer.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Your question can't be answered until you fill in the ellipsis in your suggested wording. What exactly do you think the article should say these three reviews/studies "say?" Be specific. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we could use the consistent findings between each of these large scale critical reviews which examined approximately 150 primary sources? They all reach similar conclusions, albeit contrary perhaps to what one might read in a newspaper around the world right now, where editorial control can easily skew perspective, and which of course we should not use in this encyclopedia article. I'm open to wording. That's why I posted here, rather than edit war, as this appears to be quite a controversial and emotive article.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, but what do you think those "consistent findings" are? This needs to be clarified since others are challenging your interpretation of the sources in this very thread, and elsewhere. Again, you need to be specific about the changes/wording you want to see. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Happy to but please, let's keep this on track and really simple and clear. Firstly, Flyer22reborn, is my NPOV interpretation correct, re this is a significant viewpoint that needs to be represented, as per Misplaced Pages core policy and my correct interpretation and application of this core policy you have constantly thrown in my face? And secondly full acknowledgement now that each of these 3 secondary sources and critical reviews of over 150 primary sources directly above, are MEDRS compliant?Charlotte135 (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry editor Fyddlestix, at quick glance and with much of this talk page, written by Flyer22reborn, I mistook your question as coming from Flyer22reborn as your user names look similar to someone like me that should be wearing their reading glasses. Apologies again.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Having said that, this talk page has often got off track very quickly given its controversial and emotive nature, so these 2 qualifying questions as to my interpretation of NPOV, and the reliability of these 3 secondary sources, remains there for anyone to answer to and/or deny or confirm I'm on the right track here? Once that is done we can move forward. I'm open to (constructive) criticism on my interpretation of NPOV policy. But I'm pretty sure I'm not missing something. Am I? Anyone?Charlotte135 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you're looking for someone to write you a blank check that says "these are reliable sources" or "these sources have weight" without first addressing the question of HOW you want to use them. That's not how it works - when we're deciding if a source or set of sources has weight and is reliable, the first and most important question that is always asked is "as a source for what?" if you're not willing to answer that question then this discussion is a waste of time. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No, not really, bear with me here if you don't mind. Other sources, that other editors have attempted to include in this highly emotion charged article, have been banished on any grounds possible. Sources that in a less emotive and controversial topic would not even be questioned! So, my question is this. Does anyone, I mean any editor at all, have a problem as to the inclusion of these 3 secondary sources/critical review articles, each published in reputable international journals and each MEDRS compliant? Illustrative example to my point of first things first, was editor Gandydancer, who in a post above, already started questioning aspects of one of the 2 reviews, until they werre told it was actually introduced by editor whatamIdoing. So, if anyone has issue with these reliable sources, speak now or forever hold your peace? (so to speak).Charlotte135 (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22 I cannot seem to find what secondary sources clearly state in the second paragraph "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse" that you flyer22reborn inserted into this article, so boldly. It is a really big statement and the 2 sources you have included don't actually say this? Have you got a really strong secondary source which supports this very big inclusion, esp with no mention in that section which represents the significant viewpoints, and extremely strong reliable secondary sources I've provided backing them up (for NPOV)? Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I am still not interested in a discussion with Charlotte135, so it would be good if Charlotte135 would stop addressing me and stop otherwise mentioning me. I've been very clear about why I do not want to engage Charlotte135. If Charlotte135 or anyone else thinks the statements from these two sources do not support "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse.", then I can't state that I agree. I honestly don't know what the person is seeing to suggest that those two sources don't support the statement. Furthermore, as I've noted more than once now, I've listed sources in the #Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included? section above, one being this 2012 Understanding and addressing violence against women World Health Organization (WHO) source, which states, "The overwhelming global burden of IPV is borne by women. Although women can be violent in relationships with men, often in self-defence, and violence sometimes occurs in same-sex partnerships, the most common perpetrators of violence against women are male intimate partners or ex-partners (1). By contrast, men are far more likely to experience violent acts by strangers or acquaintances than by someone close to them (2)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of words there Flyer22, but not much to address my question please? In fact, that WHO source is an information brochure and is solely focused on violence against women, and does not address men or children or transgener or... and the other 2 sources really just don't cut it. Does the WHO source comply withy MEDRS? Have you got anything stronger please, surely if this is the major viewpoint it would not be hard to find a couple of high quality, critical reviews/meta analyses from a reputable international journals? like the MEDRS compliant reliable sources I have provided? And please stop the patronising, immature BS not interested in discussing things with me and focus on content, policy and this very, very bold all encompassing statement you have included in paragraph 2?Charlotte135 (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Charlotte135's "12:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)" comment is yet another example of what I mean. It's like talking in circles. For example, asking if the WHO source is WP:MEDRS-compliant...when it clearly is. And acting like it doesn't comment on men when it clearly does. It doesn't need to focus on men as much as it focuses on women, especially when it's clear about domestic violence disproportionately affecting women. It focuses on domestic violence cross-culturally, and the cross-culture analyses (including other quality sources I listed in the aforementioned WP:RfC) on domestic violence consistently show that it disproportionately affects women. These sources use terms like globally, worldwide, and so on. You know, synonyms. The two reliable sources Charlotte135 is complaining about clearly support the "globally" sentence, and so does the WHO source. Enough stated. I will go back to ignoring Charlotte135 now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of words, no content. I'll ask you again, surely if this is the major viewpoint it would not be hard to find a couple of high quality, critical reviews/meta analyses from a reputable international journals? Even one such reliable source as I have provided for what is described as the minority viewpoint? The WHO brochure, despite the WHO logo on it focuses on women, not men, not children, not transgender etc Just one source Flyer22reborn?Charlotte135 (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Although I will be relying on this critical review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, this critical review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615 and this critical review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract (which are all quality secondary sources, all from reputable journals, all meet MEDRS guidelines and review approximately 150-200 primary sources) to make some edits to this article in the near future for adherence to Misplaced Pages policy, this link below is an interesting one I found supporting the so called minority viewpoint. Other editors may find it interesting too as it makes for an interesting and eye opening read!

Please see here a bibliography examining 275 scholarly investigations with an aggregate sample size exceeding 365,000 http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm It supports the minority viewpoint which I have been discussing here, albeit most are primary sources, but hey!Charlotte135 (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually looking at this bibliography again it appears there are at least 60 reviews in those 275 articles! wow. the more I dig into the sources which do support this 'so called' minority viewpoint the more you find! see for yourself http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htmCharlotte135 (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

To everyone else, also note what I stated about domestic violence with regard transgender relationships. I relayed, " usually identify as male/man or female/woman (at least when not using the term transgender as an umbrella term), which is why I was going to revert Charlotte135 on the transgender addition. 'Transgender relationships'? How do we define that, given gender identity? And where are the sources in the article discussing domestic violence among transgender people?" To summarize, domestic violence sources barely specifically address transgender people. Same goes for intersex people. And even if they did generally address them, there's the fact that transgender and intersex people usually identify as male/man or female/woman, just like everyone else. Therefore, any commentary about a domestic violence source not being good or sufficient enough because it doesn't cover transgender or intersex people is a diversion. The literature on domestic violence disproportionately affecting women is even supported by sources Charlotte135 is advocating; for example, see Gandydancer's "16:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)" and " 15:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)" posts above. And yet Charlotte135 acts like the "domestic violence disproportionately affecting women" aspect is anywhere close to debatable, and that gender symmetry is a "so called' minority viewpoint." Domestic violence is the main thing Charlotte135 is focused on (Charlotte135's other edits are minor ones to other articles), and we all know why. Others above have noted the problems with adding what Charlotte135 wants to add, and yet Charlotte135 is still determined to press forward with what Charlotte135 thinks is WP:NPOV. Like I've stated, Charlotte135 doesn't understand WP:NPOV, let alone any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. And, of course, Charlotte135 will respond to this post by stating what a big, bad bully I'm being, how long this post is (despite so much of this talk page being covered by Charlotte135's postings), and so on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Please don't try and frame me as a SPA Flyer22. I knew after I dared to challenge you on your ownership of this article and really try and bring some NPOV to it, I would be accused of such. But it just isn't so. Editor Guy Macon has made it quite clear what you are doing here and what your true motive is. You are so far from being neutral on any of these domestic violence and other gender topics Flyer22 it is ridiculous! Why won't you allow anyone to add this significant viewpoint NPOV to this article Flyer22reborn is the point? I could accuse you of not being neutral on this topic with you being so involved in these articles, and given all your other editing is minor, using software to identify vandalism. So yes, why won't you allow anyone to add this significant viewpoint NPOV to this article? You add no content to other articles it appears having a quick look at your edit history. But hey, you had no reply to all of these reliable sources I kept piling up and could not even find one secondary source in the form of a critical review from an international journal to support your viewpoint. Unbelievable! Sorry I have made it a bit personal now and will stop right there.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte135 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've reached the end of my comments here as well. I have no desire to RE:HASH this over and over again. Using the reviews that she offers, it seems that Charlotte wants to cherry pick the statement that the percentage of male/female violence is equal and just leave it at that, but not include, for example, that male physical violence is more likely to include punching and choking while females slap and scratch and that female physical violence is often used as a defense against male violence, which is also included in the reviews. I assume that Charlotte will now throw hooks out to try and drag me back into this discussion, as she has proven that she does so well, but I'm done here. Gandydancer (talk) 14:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I got a bit off track. Please don't jam words in my mouth by assuming what I wanted, or didn't want gandydancer. So we are left with this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, this review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615 and this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract. All secondary. All from reputable journals. They clearly represent a significant viewpoint that needs to be represented in this article. IMO they should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints which represent what the majority of sources say. However they are far from fringe! In the second paragraph can we say something like most sources say that a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse. However some other sources (insert the three accepted reviews above) say....." and leave it at that as other editors have suggested? Sound reasonable? And then I can get on with editing the other articles I'm working on. Please!

And I won't apologize for adding this very extensive bibliography, I found today. It makes for an interesting read and supports the significant viewpoint that I and it appears many other editors have been trying to add to this highly emotive topic in a genuine attempt I'm sure to add a NPOV. Please see here a bibliography examining 275 scholarly investigations with an aggregate sample size exceeding 365,000 see here: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htmCharlotte135 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, exactly. For example, despite what I stated in the #Discussion section above, including having been the one to suggest the 2008 review that Charlotte135 is now peddling, Charlotte135 stated to me, "You are so far from being neutral on any of these domestic violence and other gender topics Flyer22 it is ridiculous! Why won't you allow anyone to add this significant viewpoint NPOV to this article Flyer22reborn is the point? I could accuse you of not being neutral on this topic with you being so involved in these articles, and given all your other editing is minor, using software to identify vandalism. So yes, why won't you allow anyone to add this significant viewpoint NPOV to this article?"

And that is just more proof that Charlotte135 talks in circles, doesn't quite comprehend what we are stating or rather pretends not to, and most certainly doesn't understand WP:NPOV. Fyddlestix and I have been through similar at the Sexism article, where certain editors think it's being non-neutral to note that sexism mostly affects women, and instead want editors to give as much or "equal weight" to men (including in the lead) when the vast majority of sources on sexism don't. When we stick to what WP:NPOV really means, they accuse us of violating WP:NPOV, owning the article, being raging feminists, or something else. And my edit history? It speaks for itself. I can't be validly called a single-purpose account, with all the content I've created over the years (whether tweaking an article, fixing up an article and bringing it to WP:GA status, or making an article decent). But, of course, that didn't stop Charlotte135 from suggesting that I could be one anyway. This is why I cannot have a discussion with Charlotte135; Charlotte135 twists my and others' words, acts like I have some political agenda even when I'm clear that I don't and when, as noted in the Discussion section above, I'm clear that I don't object to gender symmetry material being added to the article. Any time that I'm clear that I object to that material being added a certain way, a way that is certainly inappropriate, Charlotte135 starts with the "You're biased. Why won't you allow anyone to add this significant viewpoint NPOV to this article?" ranting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. She even is using copy/paste on her own edits as she reintroduces them. For instance this is almost exactly the same as an edit from yesterday:

So we are left with this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, this review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615 and this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract. All secondary. All from reputable journals. They clearly represent a significant viewpoint that needs to be represented in this article. IMO they should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints which represent what the majority of sources say. However they are far from fringe! In the second paragraph can we say something like most sources say that a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse. However some other sources (insert the three accepted reviews above) say....." and leave it at that as other editors have suggested?

And yesterday:

So, we are again left with this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18624096?dopt=Abstract, this review http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10989615 and this review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract. All secondary. All from reputable journals. They clearly represent a significant viewpoint that needs to be represented in this article. IMO they should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints which represent what the majority of sources say. However they are definitely not fringe! In the second paragraph can we say something like, "most sources say that a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse. However some other sources (insert the three accepted reviews above) say....." and leave it at that, as other editors have suggested?

It's time to stop feeding a troll, isn't it. Gandydancer (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Gandydancer Gandydancer, are you going to apologize for your personal attack, calling me a troll? What is the basis for this extreme personal attack please?Charlotte135 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as the actual article goes, and getting back on track, I would like to add the other significant viewpoint that no-one has been allowed to add by the gatekeepers of this topic, and get on with editing some other articles I'm working on. Apologies for finally being dragged down to your's and Flyer22s level yesterday, albeit momentarily. You 2 would test the patience of a nun! Have either of you got anything to add (constructively, and based on policy) to the edit before I make an attempt to add something for NPOV sake, and move (run!!) away from this horrible atmosphere? The reason I posted here first was to avoid an edit war with editors like you as another experienced editor Minor4th advised me to do on my talk page a few weeks ago.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Charlotte135: I still don't see how https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18936281?dopt=Abstract supports the edits you are wanting to make. That paper says: "To date, most studies on IPV have focused on the victimization of women and girls rather than their male counterparts. This is due to the fact that a greater proportion of women report experiencing IPV; women are victimized at about five times the rate of men. Similarly, females accounted for 84.3% of spouse abuse victims and 85.9% of victims of violence between boy/girlfriends between 1998 and 2002." What am I missing here? Kaldari (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree, I introduced that article! See below what I am actually saying though.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I did just notice though Kaldari, that you chose to 'selectively' cut and paste the section above, but did not cut and paste the next paragraph within the same 2008 review, which then says "In recent years, researchers have begun to extend this body of research to examine female perpetration of violence in intimate relationships. There is increasing evidence to suggest that women commit as much or more IPV as men (Archer, 2000; Melton & Belknap, 2003)" I just needed to add that for a NPOV in this current talk discussion too.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not contesting that there are studies showing gender symmetry, especially in the U.S., however, there's a big difference between studies presenting evidence of gender symmetry and gender symmetry being accepted as the scientific consensus (as I'm sure you're aware). The lead should briefly present the consensus (without going into too much detail), while the body should discuss other points of view and evidence that supports other hypotheses (without synthesizing our own conclusions). Gender rates of domestic violence are not the core focus of this article, and, in my opinion, the topic already occupies too much real estate in the lead section. Kaldari (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The 300 or so studies listed in this link http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm and critical reviews / meta analyses, are not an insignificant viewpoint in the scientific community, by any means. And what you read in a press release, or magazine/news article or see on the evening news of late, in Western countries, are hardly what the science actually says after looking over the past few weeks. But I agree with your comment Kaldari.

On that note, why is this "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." statement even in the lead? This statement sitting there, without the other side of the coin presented, as we should be presenting based on policy, is what has caused the discussion and long discussions on other articles as I have been reading. And my view is not alone. A number of much more experienced editors than me like Minor4th and Guy Macon among others, have been having this discussion with others for a long while now. My only point is that if it remains right up there for readers to view, it obviously needs to be balanced with the opposing viewpoint, for NPOV sake. Maybe it could be just deleted as a more sensible option? Could someone explain the importance to this encyclopedia article, why that POV is there in the first place? Makes no real sense including it in the lead IMHO? What do you think Kaldari? Please give reasons too.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Editors need to stop engaging Charlotte135 on the same topic over and over again. Charlotte135 repeats and repeats, and it is therefore no surprise why others end up repeating themselves when arguing with Charlotte135. The "Globally, however" sentence is there for reasons I and others have made explicitly clear on this talk page. It is the mainstream viewpoint/aspect, which is also why the Domestic violence article is mostly about women. Gender symmetry is not the mainstream viewpoint/aspect. Instead, it is a highly disputed viewpoint, with conflicting data. It does not need to be presented alongside the mainstream viewpoint/aspect. WP:Due weight, which is a part of the WP:Neutral policy, is clear about that. Despite that, I have been open to adding gender symmetry material to the lead, no matter Charlotte135's claims that I have been trying to block it. What I block is the way Charlotte135 tries to add this material, to the lead or lower in the article. Once again, there is no scholarly source whatsoever that supports the following: "Globally, however, a husband or male partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." If there was, then Charlotte135 would have a valid point about the WP:Neutral policy. The literature on domestic violence, however, overwhelmingly supports women being disproportionately affected by domestic violence across cultures, and to a more severe degree than men. It outright states that, as seen by scholarly sources in the #Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included? section above. No scholarly source reports that men are disproportionately affected by domestic violence, across cultures or otherwise, and certainly not to a more severe degree than women. Minor4th and Guy Macon have not stated that they have a problem with the "Globally, however" sentence, and they have not suggested "balancing" things in the way that Charlotte135 has. That's simply Charlotte135 misrepresenting people's viewpoints, as usual. Charlotte135 has certainly misrepresented mine over and over again. We should stop entertaining Charlotte135. Charlotte135 does not get the point, and seemingly never will. Even my making this comment will lead Charlotte135 to further misrepresent facts, including my viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow! As I said, please stay away from me Flyer22rebrn and I do mean that. I was having a discussion with editor Kildari who has made some very good points. The only editor here repeating herself is you! What I object to is you repeating yourself over and over, trying to discredit mine, and any other editor's valid points, as you have done on these types of articles over a very long period of time, after admittedly me looking at the talk page histories of articles like this one. I never said any of what you just accused me of, and other editors, and readers, outside this article space, can clearly see the body of scientific knowledge I have presented here. I absolutely agree; based on what the science says, that globally women are much more affected by DV than men. I have said that a number of times on this talk page. And not once have I accused you of being a feminist, as you falsely accuse me of doing. I said it seems you are not neutral on these topics, that's all. I'm probably more of a feminist than you are Flyer22, (although I do believe you are a bully), but as a scientist, I also appreciate science, not mainstream media, and this is an encyclopedia, not a book of bloody fiction! And after doing a lot of scientific journal article reading of late, in this specific domain, and reading comments over a very long period of time, by experienced, neutral editors like Guy Macon and Minor 4th and others who have tried to talk sense to you, I am even more convinced. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the WP:Due weight policy by now, thank you, despite your assumed superiority, but yes, okay yep, you certainly do have many more years over me, of editing this, and other related Misplaced Pages gender type articles none of which, I have personally been involved in! And anyone that might care to read this bibliography http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm of almost 300 empirical studies, I found the other night, would struggle to concur with your extreme POV that the body of scientific research is "highly disputed viewpoint." What utter nonsense.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Anyone doubting that gender symmetry is highly disputed can read what I stated at the WP:MEDRS talk page (the same discussion where Charlotte135 suggested that I'm a feminist, and outright stated that I have a political stance on domestic violence). Like I stated there, gender symmetry is highly disputed because of disagreements with how the conflict tactics scale works, and different definitions of "violence." For example, some people, including some people surveyed, don't think of a push as domestic violence. Furthermore, many scholars think that women generally (obviously not always) engage in hitting their intimate partner only as a means of self-defense. Gandydancer repeatedly pointed out the self-defense aspect above, including by citing text from sources that Charlotte135 is peddling. I also noted, "The issue is whether engage in physical domestic violence as much as men do, and whether they engage in emotional/verbal domestic violence as much as men do. The gender symmetry debate has caused fighting and bitterness even among scholars. For what I mean about all of this, see this 2010 A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence source, from UPNE, page 108, where Michael P. Johnson (one of the scholars who disputes the notion of gender symmetry) calls gender symmetry a myth and continues to elaborate on why he feels that way." I also cited this 2008 Domestic Violence: A Multi-Professional Approach for Health Professionals source, from McGraw-Hill Education (UK), pages 22-32, which addresses the gender symmetry debate, including problems with Archer's metanalysis and the conflict tactics scale, and this 2011 Research Methods in Forensic Psychology source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 455 onward, which also addresses the gender symmetry dispute. And, of course, there are more recent sources that do. Minor4th and I already settled our differences (including on my talk page), with Minor4th even stating, "Flyer, I think in a broad sense we are all saying approximately the same thing, and most of this can be chalked up to a failure in communication." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

All I can say again is wow. Can I just take you, and anyone else to the top of this discussion I titled For NPOV sake where I opened with this statement you are choosing to ignore, (just as you are choosing to ignore the significant viewpoint presented in the body of research). I wrote "They clearly represent a significant viewpoint that needs to be represented in this article. IMO they should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints which represent what the majority of sources say. There it is, me stating (not my POV) but that in the body of research the majority viewpoint is that men commit more DV. Period. So there it is, in all your desperate verbiage to try and blockthe other significant viewpoint, you have forgotten to remember my words are printed right there above you. And as I said, it sure is a significant viewpoint Flyer22reborn and anyone else who are denying realty, for that matter. Do you even understand the difference Flyer22reborn between my POV and me pointing to the significant viewpoint presented in the research? This is not a debating tournament. This is Misplaced Pages, where significant viewpoints need to be included. I read the science and am reporting on this significant viewpoint. Not my POV, like you are clearly doing, but the significant viewpoint, (not the majority, but light years from fringe as well), demonstrated through the body of knowledge in the DV field.

Question is, why are you Flyer22 reborn, not accepting (and fighting so hard against) the fact that this is a significant viewpoint, presented in the body of scientific knowledge andthis bibliography http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm of almost 300 empirical studies, supports this significant viewpoint, as any neutral, objective editor with policy and Misplaced Pages's best interest in mind, would surely admit, and say, yep, that's a significant viewpoint alright. Therefore my interpretation of policy and sequential logic, is that, if gender differences are mentioned in the lead, as they are, then this significant viewpoint should also be discussed somewhere in the lead. Simple. And like any bully, it's much easier to say, hey everyone, ignore (bully) Charlotte135, (because IMO you feel threatened by me), but why not actually discuss policy and content here, rather than focus on (and bully) little, old, me and even order other editors not to communicate with me, and personally attack me instead, and try to discredit me by saying I must be a troll, a SPA, a sockpuupet or something! And where exactly did I call you a feminist? As I said, I'm probably more of a feminist than you are, and I meant it. Charlotte135 (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

So, I assume Flyer22reborn that was just another desperate attempt to try and discredit me by saying above that I called you a feminist, as if there is something wrong with being a feminist Flyer22reborn, or that feminists are biased in some way, was that it? Not sure what you were getting at, even if I had called you a feminist? Either way, I never did, otherwise you would have a diff here in seconds, and again it clearly shows you accuse falsely to intimidate and bully any editors who disagree with your POV. Offer's still there to show exactly where I said that? But I know you realise I didn't and you just made it up. Very interesting flyer22reborn.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlotte135 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyhow, back to editing so this whole discussion is not just some word fest. You said at the start of this section, "I also did not object to including a bit of gender symmetry material in the lead, but I was clear that it should be done appropriately (for example, no text about a single study should be included there); I was clear that the counterargument to it should be included since the gender symmetry argument is very much disputed."Charlotte135 (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

You also stated this " If it is included in the lead, the lead should also be clear that gender symmetry is highly disputed, and briefly note why it is."Charlotte135 (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I do agree Flyer22reborn, that "no text about a single study should be included there" so we agree on something.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Ignoring most of Charlotte135's latest gibberish, since it is more misrepresentation and falsehoods this discussion clearly shows Charlotte135 stating "I mean do you have another POV relating to feminism and domestic violence and domestic violence being a 'gender issue' as you have stated? Just a rhetorical reflection back to you, no need to answer, but hope you (and others) instead might ponder that for a moment?" and "I don't see why you are so desperate to not include other reliable sources, that albeit may conflict with your own strong and personal political stance ." Charlotte135 was clearly suggesting that I might be a feminist, and very clearly stated that I have a political stance on domestic violence. The point of those comments was to make it seem like I have some strong, feminist, ideological viewpoint on domestic violence that is preventing me from being neutral on the subject. Clearly, stating that I have a political stance on domestic violence is suggesting that I am working from a purely feminist POV anyway, especially since many (not all and likely not most) who argue against gender symmetry or point to the fact that gender symmetry is very contentious/disputed are feminists or are tied to feminism in some way. I do not identify as a feminist (as I've stated more than once), and I have no political stance on domestic violence whatsoever. Like other very experienced editors, I simply know how to apply the WP:Neutral policy correctly, and I do that across Misplaced Pages; always have. Also note that I've been stating "suggested" or "implied," not "called," when it comes to Charlotte135 trying to make it seem like I'm a raging feminist blocking content that clashes with my ideological viewpoint. I'm done commenting in this section. Charlotte135 is more than free to continue on with the falsehoods. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Once again, utter nonsense and more classic bullying tactics Flyer22reborn, similar to a school where a new girl comes to, and the school bully, who has been there for years, and knows how to get away with their nasty little bullying tactics, and has everyone else too scared to disobey their direct orders (in this case, ignore Charlotte135 everyone). Anyway, I didn't think you could find anywhere I called you a "raging feminist" and I was right! I actually do identify as a feminist, and a scientist Flyer22reborn, and your comments about feminism and feminists I personally find very offensive so let's stop this discussion about our personal lives, if you don't mind. You obviously have no idea what modern feminism actually is, do you! What, all scientists who may also be feminists, need not look at what the science actually says on a given topic and be neutral!

Anyway lets move on to editing content and policy if we can. Objectively, I have said this "They clearly represent a significant viewpoint that needs to be represented in this article. IMO they should not be given the same weight as opposing viewpoints which represent what the majority of sources say You Flyer22reborn have said this "I also did not object to including a bit of gender symmetry material in the lead, but I was clear that it should be done appropriately (for example, no text about a single study should be included there); I was clear that the counterargument to it should be included since the gender symmetry argument is very much disputed. You also stated this "If it is included in the lead, the lead should also be clear that gender symmetry is highly disputed, and briefly note why it is. I then said, I do agree Flyer22reborn, that no text about a single study should be included there" so we agree on something.

I'm sure you will ignore me here on discussing content and policy, but then keenly engage with me on our personal lives, and then have the audacity and arrogance to demand/order other truly neutral editors not to engage with and ignore Charlotte135. What a joke! That's what bullies do at school and in the workplace Flyer22reborn. Let's see if you prove me wrong and you answer to the above quotes and move on. But I bet it's more verbiage over our personal lives and the like?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Multicultural differences / age differences in the research

The article's second paragraph states that globally, at an all encompassing level, women are victims of DV more so than men. Absolutely. No doubt. However that statement, without balancing it, gives the misleading impression to readers that the rates against women are the same in Western countries as they are in the Middle East, Africa or other parts of the world, where gender equality and I should say at a core level, respect for women is low. However within the body of the article, gender differences, age differences and cross cultural differences are all discussed to some degree. No-one is saying (I'm definitely not) that in Iran or Somalia or India for instance, that rates of DV are the same as developed countries like the UK. Similarly there are differences in populations within Western countries.

For instance: "Among adolescents, where many preventative and educative interventions, in Western countries are currently aimed, research consistently shows that females perpetrate more acts of violence in intimate relationships than males (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Foshee et al., 1996; Hickman, Jaycox, & Aronoff, 2004; Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Munoz-Rivas, Grana, O'Leary, & Gonzalez, 2007; Schwartz, O'Leary, & Kendziora, 1997; Spencer & Bryant, 2000; Wolfe et al., 2001)." In fact, you would be very hard pushed to find any quality studies which show the opposite!

It is how we balance the opening paragraphs by including these types of consistent findings discussed throughout the article for NPOV that I have been patiently trying to discuss. I'm happy to discuss this with other editors here, to improve the article, but seriously, I'm not open to vicious name calling, bullying and childish behavior simply because I am discussing topics and raw statistics that some find difficult to face as reality. I'm also trying to discuss here first, before posting, to avoid any possibility of edit warring and show other editors the respect they deserve. However I too deserve respect as an editor and the rational points I am trying to make.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in the article body discusses the rates of IPV among adolescents or across different age ranges. That would probably be more suitable for epidemiology of domestic violence. It definitely isn't suitable for the lead here. Remember, the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article body. And I don't see anything in the Williams 2008 source that would suggest that the existing statement about gender in the lead is wrong (or even contested). Why not work on improving the body of the article rather than pushing changes to the lead? You may find it slightly less contentious. Kaldari (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Cross-cultural differences are definitely discussed already and at some length in the article. Particularly in regard to sexual abuse, within intimate relationships, which in many underdeveloped countries is highly prevalent and a major form of domestic violence, compared with Western countries where other forms of DV are more prevalent. And again you are right, age differences are not, but should be, currently discussed in the article, but research consistently shows that adolescent females perpetrate more acts of violence in intimate relationships than adolescent males.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

And I'm not "pushing" anything, I am completely neutral. And nothing is contentious about including these facts in the opening paragraphs, for NPOV Kaldari? I'm not sure what you're getting at, but anyway.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to the pages of debate above. Presenting nuanced statistical data is best done in the article body itself. Kaldari (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree Kaldari, that this research is best presented in the body of the article. I was not suggesting it should be in the lead.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Kaldari, regarding this content that Charlotte135 added, I added important information, including context, to it. What Charlotte135 added there was the type of one-sided material that Gandydancer and Fyddlestix expressed concerns about in the #For NPOV sake section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Followup edits (tweaks) here, here, here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

And here and here. Any future edits I make to that section will of course be in the article's edit history. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I added this this content. It was just the actual summary presented in the meta-analyses of the 62 studies, not "one sided material" nor my opinion. Based on the body of empirical research, this seems to definitely be the majority viewpoint in all of the available and relevant scientific literature, regarding DV and adolescents & young adults. The material Flyer22 has now added is some extended discourse regarding limitations and hypotheses that some researchers have postulated, as to why this has been shown so conclusively shown in the body of research, whereas I objectively presented what the vast majority of available sources say about this unique population. That is "Among adolescents research consistently shows that females perpetrate more acts of violence in intimate relationships than males (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Foshee et al., 1996; Hickman, Jaycox, & Aronoff, 2004; Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Munoz-Rivas, Grana, O'Leary, & Gonzalez, 2007; Schwartz, O'Leary, & Kendziora, 1997; Spencer & Bryant, 2000; Wolfe et al., 2001)."Charlotte135 (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC).

As my diff clearly shows above, I had personally also added this to the article "data also suggest that females who commit acts of domestic violence may experience more violent or frequent IPV victimization than males" for NPOV sake.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I clearly disagree with how Charlotte135 presented the information (I saw nothing objective about it), and so I remedied the section. To state that the vast majority of available sources say that female adolescents perpetrate more acts of violence in intimate relationships than male adolescents is not entirely inaccurate, since a lot of scholarly sources state that this demographic, which is mostly made up of white adolescents in the United States (because of the limited way this topic has been studied), perpetrate equal rates of IPV, and note the severe limitations of this research. Health sites state the same thing. For example, WebMD cites "Roberts TA, Klein J (2003). Intimate partner abuse and high-risk behavior in adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine" while stating, "In adult domestic violence, women are more often the victim. In teen relationship abuse, both boys and girls report abuse about equally. But boys tend to start the violence more often and use greater force." In other words, the literature reports "either or" in this case, and I made that clear with my changes to the section. It was very important to give the section the other context I gave it as well (the substantial differences between the genders with regard to IPV perpetration, and the limitations of the aforementioned 2008 source); those sources are clear as to why. Note that Wolfe is one of the scholars cited in the 2008 source Charlotte135 is so fond of, and is one of the scholars I included commentary from. Furthermore, sources often won't even refer to IPV among teenagers as domestic violence, instead choosing terms such as dating violence and teen dating violence (TDV), and so on; and the sources are commonly clear about why that is. Since my commenting in any section with Charlotte135 turns out like the #For NPOV sake section above, this is likely my last comment in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I presented this content. Again, it was just the actual summary presented in the meta-analyses of the 62 studies, Flyer22 reboirn! What part of that don't you get, or what part of that is "not objective" It is what the body of scientific research says about this population. They are male and females too, are they not? And I also added this to the article "data also suggest that females who commit acts of domestic violence may experience more violent or frequent IPV victimization than males" for NPOV sake. Show me some reliable sources, Flyer22reborn that state anything different than "Among adolescents research consistently shows that females perpetrate more acts of violence, or equal numbers of acts of violence, in intimate relationships than males. This is the clearly the majority view, not my POV, and should be given due weight. Instead you have tried to bury this majority viewpoint in the scientific research with criticisms of research design. Flyer22reborn. Find some then. Please.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Anyone is free to read the scholarly sources I provided on this matter, and various other scholarly ones which state that adolescent boys and girls perpetrate equal rates of IPV. They are also free to see that the aforementioned 2008 source is United States-centric. And that I've amended the text on it as such in the article after this and this. And, as expected, I'm now done replying in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I already said "or equal" even. Directly above, I said "show me some reliable sources, Flyer22reborn that state anything different than "Among adolescents research consistently shows that females perpetrate more acts of violence, or equal numbers of acts of violence, in intimate relationships than males. You are now advocating for gender equality in this population at least, studied in the body of scientific research. And Don't adolescents grow into old (or older) folks too!Charlotte135 (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Presentation of the Adolescents and young adults section

With this edit, we can see Charlotte135 stating "placing the 'majority viewpoint' nearer to the top where it should be, not buried below like Flyer22 is trying to do it seems". For what Charlotte135 means and why I disagree with Charlotte135, see the #Multicultural differences / age differences in the research section above. I argue that single study/review information does not belong before the basic/summary information on this demographic; it is not good formatting/good flow. Nor is it an accurate application of WP:Due weight. Furthermore, after (in the "Multicultural differences / age differences in the research" section) I stated anyone is free to see that the aforementioned 2008 source is United States-centric, and that I've amended the text on it as such in the article after this and this, Charlotte135 made this edit, which removed "in the United States." I reverted, stating, "Read the article. Even 'primarily United States' would be better than your misrepresentation." I also argue that this and this edit by Charlotte135 is WP:Editorializing.

Kaldari, Gandydancer and Fyddlestix, any opinions on these matters? Yes, I know that Charlotte135 and I are like oil and water. I will focus on responding to your comments instead of to Charlotte135's comments in this section. For this matter, I've stated all that I need to state to Charlotte135 in the "Multicultural differences / age differences in the research" section above. That Charlotte135 stated in that section "Don't adolescents grow into old (or older) folks too!" told me all that I need to know about Charlotte135's understanding of the literature on IPV among adolescents; it is significantly differentiated from IPV among adults. The IPV research on adolescents does not correlate to IPV research on adults. And, Gandydancer, given your issues with Charlotte135, I suggest you also focus on commenting on the content and not directly to Charlotte135. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, as a scientist, I do know that it does not necessarily, at least, equate to the adult population. Or does it in Western countries? Anyway, based on the body of empirical research, this seems to definitely be the majority viewpoint in all of the available and relevant scientific literature I can find, regarding DV and adolescents & young adults. Why this has been shown so conclusively shown in the body of research within this unique population is irrelevant to the fact that it is! The two issues are separate. We could expand this article 10 fold if we started to critique every single study that has been cited! That's why I kept my original inclusion of this population, brief.

The fact clearly remains that "Among adolescents research consistently shows that females perpetrate more, or equal, acts of violence in intimate relationships than males (Arriaga & Foshee, 2004; Foshee et al., 1996; Hickman, Jaycox, & Aronoff, 2004; Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Munoz-Rivas, Grana, O'Leary, & Gonzalez, 2007; Schwartz, O'Leary, & Kendziora, 1997; Spencer & Bryant, 2000; Wolfe et al., 2001)." My question remains does any other editor have any reliable sources, even primary sources, even surveys, showing the opposite, that is older adolescent males (eg.16, 17, 18, 19 year olds) commit more acts of DV than females? Anyone? Any reliable sources at all? It's a genuine question?Charlotte135 (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I see a few problems with this section:

• It is way too long. Gender difference in DV rates of adolescents should not be one of the primary focuses of this article, per WP:BALASPS. If anything, we should have a few sentences about it.
• It's a quotefarm.
• There's more to the subject of adolescent DV than differences in gender rate. If we're going to address the topic, it should be more balanced (and hopefully less U.S.-centric).

My recommendation would be to remove most of the quotes (paraphrasing if necessary), move the entire section to Teen dating violence#Gender differences (where it is more appropriate to have such detailed analysis of this specific topic), and include a brief summary here, linking to Teen dating violence for more information. Does that sound like a good plan? Kaldari (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

With the exception of the 2008 study material (which I'd considered further paraphrasing), I wouldn't state that the section is a quote farm. But I am fine with moving most of the material to the Teen dating violence article. In that article, the section that is currently there includes the type of material I included, and is a good summary of the topic; I suggest we use that summary for this article, but still clarify that "IPV among adolescents primarily focuses on Caucasian youth, and there are yet no studies which focus specifically on IPV in adolescent same-sex romantic relationships" and that "literature also indicates that girls in heterosexual relationships are more likely than their male counterparts to report perpetrating IPV." But my concerns remain: Whether the material is in this article or elsewhere, the 2008 study material should not come first or high up before the basic/summary information on this demographic, WP:Editorializing should not be there, and it should be made clear that the 2008 study is United States-centric. What do you think of my main concerns on this matter? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I agree that summary information should be presented before specifics, that we should remove the editorializing (the reader should be allowed to make their own conclusions), and that (if we include mention of the Williams 2008 paper) it should state that it is U.S.-specific (as they specifically screened for domestic studies). Kaldari (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, since the literature on teen dating violence is concerned with the gender differences and prevalence rates, which also cover physical and mental differences, what other teen dating violence information do you have in mind? The section here in this Domestic violence article should be clear that IPV among adolescents is common, that IPV among adolescents has thus far mostly been studied within the context of white Americans, and that gender differences and rates of IPV among adolescents vary...though adolescent and girls and boys experience and commit IPV about equally...with some research suggesting that adolescent girls commit it more, commonly in self-defense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree Kaldari, that the current section edited by Flyer22reborn is, as you put it, a quotefarm. It does need to be much briefer. There is certainly a place for this section in the article, albeit much briefer and encyclopedic. The 2008 review is mostly based on US samples. There are other empirical research studies which can, and I agree should be cited, which seem to support the same conclusions for this unique population (aged 16-20), but from other countries, solving the issue Flyer22reborn pointed out. I read the Teen dating violence and then the Talk:Teen dating violence page and there has been some interesting points made there in the past by a number of editors.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Per what Kaldari and I stated above (including agreement regarding summary information, editorializing, and making clear that the aforementioned 2008 source is noted as U.S.-centric), I made this and this edit. The 2008 material can be downsized in the Teen dating violence article, but it should be clear that that study is U.S.-centric; if someone can point out in what way it is not solely focused on the U.S., feel free to note that here in this section; I'm not seeing it, and Kaldari apparently isn't either. The literature on teen dating violence is clear that it is very relevant to note why there are perhaps equal rates of IPV among adolescents, and the gender differences accompanying that, and that's what I've done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

General comment - I agree with Kaldari about how this section should be written and that it should be pared down to summary form with much less emphasis on gender and statistics and more focus on what it means for society, directions for research , prevention, education, etc in very brief form. Minor4th 21:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As you can see with this edit I made (which you thanked me for via WP:Echo), I pared the section down significantly, to not only the most salient points noted in the sources but also the most salient ones made in the Teen dating violence article. I went for a WP:Summary style approach. The Teen dating violence article mostly concerns gender and statistics (mainly United States statistics at that), but I've stayed away from a lot of that detail since specific statistics vary and the section is meant to summarize. I also stayed away from extracting any WP:Original research from that article. For any section on teen dating violence, the material that is currently in the Domestic violence article is important; it consists of the very first things (and main things) sources on teen dating violence comment on. I looked at a variety of sources on the matter before editing that section earlier and recently, and the sources consistently mainly focus on statistics and gender, with perhaps a bit of information on prevention. I don't see why the section needs to be even shorter than those two paragraphs, when we have other sections in the article, including the Same-sex relationships section that comes after it, that are significantly longer. Granted, there is yet no Domestic violence in same-sex relationships article (except for the lesbian one); so a WP:Summary style approach doesn't apply there. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's an improvement. Thank you. Minor4th 21:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree as well and offer thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

As seen here (tweak here) and here, I added a lit bit more about previous victimization; I will also add this bit to the Teen dating violence article. Obviously, a lot more can be added on the risks and other matters regarding teen dating violence, but, as stated in this section, the Teen dating violence article is the place for that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The edit I made today was reverted by Flyer22reborn? I reverted once and stopped, to discuss instead. My edits to this article, over the past week, are clear for anyone to see.

I introduced the following section into the second paragraph summarizing as succinctly as possible, these complex issues covered at length, in the article body. "In some countries, particularly where there has been actual, or suspected infidelity by female partners, wife-beating is seen as justified by the majority of the population, and may be codified into law. Recent research has also shown there to be a direct and significant correlation between a country's level of gender equality, and actual rates of domestic violence." Discuss reasons for revert, and your inflammatory accusations here please, rather than personally attacking and constantly threatening other editors with ultimatums if things are not done your way Flyer22reborn.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: With this and this edit, I reverted obvious POV-pushing by Charlotte135, who has repeatedly made it a goal to attack and downplay the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse." sentence in the lead, a sentence that is supported by the vast majority of the literature on domestic violence. Any claims by Charlotte135 to have " violence issues against women to the forefront" over the past week because of this material to the lead are claims to combat the transparent nature of Charlotte135's POV-pushing. I am beyond tired of Charlotte135's gender symmetry POV-pushing, inaccurate descriptions of me and everything else Charlotte135 does. Charlotte135 is here for one and only one thing, despite claims of being neutral on this topic, and that is to give WP:Undue weight to gender symmetry. That is what Charlotte135's edits have mostly focused on, as anyone can see. And I will not be tolerating it, whether others leave me to do most of the dirty work or not. Even Charlotte135's so-called "violence issues against women to the forefront" text is meant to drive home Charlotte135's belief that gender symmetry is widespread in the west, but not in the non-west because of education differences, and so on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And if this edit is not reverted, another WP:RfC will be started on this talk page. I have no doubt that it will turn out like the aforementioned one, which I've already requested a close for. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It is not fair to you Flyer22. I will back whatever you do to try to put a stop to this. You should not be forced to spend all of your time trying to keep bias out of this article. Thanks for what you have done here. Gandydancer (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• High-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Systems articles
• Mid-importance Systems articles
• Systems articles in systems psychology
• WikiProject Systems articles
• B-Class Feminism articles
• High-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages