Misplaced Pages

Talk:Domestic violence: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:23, 24 October 2015 editKaldari (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers68,434 edits →No← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:38, 14 December 2024 edit undoBruhpedia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,076 edits →Changing the lead image: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{self-harm}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles|synonym1=antibiotic-induced+diarrhea}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Warning|heading=WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES|1=
{{User:MiszaBot/config
This article is subject to ]; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of ''']''' (with exceptions for ] or ] violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at ].}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
{{Controversial}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Domestic violence/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months }}
{{Men's rights article probation (portions)}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society|class=B}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Crime |class=B |importance=High |b1=yes|b2=yes|b3=yes|b4=yes|b5=yes }}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Systems |class=B |importance=mid |field=Systems psychology }}
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Family and relationships}}
{{ WAP assignment| course= Education Program:Rice University/Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities (Fall 2014) | university = Rice University | term = 2014 Fall }}
}}
{{ArticleHistory {{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC |action1=FAC
Line 31: Line 12:
|currentstatus=FFAC |currentstatus=FFAC
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid}}
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=High }}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Systems |importance=mid |field=Systems psychology }}
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Family and relationships}}
{{WikiProject Genealogy|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}}
{{WikiProject South Africa |importance=mid |PSP SA=yes}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=Mid}}
}} }}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}


{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}}
== Factor: education-difference between spouses ==


{{User:MiszaBot/config
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<ref>http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/demography/v040/40.2koenig.html</ref>, so presumably there's some confounding factor here.)
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:03, 24 February 2009‎ (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
|maxarchivesize = 250K

|counter = 9
Ah, now I found it. Martin (2007)<ref>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.
|minthreadsleft = 4
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VH7-4MM95WJ-1/2/c7a5b2cdc68b6cb4cc0ff35af32637d0</ref>
|algo = old(60d)
, cites Johnson (2003)<ref>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</ref> 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.)
|archive = Talk:Domestic violence/Archive %(counter)d

}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
=== References ===
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes

}}
{{reflist |close=1}}
{{Broken anchors|links=

* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Human trafficking and sexual exploitation) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Human trafficking and sexual exploitation","appear":{"revid":294918785,"parentid":294918651,"timestamp":"2009-06-07T05:08:23Z","replaced_anchors":{"Human trafficking and Sexual exploitation":"Human trafficking and sexual exploitation"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":544158461,"parentid":544019554,"timestamp":"2013-03-14T18:30:23Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
== 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. ] (]) 12:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

==Misplaced Pages Primary School invitation==

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the ''']''' research project, I would like to announce that this article ] ]. 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 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 ] to let us know you're collaborating.
Thanks a lot for your support! --] (]) 14:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

== Claim about male self overestimating ==

] added the following sentence to the "Gender aspects" section: "However, Straus, designer of the ] (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. ] (]) 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

:Yes, judging by that edit (which I ) and (which I ) at the ] article, it appears that {{User|Antizepho}} 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: ]. 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 . ] (]) 23:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

::{{reply to|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 ] 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. ] (]) 12:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:::{{User|Antizepho}}, 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 has further convinced that you are not a complete ]. But I'm not heavily concerned about this matter, and at least you took the time to reply. ] (]) 13:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
::::It looks like ] is correct. The claim was originally in the ] article, which is full of misinformation. ] (]) 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?] (]) 01:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::{{User|Charlotte135}}, you made is not ] 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 , with about . You then This is not the right article to pushing your ] violations. No Misplaced Pages article is. ] (]) 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.] (]) 02:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
::::::::A fluffy media report about ''claims'' made "by the men's rights campaign group Parity" does not satisfy ] for edits which seek to overturn conventional (and sourced) understanding of a topic. ] (]) 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%!] (]) 03:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
::::::::{{User|Charlotte135}}, 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 ] 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 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. ] (]) 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?] (]) 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?] (]) 03:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::{{User|Charlotte135}}, 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 ] policy. The 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", about domestic violence affecting both genders is unnecessary/redundant. ] (]) 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 ] instead. Seem fair flyer 22?] (]) 03:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

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

::Gosh, you ignored my sincere option of ] 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! ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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?] (]) 04:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

::::: 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 ] 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 ] 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? ] (]) 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!] (]) 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 ] basis, all to further your goal to make it seem like men and women are equally affected by domestic violence with no known differences. ] (]) 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?] (]) 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-]; it is what it is. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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 That is already sourced lower in the article. Per ], 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. ] (]) 05:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

:::I went ahead and . It clearly needs it since certain types of editors will keep challenging it. ] (]) 07:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Typo fix . ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] or ]), 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. ] (]) 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). ] (]) 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.] (]) 03:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

:{{User|Charlotte135}}, I already I do not distort or skew facts, but it appears you do. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. Such activism has not taken over this article in the past and is unlikely to be successful in the future. ] (]) 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?] (]) 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.] (]) 04:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::. The literature thoroughly supports that material (of which gender is more injured). ] (]) 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?] (]) 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!] (]) 04:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::. Keep the issue in one section. There is no need to reply in two different sections about these topics. ] (]) 04:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I agree. You have responded in 2 different sections. Please apply my response above to your questioning.] (]) 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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!] (]) 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 in front of it and because of the silly "citation needed" tag to it; I was that I sourced that sentence and why. That sentence belongs in the lead, per ], 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 , 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 . 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 ] and ] 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 .

:::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 ] 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 ]; you know, like you've been doing. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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?] (]) 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 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 '']'' source, which was (who added content similar to what ), shouldn't even be there. soon after it was added; I stated, "Moved, and removed some poor medical sourcing. I am letting '']'' stay because of ]. 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 , "] 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." ] (]) 03:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::I went ahead 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 ] 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 ]. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 09:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

:I've made no error, and will be staying out of the article, per what I stated above, even it it takes a ] 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. ] (]) 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 ]. 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 ] 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, ] 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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?] (]) 12:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} 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. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 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 , and, like clockwork, you did. Per our debates at ], 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. ] (]) 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. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 13:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

:::As is clear at ], you have shown a complete disregard for the WP:Due weight policy and ] guideline, and don't seem to understand that policy or guideline well at all; ] created . 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 "trying to present men and women as equally (or close to equally) affected by something or committing something, whether it's ], ] in general, ], ] in general, ], ] in general, ] 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 2013 ''Domestic Violence in Iran: Women, Marriage and Islam'' source from ], 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 ] (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 ] 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

===Should the '']'' "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included?===
{{rfc|sci|pol|soc|rfcid=6DB361E}}
This RfC concerns ''Scientific American'' text; the source is . 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 ] 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 ] policy; we should not be giving ] to these matters. Ideally, we should also be using better sources for health content, per ]. 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 ] 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 ] section below, for sources that focus on women as perpetrators of domestic violence.
{{collapse top|title=Click on this to see the sources.}}

1. 2009 ''Domestic Violence Against Women: Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies'' source states that it was important to use consistent definitions of domestic violence, and that: Results of this review emphasize that '''violence against women has reached epidemic proportions in many societies.''' Accurate measurement of the prevalence of domestic violence remains problematic and further culturally sensitive research is required to develop more effective preventive policies and programs.

2. 2011 ''International Human Rights Law and Domestic Violence: The Effectiveness of International Human Rights Law'' source, from ], page PR13, states, "'''This is an issue that affects vast numbers of women throughout all nations of the world. Although there are cases in which men are the victims of domestic violence, nevertheless 'the available research suggests that domestic violence is overwhelmingly directed by men against women In addition, violence used by men against female partners tends to be much more severe than that used by women against men. Mullender and Morley state that 'Domestic violence against women is the most common form of family violence worldwide.'"'''

3. 2012 ''Screening Women for Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation'' source states, "'''Although IPV affects both men and women as victims and perpetrators (4), more women experience IPV and most studies about screening and interventions for IPV enroll women.''' Approximately 1.3 to 5.3 million women in the United States experience IPV each year (5–6). Lifetime estimates range from 22% to 39% (7–8). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey indicated that 30% of women experience physical violence, 9% rape, 17% sexual violence other than rape, and 48% psychological aggression from their intimate partners over their lifetimes (4). Costs related to IPV are estimated to be between $2 and $7 billion each year (9)."

4. 2012 ''Understanding and addressing
violence against women'' ] (WHO) source 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).''' How common is intimate partner violence? A growing number of population-based surveys have measured the prevalence of IPV, most notably the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women, which collected data on IPV from more than 24000 women in 10 countries, 1 representing diverse cultural, geographical and urban/rural settings (3) The study confirmed that IPV is widespread in all countries studied (Figure 1). In addition, a comparative analysis of Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data from nine countries found that the percentage of ever-partnered women who reported ever experiencing any physical or sexual violence by their current or most recent husband or cohabiting partner ranged from 18% in Cambodia to 48% in Zambia for physical violence, and 4% to 17% for sexual violence (4). In a 10-country analysis of DHS data, physical or sexual IPV ever reported by currently married women ranged from 17% in the Dominican Republic to 75% in Bangladesh (5). Similar ranges have been reported from other multi-country studies (6)."

5. 2013 ''Health and Human Rights in a Changing World'' source, from ], pages 780–781, states, "'''Intimate male partners are most often the main perpetrators of violence against women, a form of violence known as intimate partner violence, 'domestic' violence or 'spousal (or wife) abuse.' Intimate partner violence and sexual violence, whether by partners, acquaintances or strangers, are common worldwide and disproportionately affect women, although are not exclusive to them.'''"

6. 2013 ''Regional Protection of Human Rights: Documentary Supplement'' book source, from OUP USA, page 190, states that one of the goals is to recognize "that '''domestic violence disproportionately affects women.'''" Like the book's Google description states, "t illustrates how international human rights law is interpreted and implemented across international organizations and offers examples of political, economic, social problems and legal issues to emphasize the significant impact of international human rights law institutions on the constitutions, law, policies, and societies of different regions."

7. 2013 ''Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence and Abuse'' source, from ], page 644, relays, "As the Commission has established in the past, in the discharge of their duties, States must take into account that '''domestic violence is a problem that disproportionately affects women''', since they constitute the majority of the victims."

8. 2013 ''Partner Abuse Worldwide'' review, which acknowledges that its definition of domestic violence is not the mainstream view, defining partner abuse broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first, examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence; the authors stated that '''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."'''

9. 2014 ''Cultural Sociology of Mental Illness'' source, from ], page 961, states, "'''Interpersonal violence disproportionately affects women''' and includes child sexual abuse, rape, and domestic violence. Women who have been victims of any kind of violence at any age are at greater risk of developing a mental disorder.'''"

10. 2015 ''Intimate partner abuse: identifying, caring for and helping women in healthcare settings.'' review (full link to the article ), states, "IPA is a major public health issue, with serious social, economic and health consequences. It has been found to pose at least as high a health risk to women of child bearing age as raised blood pressure, tobacco use and obesity, and is a leading contributor to death, disability and illness for women in this age group Research has found that only 12–20% of women report being asked by their doctor about IPA, with barriers to inquiry including clinician uncertainty about how to ask, lack of knowledge and training about IPA, and insufficient time . Barriers to disclosure by women include both internal factors (shame, normalization and minimization) and external factors (perception that others cannot help, judgmental attitudes, previous negative responses from health professionals). Additionally, women are not always at a point where they feel comfortable to disclose. '''Although it is acknowledged that men may also experience IPA, the power disparities present in most cases of IPA mean that women are more often survivors than perpetrators, and that the community health and economic burdens of IPA lie primarily with women as a group.'''"
{{collapse bottom}}
I will alert the WikiProjects associated with this talk page to this discussion. ] (]) 05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Alerted , , , , , and . ] (]) 06:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
====Yes (and if so, in what way?)====

====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. ] (] · ] · ]) 06:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''No''' Per sources and ]. ] (]) 09:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''no''' per WP REDFLAG--] (]) 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/]] 15:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''No''': per reasons given by the others ] (]) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
*'''No''' per ]. For a claim of this nature (in the way it is presented), I would prefer a citation from a textbook or well-known NGO. The ''Scientific American'' article seems to be little more than a pop-science opinion piece. ] (]) 01:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


== Including numbers of male victimisation ==
====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 ] issue, given that the literature on domestic violence generally reports opposite of that) and that we could do with a better source, such as 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.


Recently I added statistics from the ] on male victimisation and it was reverted {{diff2|1178485921|here}}, saying that "this is sufficient framing, nor that the statistic is necessarily ]". This was following a reversion {{diff2|1178479642|here}} saying {{talk quote inline|While decently sourced, this edit appears to introduce ] into the article, since the 1-in-3 statistic given for women's victimization in the lead is clearly using a different metric, but a casual reader may conclude that men's and women's victimization are equivalent, which is false. A much more nuanced presentation of this data would thus be required.}} I totally agree with this, which is why I added the clarification that women experience higher severity of violence later on.
Even 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." ] (]) 05:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


Personally I believe that the most recent revision was sufficiently framed as it gives the context that women experience violence of higher severity, but I'm happy to help with adding more context. {{Ping|Generalrelative}} could you please explain your reasoning for the most recent revision? I mostly don't understand the ] part as the ] is quite reliable being a government organisation.
: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." --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 06:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


I'm wanting to work collaboratively on this rather than the previous talk page edit war, and reminder that ] about removing the "overwhelming" victimisation. —<span style="font-family:Poppins">]</span> ] 23:03, 7 October 2023 (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.] (]) 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?] (]) 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%>).] (]) 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!] (]) 09:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


:'''Note:''' Since I believe this is slipping into a behavioral issue (see the ] warning above), and have not had success engaging with Panamitsu on their talk page, I've brought the matter to ] I'd prefer to let others weigh in on matters of content now if they find it necessary, and let speak for itself. ] (]) 01:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
:::], 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.
::You aren't being cooperative here. I'm asking for an explanation on why you think it's ] when it's a perfectly reliable source. I've also asked you why you think including that women experience more severe forms of violence next to it isn't sufficient context. Please ] to my questions. As said, I agree with the first reversion that it creates a false balance, but you aren't cooperating with me to prevent it. —<span style="font-family:Poppins">]</span> ] 01:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
:::The ] issue is not a question of reliability of the source, but rather a situation where inclusion gives a disproportionate emphasis to a minor aspect of the topic. What you added and Generalrelative reverted still (even with the qualifier about severity) would have implied a type of symmetry between male abuse of women and female abuse of men, and that's ]. ] (]) 13:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
::::@NightHeron So do you think that it's possible to prevent a false balance, or is it unsolvable? —<span style="font-family:Poppins">]</span> ] 21:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::I think it's definitely ''possible'' to prevent a false balance. If both studies include men and women, the obvious thing to do would be to give the numbers for both sexes for each study so each comparison is apples-to-apples. If they don't, at least include the full definition each time to avoid ].
:::::The issue with your edit is not using the CDC statistics (which I agree we should include somewhere), it's using the CDC statistics next to different statistics that were gathered using a much narrower definition. ] (]) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::I understand now! Thank you very much! I had a hard time understanding and I've finally got it, thank you, it means a lot. —<span style="font-family:Poppins">]</span> ] 00:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
:If we're going to cite the CDC numbers, we should go with "About 41% of women and 26% of men" from . ] (] / ]) 15:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
::] That's a much better figure —<span style="font-family:Poppins">]</span> ] 21:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed, and if we need to include this near the other study, we should also include the proportion of men experiencing DV from it as well if we can. (I haven't looked at it in detail yet and don't know if it includes that number.) That way each comparison is apples-to-apples. ] (]) 23:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I think it does because it says {{tqi|About 41% of women and 26% of men experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported an intimate partner violence-related impact during their lifetime.}}
:::It also says that {{tqi|About 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men report having experienced severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime}} which we can use to take account in differing severities. —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 09:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:I've just noticed that the article does mention these numbers, just buried inside the same-sex section.
:{{tqi|This same report states that 26% of gay men, 37% of bisexual men, and 29% of heterosexual men have experienced domestic violence in their lifetime.}} —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 22:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


== Domestic violence of physical abuse ==
:::Charlotte135, I'm not shouting anything. I've made my case above with various ]-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, the ] (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 ]) 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 ]'s analyses. And it most certainly should not be presented in the non-WP:Due weight way it is presented in. ] (]) 09:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
::::@] My use of the words censorship was probably ill-thought, I agree you did not mean to censor it. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 09:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


:::::Thank you, ]. ] (]) 09:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Domestic violence is the act ] (]) 02:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)


== More information needed for different forms of domestic violence based on relationships between perpetrators and the victim ==
::::::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.] (]) 10:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


Apart from child abuse committed by parents, there is little information about domestic violence in family relationships other than intimate/spousal relationships (e.g. ], ] by family members, etc). For example, honorary killings and dowry-related violence in South Asia are well-known examples of domestic violence committed as collective acts by the extended family, but these two topics are only briefly mentioned in the whole article and no more description of the relationship between perpetrators and the victim exists. There is a separate article for intimate partner violence. What is the purpose of this article if we don't add information about domestic violence under these settings?
:::::::@] 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?] (]) 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?] (]) 11:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


Another problem is all examples I mentioned here (sibling abuse, elderly abuse at home, collective domestic abuse acts) are extensively researched with relatively high awareness in the public, yet they cannot make it to this article. Instead, a very controversial concept of minors abusing parents (the article for that one still has a "lack of secondary sources" tag six years after it was added) is here. I suspect that there is a Eurocentric bias here as well, as only abuse within the nuclear family and romantic & sexual relationships matter?
::::::::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 ] article covers the gender symmetry debate. And I again refer you to the ] quote in the ] 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."


The part about minors abusing parents in this article also has its own problems with citations. The first citation that defines the term is under ''adoption and permanent placement'' settings, yet the text does not say anything about that. The last citation is about the effects of child abuse by parents on children. I understand that whoever added that wants to say that being a child abuse victim is a risk factor for violent behaviour during adolescence, but isn't a source more relevant to the topic better? Also, all but that irrelevant citation use sources from the UK, so we have a UK-centric bias now, not just a Eurocentric view. ] (]) 05:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::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 ] me to this talk page; didn't work, though. Pings only work with a new signature. ] (]) 12:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


== Partner Abuse State of Knowledge data about gendered violence ==
::::::::, shows that you aren't comprehending a thing about what you are doing wrong. That material is not ] material in the least, and was a complete WP:Due weight violation. Do cease your disruptive ] violations. ] (]) 12:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


I think it would be an improvement to the "Gender differences" section to add the data provided by the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge, I added at the end of the paragraph
:::::::::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. Thanks] (]) 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
<blockquote>
From 2010 to 2012, scholars of domestic violence from the U.S., Canada and the U.K. assembled The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge, a research database covering 1700 peer-reviewed studies, the largest of its kind. One of their findings is that 57.9% of IPV reported was bi-directional, 13.8% was unidirectional male to female and 28.3% was unidirectional female to male.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150419110147/http://www.springerpub.com/media/springer-journals/FindingsAt-a-Glance.pdf|date=April 19, 2015}}, Sponsored by the Journal Partner Abuse, John Hamel, LCSW, Editor-in-Chief, www.springerpub.com/pa, November 2012</ref>
</blockquote>
My edit got reverted with the reason "''misleading way of presenting the study, since it doesn't address different degrees of violence between genders; it would be more informative, for example, to know the percent breakdown of men vs women murdered by their spouse/partner''", I don't see how is this related to the topic and why this should be a valid reason to revert the edit instead of integrating it. ] (]) 14:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:The reason why the wording of your edit is very misleading is that it suggests an equivalence between women-on-men violence and men-on-women violence (or even that there's more of the former), whereas in reality the men-on-women violent incidents tend to be much more serious. ] (]) 14:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::The goal of the research was precisely to dismantle the false belief that domestic violence perpetrated by men is a more serious issue than that perpetrated by women. If you have data that can complement what the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge says to make it more clear we can integrate them into my edit. If you think the data I cited is false or misleading I ask you to explain why citing the sources. ] (]) 14:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::From the US National Institutes of Health


:::"According to the CDC, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men will experience physical violence by their intimate partner at some point during their lifetimes. About 1 in 3 women and nearly 1 in 6 men experience some form of sexual violence during their lifetimes. Intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking are high, with intimate partner violence occurring in over 10 million people each year.
::::::::::Per 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 ]. ] (]) 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.] (]) 12:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


:::"One in 6 women and 1 in 19 men have experienced stalking during their lifetimes. The majority are stalked by someone they know. An intimate partner stalks about 6 in 10 female victims and 4 in 10 male victims.
:::::::::::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.] (]) 12:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


:::"At least 5 million acts of domestic violence occur annually to women aged 18 years and older, with over 3 million involving men. While most events are minor, for example grabbing, shoving, pushing, slapping, and hitting, serious and sometimes fatal injuries do occur. Approximately 1.5 million intimate partner female rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated annually, and approximately 800,000 male assaults occur. About 1 in 5 women have experienced completed or attempted rape at some point in their lives. About 1% to 2% of men have experienced completed or attempted rape."
::::::::::::Per , 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. ] (]) 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?] (]) 12:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


:::Note that it's not clear (especially in the case of the 1 in 6 and 1% to 2% statistics) how many of the male victims were victimized by other men rather than women. ] (]) 16:11, 8 October 2024 (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. 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. ] (]) 12:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
::::Thank you for bringing the NIH data into the discussion. After reviewing the statistics I initially shared, I now realize that they may not align with the broader, well-established data from authoritative sources like the NIH. For example, the NIH data provides essential insights into the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV), such as the fact that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men experience physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in their lives. These figures present a more significant gender disparity in victimization rates than the statistics I had previously cited.
::::However, I believe there's still an important aspect of IPV that is underrepresented in the NIH data: the directionality of violence. The research I referenced from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project, while potentially flawed in some respects, highlights a key finding that 57.9% of IPV is bidirectional—meaning both partners engage in violence. This is a critical dimension of domestic violence that is often overlooked and might be valuable to include in the Misplaced Pages page for a more comprehensive view of IPV dynamics.
::::Acknowledging bidirectional violence can contribute to a more balanced understanding of domestic violence and inform the development of more targeted interventions. While I fully agree that any changes to the Misplaced Pages page should be based on the most reliable and widely accepted data, I think it would also be worth exploring whether reputable sources offer data on this particular aspect, as it could enrich the overall discussion of intimate partner violence on the page. ] (]) 17:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Upon further consideration, I realized that both sets of data can indeed be accurate, as they address different aspects of intimate partner violence (IPV). The NIH data provides statistics on the overall ''prevalence'' of IPV, showing how many men and women experience violence from an intimate partner over their lifetime—1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men, for example. This looks at how widespread IPV is within the population.
:::::The data from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project, on the other hand, examines the ''directionality'' of IPV—whether the violence is bidirectional (both partners engaging in violence) or unidirectional (one partner as the sole perpetrator). According to their findings, 57.9% of IPV cases are bidirectional, while the remaining 42.1% is unidirectional.
:::::Mathematically, these two sets of data don't contradict each other because they are looking at different dimensions of the same issue. The NIH data is about ''how many people'' experience IPV, while the Partner Abuse data focuses on ''how often'' the violence is mutual within relationships where violence occurs. For instance, it's possible that the higher rates of IPV victimization among women reflect not only cases where women are the sole victims but also many of the bidirectional cases. Similarly, the lower rates for men may reflect fewer cases of sole victimization but could still include men in relationships where both partners are violent.
:::::In other words, the NIH data and the Partner Abuse findings are not mutually exclusive. The prevalence data describes who experiences violence, while the directionality data provides insights into the nature of that violence within relationships. Together, these data sets offer a more complete understanding of IPV, both in terms of its reach and its dynamics. ] (]) 07:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::This seems to be ], that is, a lot of speculative theorizing by an editor based on an unreliable source, and that cannot substitute for finding a reliable source that directly addresses the issues you're raising. ] (]) 11:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::No. It is not WP:SYNTH. You have provided no proof that the source is unreliable. You however do provide a claim which is difficult to prove ''reliably'' i.e. the effects between male and female violence, due to men being less likely to report crimes against them, and the existence of external weapons: broken bottles, knives, poison, ... ] (]) 19:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::'Partner Abuse State of Knowledge' is a paper by John Hamel, sponsored by and published in a journal with a low impact factor (0.6) which is edited by John Hamel, and according to the citation databases I've checked, the vast majority of the few papers citing it are written by John Hamel. Are we sure this is ] in the first place? ] (]) 16:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I again reverted the IP's edit, where their edit summary wrongly claimed that a consensus had been reached to add it. A really important issue is degree of violence. Did the studies deal with vastly different levels of "violence"? In a society that regards slapping the face of someone who insults one's wife as a serious case of violent assault (]), resulting in banning a famous actor from the Academy Awards for 10 years, we really have to distinguish between slap-on-the-face level violence and violence resulting in major injury or death. For example, it would be useful to have a gender breakdown of domestic murders. ] (]) 17:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)


:I am not Fab1can. While murder is certainly one aspect, there are plenty others like poisoning. Each of which would "favour" one party more than another. Having a simple unbiased "frequency" seems most apt. Don't you agree? ] (]) 19:22, 24 October 2024 (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!] (]) 12:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


::No, because it equates a slap on the face with a bullet from a gun. ] (]) 00:57, 25 October 2024 (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 ], if that major WP:Lead and WP:Due weight violation stays in the article past today. ] (]) 12:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:::So, you're against the very idea of crime rates:
:::https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country
:::No one states that they are equal, ever. People know this. ] (]) 09:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Are you going to mark https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate for deletion for being stupid according to you? Because others find it handy and useful. ] (]) 09:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)


::::All I'm saying is something very simple. Suppose, hypothetically, that the HOA of an apartment complex reported that "this month we had a very high incidence of domestic violence: 2 reports of men-on-women DV and 4 reports of women-on-men DV," to which people reacted with surprise that the women were twice as violent as the men. Suppose also that in the 4 women-on-men incidents she insulted him and slapped his face, and he was so angry at her that he reported it to the police as an assault; and suppose that the 2 men-on-women incidents were murders. Wouldn't you agree that people had been badly misled by the statistics? ] (]) 09:59, 26 October 2024 (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!] (]) 12:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::> Wouldn't you agree that people had been badly misled by the statistics?
:::::We should add a warning/clarification, because I know and agree with you that some fraction of people people will misinterpret it. Would you agree then? ] (]) 16:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry, no. The point is that the statistic is meaningless unless you know how either figure splits among different levels of violence, ranging from a slap on the face to murder, with many possibilities in between. There's no reason to think that the proportions will be the same in men-on-women violance as in women-on-men violence. If we have to put in an explanation to the readers of why the statistic is meaningless, then why have it (see )? ] (]) 17:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::> If we have to put in an explanation to the readers of why the statistic is meaningless
:::::::No! It is very far from meaningless! It might be meaningless to you, but not to others. The issue you have is that the source does not give you enough information, but more detailed sources exist. ] (]) 17:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Are you going to say something or are you going to block this forever? ] (]) 17:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Good - you say "{{tq|but more detailed sources exist}}". As I already said, a reliable source that gave detailed stats about partner violence disaggregated according to level of violence would be meaningful, because it could not be so easily misunderstood and misused. If you've found such sources, we could resolve this issue. ] (]) 09:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::An objective "level of violence" does not exist afaik.e.g. how much more violent is a punch compared to a kick? Multiple people believe that an aggregated summary is beneficial to their understanding.
:::::::::If you want to we can add the FBI numbers next to it because they are extraordinarily contradictory IF you ignore reporting bias and sexism.
:::::::::If I quote the source about which we're talking:
:::::::::"Data gather from a variety of other sources stand in stark contradiction to this assertion; lead some to argue that crime surveys because of their context are likely to significantly underestimate the overal rate of domestic violence assault while excessively minimizing the rates of assaults that are perpetrated by women compared to men."
:::::::::Thus the type of source you wish for can sadly not be accurately used for disaggregation. ] (]) 19:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


== Changing the lead image ==
::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?] (]) 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.] (]) 13:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


It seems to me that we should change the lead image, as a purple ribbon doesn't actually convey any information about the subject matter, explicitly or otherwise.
::::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 ] (]) 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.] (]) 23:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


It's a symbol, rather than a representation. A Misplaced Pages reader is accessing articles to learn about the subject matter. The image should tell them something about the subject matter. ] introduces the concept of lead images as follows: "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." This is not a representative image and does not give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.
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 . ] (]) 18:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} 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? <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 19:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
:: If not, I believe someone needs to close or request close. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 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?] (])


It's just an image of a ribbon that some people have decided to adopt as a symbol of solidarity for domestic abuse victims, though at least as many have used it to stand with the victims of pancreatic cancer, and still more have used to raise awareness of Alzheimer's. The article for ] lists eleven causes this shade of purple is used to raise awareness of, and another seven that use various other shades of purple. As such, I don't think it is a "natural and appropriate representation of the topic," and it does not "illustrate the topic specifically", which is the core requirement in ].
::::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 ] entitled "Are Men the More Belligerent Sex?" in '']'' indicated that rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women." ] (]) 23:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


I am also concerned that someone may have made the call that any representation at all could be "triggering" and therefore "harmful" to survivors, and so made the lead image this euphemistic symbol that neither provides any information about the topic nor depicts it, instead signaling a vague "we stand with you." This is an inherently political statement and would violate ], both because the entire notion of harm from triggers is highly controversial and because, as unfortunate as it is, ] is non-negotiable and we should aim to avoid taking such anodyne and near-universal opinions as "domestic violence is bad" and "we should stand with survivors."
:::::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?] (]) 00:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} Flyer22, please see ] and ]. Those should give you some guidance about how to lay out a neutral and concise RfC, which yours is not.


I'm taking such a strong stance here because I'm worried about the precedent it sets. If we start relaxing our editorial standards on issues 99.9% of editors agree with, like domestic violence being bad, what about issues at 95? 80? The second we start curbing Misplaced Pages's core mission of serving as a repository of knowledge to take a stance on a universally-popular issue or to avoid making domestic abuse victims feel bad, we open the door to doing the same to the pages for Palestine or Israel. Everyone is perfectly justified in his own head, so we can't use a subjective standard. And, unfortunately, pedantic and unpopular calls like getting rid of the ribbon are part of that.
Specifically, you will find the following: {{tq|"''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 {{tq|'''''"A good rule of thumb: another editor who doesn't know your opinion shouldn't be able to guess from reading the question."'''''}} and {{tq|'''''"The RfC question should not include arguments supporting or opposing any particular outcome"'''''}}, among other helpful guidance.


That the ribbon is an "internationally recognized symbol of solidarity with victims of domestic violence and a call to action to end this violence" is persuasive but not dispositive; in light of all the other issues presented I think the image should be moved down even if this is the case. And, again, a "call to action" runs contrary to ], so, while we can lead with an image constituting one if it provides visual information about the topic, the call to action cannot be coming from us as editors, and I'd be especially concerned if that was part of the case for it.
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. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 01:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


Again, this is an absurd, overpunctilious, legalistic point that's predicated on notions of objectivity rather than anything about the subject matter itself. (Domestic violence IS bad.) But I do think we should move the ribbon into the body, and replace it with a representation, but nothing too graphic or evocative as per ].
*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. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif">]]</span></b> 01:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks Minor4th. And thanks for letting me know in such a decent way! Will follow your advice.] (]) 01:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 18:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:38, 14 December 2024

The Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team maintains a list of crisis support resources.
If you see a threat of harm on Misplaced Pages, please follow these steps.
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.
Article policies
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 
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIESThis article is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of one revert per 24 hours (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at WP:AE.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Former featured article candidateDomestic 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
DateProcessResult
November 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconPsychology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSystems: Systems psychology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Systems psychology.
WikiProject iconFeminism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFamily and relationships (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis 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
WikiProject iconGenealogy Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy 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.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconSouth Africa: PSP SA Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa 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.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Misplaced Pages Primary School project.
WikiProject iconDeath Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
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.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

  • ] The anchor (#Human trafficking and sexual exploitation) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Including numbers of male victimisation

Recently I added statistics from the CDC on male victimisation and it was reverted here, saying that "this is sufficient framing, nor that the statistic is necessarily WP:DUE". This was following a reversion here saying While decently sourced, this edit appears to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE into the article, since the 1-in-3 statistic given for women's victimization in the lead is clearly using a different metric, but a casual reader may conclude that men's and women's victimization are equivalent, which is false. A much more nuanced presentation of this data would thus be required. I totally agree with this, which is why I added the clarification that women experience higher severity of violence later on.

Personally I believe that the most recent revision was sufficiently framed as it gives the context that women experience violence of higher severity, but I'm happy to help with adding more context. @Generalrelative: could you please explain your reasoning for the most recent revision? I mostly don't understand the WP:UNDUE part as the CDC is quite reliable being a government organisation.

I'm wanting to work collaboratively on this rather than the previous talk page edit war, and reminder that I have changed my mind about removing the "overwhelming" victimisation. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: Since I believe this is slipping into a behavioral issue (see the WP:ARBGENDER warning above), and have not had success engaging with Panamitsu on their talk page, I've brought the matter to the fringe theories noticeboard. I'd prefer to let others weigh in on matters of content now if they find it necessary, and let my original edit summary speak for itself. Generalrelative (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
You aren't being cooperative here. I'm asking for an explanation on why you think it's WP:UNDUE when it's a perfectly reliable source. I've also asked you why you think including that women experience more severe forms of violence next to it isn't sufficient context. Please listen to my questions. As said, I agree with the first reversion that it creates a false balance, but you aren't cooperating with me to prevent it. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
The undue issue is not a question of reliability of the source, but rather a situation where inclusion gives a disproportionate emphasis to a minor aspect of the topic. What you added and Generalrelative reverted still (even with the qualifier about severity) would have implied a type of symmetry between male abuse of women and female abuse of men, and that's false balance. NightHeron (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@NightHeron So do you think that it's possible to prevent a false balance, or is it unsolvable? —Panamitsu (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it's definitely possible to prevent a false balance. If both studies include men and women, the obvious thing to do would be to give the numbers for both sexes for each study so each comparison is apples-to-apples. If they don't, at least include the full definition each time to avoid WP:SYNTH.
The issue with your edit is not using the CDC statistics (which I agree we should include somewhere), it's using the CDC statistics next to different statistics that were gathered using a much narrower definition. Loki (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I understand now! Thank you very much! I had a hard time understanding and I've finally got it, thank you, it means a lot. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
If we're going to cite the CDC numbers, we should go with "About 41% of women and 26% of men" from here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers That's a much better figure —Panamitsu (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, and if we need to include this near the other study, we should also include the proportion of men experiencing DV from it as well if we can. (I haven't looked at it in detail yet and don't know if it includes that number.) That way each comparison is apples-to-apples. Loki (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it does because it says About 41% of women and 26% of men experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported an intimate partner violence-related impact during their lifetime.
It also says that About 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men report having experienced severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime which we can use to take account in differing severities. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the article does mention these numbers, just buried inside the same-sex section.
This same report states that 26% of gay men, 37% of bisexual men, and 29% of heterosexual men have experienced domestic violence in their lifetime. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Domestic violence of physical abuse

Domestic violence is the act 14.1.89.58 (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

More information needed for different forms of domestic violence based on relationships between perpetrators and the victim

Apart from child abuse committed by parents, there is little information about domestic violence in family relationships other than intimate/spousal relationships (e.g. sibling abuse, elder abuse by family members, etc). For example, honorary killings and dowry-related violence in South Asia are well-known examples of domestic violence committed as collective acts by the extended family, but these two topics are only briefly mentioned in the whole article and no more description of the relationship between perpetrators and the victim exists. There is a separate article for intimate partner violence. What is the purpose of this article if we don't add information about domestic violence under these settings?

Another problem is all examples I mentioned here (sibling abuse, elderly abuse at home, collective domestic abuse acts) are extensively researched with relatively high awareness in the public, yet they cannot make it to this article. Instead, a very controversial concept of minors abusing parents (the article for that one still has a "lack of secondary sources" tag six years after it was added) is here. I suspect that there is a Eurocentric bias here as well, as only abuse within the nuclear family and romantic & sexual relationships matter?

The part about minors abusing parents in this article also has its own problems with citations. The first citation that defines the term is under adoption and permanent placement settings, yet the text does not say anything about that. The last citation is about the effects of child abuse by parents on children. I understand that whoever added that wants to say that being a child abuse victim is a risk factor for violent behaviour during adolescence, but isn't a source more relevant to the topic better? Also, all but that irrelevant citation use sources from the UK, so we have a UK-centric bias now, not just a Eurocentric view. Kaileeslight (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Partner Abuse State of Knowledge data about gendered violence

I think it would be an improvement to the "Gender differences" section to add the data provided by the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge, I added at the end of the paragraph

From 2010 to 2012, scholars of domestic violence from the U.S., Canada and the U.K. assembled The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge, a research database covering 1700 peer-reviewed studies, the largest of its kind. One of their findings is that 57.9% of IPV reported was bi-directional, 13.8% was unidirectional male to female and 28.3% was unidirectional female to male.

My edit got reverted with the reason "misleading way of presenting the study, since it doesn't address different degrees of violence between genders; it would be more informative, for example, to know the percent breakdown of men vs women murdered by their spouse/partner", I don't see how is this related to the topic and why this should be a valid reason to revert the edit instead of integrating it. Fab1can (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason why the wording of your edit is very misleading is that it suggests an equivalence between women-on-men violence and men-on-women violence (or even that there's more of the former), whereas in reality the men-on-women violent incidents tend to be much more serious. NightHeron (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
The goal of the research was precisely to dismantle the false belief that domestic violence perpetrated by men is a more serious issue than that perpetrated by women. If you have data that can complement what the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge says to make it more clear we can integrate them into my edit. If you think the data I cited is false or misleading I ask you to explain why citing the sources. Fab1can (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
From the US National Institutes of Health
"According to the CDC, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men will experience physical violence by their intimate partner at some point during their lifetimes. About 1 in 3 women and nearly 1 in 6 men experience some form of sexual violence during their lifetimes. Intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking are high, with intimate partner violence occurring in over 10 million people each year.
"One in 6 women and 1 in 19 men have experienced stalking during their lifetimes. The majority are stalked by someone they know. An intimate partner stalks about 6 in 10 female victims and 4 in 10 male victims.
"At least 5 million acts of domestic violence occur annually to women aged 18 years and older, with over 3 million involving men. While most events are minor, for example grabbing, shoving, pushing, slapping, and hitting, serious and sometimes fatal injuries do occur. Approximately 1.5 million intimate partner female rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated annually, and approximately 800,000 male assaults occur. About 1 in 5 women have experienced completed or attempted rape at some point in their lives. About 1% to 2% of men have experienced completed or attempted rape."
Note that it's not clear (especially in the case of the 1 in 6 and 1% to 2% statistics) how many of the male victims were victimized by other men rather than women. NightHeron (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing the NIH data into the discussion. After reviewing the statistics I initially shared, I now realize that they may not align with the broader, well-established data from authoritative sources like the NIH. For example, the NIH data provides essential insights into the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV), such as the fact that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men experience physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in their lives. These figures present a more significant gender disparity in victimization rates than the statistics I had previously cited.
However, I believe there's still an important aspect of IPV that is underrepresented in the NIH data: the directionality of violence. The research I referenced from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project, while potentially flawed in some respects, highlights a key finding that 57.9% of IPV is bidirectional—meaning both partners engage in violence. This is a critical dimension of domestic violence that is often overlooked and might be valuable to include in the Misplaced Pages page for a more comprehensive view of IPV dynamics.
Acknowledging bidirectional violence can contribute to a more balanced understanding of domestic violence and inform the development of more targeted interventions. While I fully agree that any changes to the Misplaced Pages page should be based on the most reliable and widely accepted data, I think it would also be worth exploring whether reputable sources offer data on this particular aspect, as it could enrich the overall discussion of intimate partner violence on the page. Fab1can (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Upon further consideration, I realized that both sets of data can indeed be accurate, as they address different aspects of intimate partner violence (IPV). The NIH data provides statistics on the overall prevalence of IPV, showing how many men and women experience violence from an intimate partner over their lifetime—1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men, for example. This looks at how widespread IPV is within the population.
The data from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project, on the other hand, examines the directionality of IPV—whether the violence is bidirectional (both partners engaging in violence) or unidirectional (one partner as the sole perpetrator). According to their findings, 57.9% of IPV cases are bidirectional, while the remaining 42.1% is unidirectional.
Mathematically, these two sets of data don't contradict each other because they are looking at different dimensions of the same issue. The NIH data is about how many people experience IPV, while the Partner Abuse data focuses on how often the violence is mutual within relationships where violence occurs. For instance, it's possible that the higher rates of IPV victimization among women reflect not only cases where women are the sole victims but also many of the bidirectional cases. Similarly, the lower rates for men may reflect fewer cases of sole victimization but could still include men in relationships where both partners are violent.
In other words, the NIH data and the Partner Abuse findings are not mutually exclusive. The prevalence data describes who experiences violence, while the directionality data provides insights into the nature of that violence within relationships. Together, these data sets offer a more complete understanding of IPV, both in terms of its reach and its dynamics. Fab1can (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
This seems to be WP:SYNTH, that is, a lot of speculative theorizing by an editor based on an unreliable source, and that cannot substitute for finding a reliable source that directly addresses the issues you're raising. NightHeron (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
No. It is not WP:SYNTH. You have provided no proof that the source is unreliable. You however do provide a claim which is difficult to prove reliably i.e. the effects between male and female violence, due to men being less likely to report crimes against them, and the existence of external weapons: broken bottles, knives, poison, ... 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:5C93:31F2:D0F2:F257 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
'Partner Abuse State of Knowledge' is a paper by John Hamel, sponsored by and published in a journal with a low impact factor (0.6) which is edited by John Hamel, and according to the citation databases I've checked, the vast majority of the few papers citing it are written by John Hamel. Are we sure this is WP:DUE in the first place? MrOllie (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I again reverted the IP's edit, where their edit summary wrongly claimed that a consensus had been reached to add it. A really important issue is degree of violence. Did the studies deal with vastly different levels of "violence"? In a society that regards slapping the face of someone who insults one's wife as a serious case of violent assault (Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident), resulting in banning a famous actor from the Academy Awards for 10 years, we really have to distinguish between slap-on-the-face level violence and violence resulting in major injury or death. For example, it would be useful to have a gender breakdown of domestic murders. NightHeron (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not Fab1can. While murder is certainly one aspect, there are plenty others like poisoning. Each of which would "favour" one party more than another. Having a simple unbiased "frequency" seems most apt. Don't you agree? 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:B936:B3F:4EDC:3E37 (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
No, because it equates a slap on the face with a bullet from a gun. NightHeron (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
So, you're against the very idea of crime rates:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country
No one states that they are equal, ever. People know this. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:E5A3:7E84:4BE5:4CB (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Are you going to mark https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate for deletion for being stupid according to you? Because others find it handy and useful. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:E5A3:7E84:4BE5:4CB (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
All I'm saying is something very simple. Suppose, hypothetically, that the HOA of an apartment complex reported that "this month we had a very high incidence of domestic violence: 2 reports of men-on-women DV and 4 reports of women-on-men DV," to which people reacted with surprise that the women were twice as violent as the men. Suppose also that in the 4 women-on-men incidents she insulted him and slapped his face, and he was so angry at her that he reported it to the police as an assault; and suppose that the 2 men-on-women incidents were murders. Wouldn't you agree that people had been badly misled by the statistics? NightHeron (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
> Wouldn't you agree that people had been badly misled by the statistics?
We should add a warning/clarification, because I know and agree with you that some fraction of people people will misinterpret it. Would you agree then? 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:CD81:8D36:7967:2116 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, no. The point is that the statistic is meaningless unless you know how either figure splits among different levels of violence, ranging from a slap on the face to murder, with many possibilities in between. There's no reason to think that the proportions will be the same in men-on-women violance as in women-on-men violence. If we have to put in an explanation to the readers of why the statistic is meaningless, then why have it (see )? NightHeron (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
> If we have to put in an explanation to the readers of why the statistic is meaningless
No! It is very far from meaningless! It might be meaningless to you, but not to others. The issue you have is that the source does not give you enough information, but more detailed sources exist. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:CD81:8D36:7967:2116 (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Are you going to say something or are you going to block this forever? 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7521:C823:6BF0:7F51 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Good - you say "but more detailed sources exist". As I already said, a reliable source that gave detailed stats about partner violence disaggregated according to level of violence would be meaningful, because it could not be so easily misunderstood and misused. If you've found such sources, we could resolve this issue. NightHeron (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
An objective "level of violence" does not exist afaik.e.g. how much more violent is a punch compared to a kick? Multiple people believe that an aggregated summary is beneficial to their understanding.
If you want to we can add the FBI numbers next to it because they are extraordinarily contradictory IF you ignore reporting bias and sexism.
If I quote the source about which we're talking:
"Data gather from a variety of other sources stand in stark contradiction to this assertion; lead some to argue that crime surveys because of their context are likely to significantly underestimate the overal rate of domestic violence assault while excessively minimizing the rates of assaults that are perpetrated by women compared to men."
Thus the type of source you wish for can sadly not be accurately used for disaggregation. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:D489:656:886F:1E93 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Changing the lead image

It seems to me that we should change the lead image, as a purple ribbon doesn't actually convey any information about the subject matter, explicitly or otherwise.

It's a symbol, rather than a representation. A Misplaced Pages reader is accessing articles to learn about the subject matter. The image should tell them something about the subject matter. MOS:LEADIMAGE introduces the concept of lead images as follows: "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." This is not a representative image and does not give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.

It's just an image of a ribbon that some people have decided to adopt as a symbol of solidarity for domestic abuse victims, though at least as many have used it to stand with the victims of pancreatic cancer, and still more have used to raise awareness of Alzheimer's. The article for purple ribbon lists eleven causes this shade of purple is used to raise awareness of, and another seven that use various other shades of purple. As such, I don't think it is a "natural and appropriate representation of the topic," and it does not "illustrate the topic specifically", which is the core requirement in MOS:LEADIMAGE.

I am also concerned that someone may have made the call that any representation at all could be "triggering" and therefore "harmful" to survivors, and so made the lead image this euphemistic symbol that neither provides any information about the topic nor depicts it, instead signaling a vague "we stand with you." This is an inherently political statement and would violate WP:NPOV, both because the entire notion of harm from triggers is highly controversial and because, as unfortunate as it is, WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and we should aim to avoid taking such anodyne and near-universal opinions as "domestic violence is bad" and "we should stand with survivors."

I'm taking such a strong stance here because I'm worried about the precedent it sets. If we start relaxing our editorial standards on issues 99.9% of editors agree with, like domestic violence being bad, what about issues at 95? 80? The second we start curbing Misplaced Pages's core mission of serving as a repository of knowledge to take a stance on a universally-popular issue or to avoid making domestic abuse victims feel bad, we open the door to doing the same to the pages for Palestine or Israel. Everyone is perfectly justified in his own head, so we can't use a subjective standard. And, unfortunately, pedantic and unpopular calls like getting rid of the ribbon are part of that.

That the ribbon is an "internationally recognized symbol of solidarity with victims of domestic violence and a call to action to end this violence" is persuasive but not dispositive; in light of all the other issues presented I think the image should be moved down even if this is the case. And, again, a "call to action" runs contrary to WP:NPOV, so, while we can lead with an image constituting one if it provides visual information about the topic, the call to action cannot be coming from us as editors, and I'd be especially concerned if that was part of the case for it.

Again, this is an absurd, overpunctilious, legalistic point that's predicated on notions of objectivity rather than anything about the subject matter itself. (Domestic violence IS bad.) But I do think we should move the ribbon into the body, and replace it with a representation, but nothing too graphic or evocative as per MOS:OMIMG. Bruhpedia (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  1. Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project Findings At-a-Glance Archived April 19, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, Sponsored by the Journal Partner Abuse, John Hamel, LCSW, Editor-in-Chief, www.springerpub.com/pa, November 2012
Categories: