Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bsherr (talk | contribs) at 16:02, 24 October 2018 (→top: updating auto archive bot name). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

Template:Vital article

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.

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Systems Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the field of Systems psychology. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Family and relationships (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. South Africa: PSP SA This 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Misplaced Pages Primary School project. Template:WAP assignment

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

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

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

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

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

Factor: education-difference between spouses

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

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

References

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

Hamberger research review findings

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

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

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

Okay, thanks.

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

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

NPOV discussion on Domestic violence#Gender differences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

____

References

1. Gelles, Richard J.; Straus, Murray A. (1988). Intimate Violence: The Causes and Consequences of Abuse in the American Family (PDF). New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 104. ISBN 978-0-671-68296-5. Retrieved July 5, 2014.
2. Straus, Murray A (2010). "Thirty Years of Denying the Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence: Implications for Prevention and Treatment". Partner Abuse. 1 (3): 332–62. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.332.
3. Steinmetz, Suzanne K. (1977). "The Battered Husband Syndrome" (PDF). Victimology. 2 (3–4). Visage Press: 499–509. OCLC 936769926. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)

   See also: Pleck, Elizabeth; Pleck, Joseph H.; Grossman, Marlyn; Bart, Pauline B. (1977). "The Battered Data Syndrome: A Comment on Steinmetz' Article". Victimology. 2 (3–4). Visage Press: 680–683. OCLC 68919831. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link)

4. Pizzey, Erin (2000). "From the Personal to the Political". In Pizzey, Erin; Shackleton, J.R.; Urwin, Peter (eds.). Women or Men: Who Are the Victims? (PDF). London: Civitas. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-903386-09-5. Retrieved June 28, 2014.
5. "Facts and Statistics on Domestic Violence At-a-Glance". Partner Abuse State of Knowledge.

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

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

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

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

Does the article lend undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason for domestic violence?

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

As seen in a section above this one, one view is that the article lends undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason for domestic violence. This view argues that the prevalence of violence perpetrated by women is downplayed, and that quality sources support this. This view says that there should be more in the article about domestic violence against men and certain related debates. The other view is that the article reflects the general literature on this matter and is therefore WP:Due weight. The literature on domestic violence/intimate partner violence focuses significantly more on women than it does on men and states that domestic violence disproportionately affects women or that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women and that they suffer more severe consequences. It also significantly highlights self-defense as the main, or one of the main, reasons that women engage in domestic violence/intimate partner violence. Quality sources support this. Not every debate should be be included or get as much weight.

So, for this RfC, the question is...does the article lend undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason for domestic violence? I'll alert WP:Women, WP:Men, WP:Sociology and WP:Med to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No. We follow the literature with WP:Due weight, and it overwhelmingly concerns women as domestic violence victims. Our articles are supposed to reflect how much weight the literature gives a topic. We shouldn't try to create false balance. The domestic violence literature is similar to the literature on sexism, in that both mainly focus on women. Similarly, the Sexism Misplaced Pages article mainly focuses on women as well. Per WP:Advocacy, Misplaced Pages is not the place for advocacy. It is not the place to right the great wrongs. Per the quality sources in the #Discussion section below, the literature is clear that domestic violence disproportionately affects women or that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women and that they suffer more severe consequences. It is clear that self-defense is the main, or one of the main, reasons that women engage in domestic violence/intimate partner violence. With regard to the self-defense aspect in the "Gender differences" section, I re-worded it (followup edit here) so that it doesn't begin by stating that women's use of intimate partner violence is usually not abusive and is instead self-protective, but rather begins by stating that it is the main or a primary motive for women's use of intimate partner violence (self-defense or other self-protection is mentioned). But however that self-defense aspect is worded, it doesn't make the article undue in its focus on women. More can be added to the article about men as victims. But not every debate gets an addition, and certainly not a significant addition, here. Not only do we have due weight to worry about, but WP:SIZE and WP:Summary style; it's why we have spin-off articles (such as the Domestic violence against men article) for further detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• No per Flyer22. Carl Fredrik 12:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• No as per Flyer22 above. Jim1138 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• no per Flyer22--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• No - The predominance of sources about domestic violence are about violence directed towards women. Regarding domestic violence committed by women, self-defense is commonly cited as a reason, although we should be careful not to suggest that this is the only reason. Kaldari (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Important to follow the literature per FlyerDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• No. we follow the literature, per others. No one is obliged to believe that this, or any other WP article accords with their own experience - it is simply what is reported by sources. Nothing in the above discussion or the article itself suggests a valid reason to think that this article is not neutrally reporting the balance of sources. Pincrete (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• No per Flyer22. Gandydancer (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, the article has some WEIGHT issues and coverage issues in discussion, and wording issues untrue to cites and a bit off from WP generally. The RFC is not asking a specific edit or area, and I both see actual issues and am disinclined to give a wide carte Blanche conclusion.

First, I think Flyer22 argument that there’s not enough room in the general article so men should be in the separate article is not valid as excluding one gender would fail NPOV and alter this article to a ‘violence against women’ article. So long as the article is claiming to be the overall article, excluding men by policy fails weight and is exhibiting a bias. Generally, I would suggest the ‘domestic violence’ look to push gender-specific items or differences to gendered articles for both would be desirable and better fit OFFTOPIC, but to propose a principle of excluding one gender is a POV preference and WEIGHT flawed.

Second, the article currently does give UNDUE prominence to both physical violence over other forms of domestic violence, and particularly to the “self-defense” bit. Both are given immediately in the second paragraph. The self-defense in particular is not a major or explored part of the article, it is a single line in a long Demographis section subsection Gender differences, so WP:LEAD would not even have it in the lead at all, let alone as the pre-eminent item of the whole article. The amount and prominence of physical violence here seems out of proportion to the cites used, so there is some unfaithfulness to them or inappropriate cite selection there. Looking more generally, I note that higher and more numerous images are given to men-on-women. The Social views image of Littleton butter in particular seems questionable to have and odd in somehow having that instead of more common images of women with rolling pins or frying pans of comic strips right up to Tangled. I could also suggest the image in Demographics of woman broom-beating a man belongs better at the earlier historical section, it is inappropriately placed and diminished by the later placement. In general, it seems the lead is generally not following the article, and the article has scattered recurrences of items inappropriate to their section topics.

Third, I will take issue with the wording at the lead, the Demographics section lead, and the Demographics / Men coverage. The phrasing of lead ‘use in self-defense’ as a Wikivoiced fact is not what the cited Swan study says and is inappropriately strong and broad for a non-provable motivation with varying studies and possible international variations. It is a phrasing not appropriate to less than judicial findings. It is also not a match to the cite. The Swan study casts female violence in the context of a previously violent relationship (among many statements) and not as a determination or being immediate self defense, so this line is just not WP:V by the cite shown. The phrasing similar to this in Demographics / Gender Differences lead is a MUCH lesser “self defense or other self protection (such as emotional health)”, followed later in the paragraph by a line of ‘self defense or retaliation’ and a line saying another study that it is mainly NOT self defense. (This paragraph is just not deserving of LEAD mention, and the lead is not giving valid summary of it. Frankly, the paragraph seems a jumble of isolated bits — e.g. not motivations of men also, nor stating comparisons of difference.) Finally, the section after the substantial 8 paragraphs in Gender Differences / Women of Gender Differences / Men being just 5 lines seems a superficial and inadequate amount, and a striking example of the article’s flaws for the RFC topic. Markbassett (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Mark, I agree with some of your incidental comments about the formatting and organization, and I understand that you are just saying that you can't agree that the article is perfect, but I have to be blunt (though I will try to be civil about it) that I think the main vein of your argument is in complete disconnect with the sourcing and the main policy language you cite there (WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT). On basically every single exemplar you provide which implicates weight in particular, I profoundly disagree with your analysis. Let me give you an example. You say:

"The phrasing of lead ‘use in self-defense’ as a Wikivoiced fact is not what the cited Swan study says and is inappropriately strong and broad for a non-provable motivation with varying studies and possible international variations. It is a phrasing not appropriate to less than judicial findings. It is also not a match to the cite."

Putting aside the pretty clear digression into WP:Original research/WP:SYNTHESIS in the middle there for the moment, here's what the abstract of that piece literally says on the topic:

"The major points of this review are as follows: . . . (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;".

I would say that's a pretty one-to-one attribution for the statement for "They are also likelier than men to use intimate partner violence in self-defense.", so your objection falls flat for me, especially as it does mix a huge dose of the afore-mentioned personal interpretation where you've entered into idiosyncratic extrapolations about what individual sources "really mean" (as with Swan) rather than simply summarizing their most straightforward over-arching descriptions of their findings in something as close to their own words as we can manage while following both WP:CONCISE and WP:COPYVIO, which is the very essence of WP:NPOV. On this encyclopedia we don't decide for ourselves what language in the sources misses the mark, just because they stated matters in a way we find "inappropriately strong" or "only fit for judicial proceedings". Again, that's straight up WP:OR. Our role is to as faithfully summarize the sources as we may without interjecting our own subjecting filter. Meaning no offense, but given the very strong degree to which your fellow editors here are facing the opposite direction, you might consider that the POV may not be so much with the consensus view here. I certainly don't think you are trying to POV push by any means; your arguments demonstrate a genuine concern with the neutrality of the article and proper policy analysis, as matter of editorial principles. But I do think you may be employing some significant selection bias, colored by some personal theories. Snow 07:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise start by going up to the Swan lead “(a) Women’s violence usually occurs in the context of violence against them” (context of mutually violent), or the leading pg 2 of factual statistics. Then look at the RFC question as asking whether going down to part (d) page 13 and skipping everything else other than IPV is properly conveying Swans work. That the line already felt the need to adjust some wording is perhaps indicative that selection of it and lead prominence are also iffy. Then look at the RFC question as stated, and whether the article topic being shrunk to pursue the one aspect of physical violence is making the coverage have topical gaps. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, I never stated "that there’s not enough room in the general article so men should be in the separate article." Nor did I mean to imply that. I'm stating that the topic overwhelmingly concerns women, just like a number of other topics, and we should not be giving false balance to seem neutral ("neutral" in common discourse terms rather than in Misplaced Pages terms). As for "UNDUE prominence" to physical violence over other forms of domestic violence, the article has a Forms section that has Physical, Sexual, Emotional, and Economic subsections. For the topics that have their own Misplaced Pages articles, we employ WP:Summary style for them in this article, and then also mention the aspects for any other parts of the article they should be mentioned in. The literature on domestic violence does focus a lot more on physical and sexual domestic violence than it does on something like passive-aggressive acts of domestic abuse. Verbal abuse, which is an aspect of emotional abuse, gets attention, but not as much attention as physical and sexual domestic violence. We can only follow the literature with due weight. I'm not stating that the article doesn't need work. I'm just disagreeing with the view that it lends undue weight to women as victims. As for mentioning self-defense in the lead, it's there because it is one reason that people, especially women, commit domestic violence and its noted lower in the article. Yes, we could add more to the article on the self-defense aspect, but, like one of the reviews I cited below states, there is "difficulty in defining and measuring self-defense and retaliation." All we need is a summary in the article on the self-defense matter and to the mention the self-defense aspect for any other spot in the article that it should be mentioned in. As for the rest, Snow Rise addressed that; so I won't add on to what he stated on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn you spoke of including men followed by “But”. In any case, part of the problem seems that it goes gendered at all and frames it as a trade off is arguing towards making it a woman’s article and a physical violence article, and not covering all the titles topic Domestic Violence. The WEIGHT issues beyond that topic failing seem largely those of prominence - the specific line of concern in the lead is part of it, but since the RFC asked about the whole article, I looked for that more generally and found more to question. If for example one dropped that line entirely out of the lead, does lead not better present the overall article? Should the men’s image not better belong to historical? Is the butter comic not seem less common than Andy Capp or Jiggs&Maggie wife with rolling pin? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, my "but" is there validly. It is true that "not every debate gets an addition, and certainly not a significant addition, here." It's true that "not only do we have due weight to worry about, but WP:SIZE and WP:Summary style," and that we have spin-off articles for a reason. The rape literature mainly concerns women as well. The reason we have a Rape of males article is because the literature on rape mainly covers girls/women and it would be undue to have all of that rape of males material in the Rape article. I've stated this before on Misplaced Pages, but similar goes for the Bodybuilding article. The literature on bodybuilding mainly concerns men, which is why the Bodybuilding article is mainly about men and a Female bodybuilding article exists to extensively cover women. The Bodybuilding article should not be formatted in a way that makes it seem as though the literature on bodybuilding concerns women as much as it concerns men. I don't understand your "part of the problem seems that it goes gendered" argument. As the Gender differences section in the article makes clear, domestic violence is significantly gendered. We are supposed to cover that, including the fact that women are overwhelmingly the victims. We are not going to "balance" the article in a way that makes it seem like men as victims of domestic violence are on the same level as women as victims of domestic violence. I disagree with your "properly conveying Swans work" argument. I disagree with your "frames as a trade off is arguing towards making it a woman’s article and a physical violence article, arguments" position. I've noted why, including the fact that physical violence is not the only thing the article covers. As to not further repeat myself, I'm just going to state that I disagree with your views on this (except for the view that the article needs improvement). On a side note: WP:Pings only work with a new signature, but, since this article is on my watchlist, I don't need to be pinged to this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Flyer — again sounds like you are saying there is not enough room so exclude some parts of the topic. That just is not desirable. The general article should cover all types if it is to claim to be the general overall Domestic Violence. Both going gendered or covering just some kinds also seems unnecessary - for example, One could can do a table with all stats in it which would show all kinds and not just some kind; or one could talk kinds without going into gendered Differences at all. In any case, to the RFC question, Yes the article is giving a weight to women as victims and to the self-defense mention which exceeds that of the cite. That mismatch in prominence seems clear, and I have offered a few possible edits that would reduce the concern. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This response was meant for your initial latest reply before you changed it, but it fits as a response to your changes as well (and I also threw in a response to your "going gendered" argument): Markbassett, WP:SIZE when assessed alongside WP:Due is a reason to exclude some material. Even WP:SIZE on its own is a reason to exclude some level of detail in the main article. And I have repeatedly cited WP:Due. I don't see it as "favoring any aspect" by following the WP:Due policy; I see it as a rule allowing us to be as objective as we can be on a topic like this. It is absolutely desirable that an article not include everything about a topic or everything in extensive detail. Why do you think WP:Due exists? Why do you think WP:SIZE exists? Even with what WP:Due states, do you think all aspects about a topic should get "equal weight" in an article? Everything about a topic should be in the article? In an extreme case, do you also feel that way about Round Earth vs. Flat Earth? In the Earth article, should we give as much weight to the Flat Earth theory as we do to the fact that the Earth is round? Of course not. It is similar regarding non-extreme examples. WP:VALID states, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Your "going gendered" argument makes no sense, considering that the literature is what "goes gendered" on this topic (as it should if it is report on this topic accurately) and because we follow the literature. As for this article covering all types of domestic violence, I already pointed to the Forms section. Outside of that section, the different forms are mentioned where they need to be mentioned in the article. What type do you think is missing from this article? Verbal abuse, even though it is an aspect of emotional abuse? It is easy enough to give Verbal abuse its own section in the article. Any possible material missing from this article, when it should be in this article, does not change the fact that this article does not lend undue weight to women as victims. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn you must mean WP:LENGTH , because WP:SIZE talks about how much WP has. But LENGTH says to WP:SPINOFF the LARGER bits, not to exclude the smaller bits. Regardless, what you are suggesting would no longer be the article covering the overall topic ‘Domestic Violence’, it would only be the ‘Domestic violence (physical violence on women)’ subsection. It would be like titling an article ‘Biology’ but only covering mammals because more is written on them, or an article on the States but not listing Rhode Island because it’s small, or only having recent events because more is written on that. The overall article has an obligation to cover ALL DV, all the kinds there are. It has no equivalent need to compare them or focus on narrative for just IPV (female) when it can do things like a statistical table showing data for ALL kinds of DV and never have to make a trade off. Making that kind of selection is part of the UNDUE issue. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Your "you must mean WP:LENGTH" argument is odd; WP:SIZE and WP:LENGTH redirect to the same page and there is no WP:LENGTH section at that page. Your arguments on this topic do not align with the way Misplaced Pages is supposed to work, and are weak. I've already addressed them, including your "you're excluding" argument. You keep going on about WP:SIZE, when I clearly stated "WP:SIZE when assessed alongside WP:Due" and have pointed to our WP:Due policy and some of what it states. Your assertion that the article is only about physical violence is not true. If it is mostly about physical violence, then that is because the literature is. I won't be repeating myself to you on any of this again, at least not in this RfC. I asked you what kind of domestic violence is missing from the article, and you have not cited one kind that is missing. Per the WP:VALID subsection of WP:Due weight, we should cover "all significant viewpoints"/aspects on this topic; we are not obligated to cover all aspects on this topic. As for your biology argument, we already do that with anatomy articles. There isn't as much research on the vagina with regard to non-human animals as there is with regard to humans; so the Vagina article is indeed mostly about humans. In fact, WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy shows that we commonly create an "Other animals" section in our anatomy articles and we only create a spin-off article specifically about non-human animals if necessary. The Penis article is currently mostly about non-human animals, while we have a Human penis article for humans. But that is bound to change since most readers who go to the Penis article are looking for material on the human penis. So, in the near future (as discussed before), we will likely have the Penis article be mainly about humans and create a spin-off article specifically for the non-human penis. "Other animals" stuff can also be seen with disease articles like cancer. The Cancer article is mostly about humans with one section about non-human animals. But again, the Domestic violence article is not only about women or only about physical violence; so your "only cover" arguments are not sound in this case. As far as "mostly cover," I and others have already cited WP:Due. It's clear that your views on it are out of step with the general community's views on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, so after all that my input is same and mitigations same … yes there is some UNDUE issues on women as victims and particularly the self defense, do something about the problem spots

• 1) I do not agree with excluding kinds of DV, the general DV article should identify and describe all kinds, and if there is a LENGTH issue then the larger (not smaller) gets spun off;
• 2) Yes there are UNDUE issues, particularly of the argued "self-defense" prominence and rewording when it is not even enough to be LEAD. And also a few general places where more encyclopedic choices would make favoring either unnecessary (a table showing stats for all kinds) or use of an odd placements and images and not other more common choices (historic picture in mens vice in historic section; rare Littleton butter vice more common comics of woman with rolling pin or frying pan);
• 3) The wording in lead about self defense is improperly presenting the Swan cite, and wording is in Wiki voice as a determined finding inappropriate in less than a judicial setting.

SO... recommend delete the 'self-defense' line from the lead as not LEAD and UNDUE; then try and make Domestic Violence focus on covering all kinds in table or other unified form and let folks see whatever stats are for all rather than making it much about whose is justified or talking comparisons; adjust images of broom image to historical and replace Littleton butter with a few prominent comics or other Wikimedia e.g. ] Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong. Replied further in the Discussion section below. I have no comment on images. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe the Strongest NO !vote I've ever lodged in a content discussion. With a heaping side of WP:SNOW, frankly. Stating that men inflict a heavier degree of violence on women is not an expression of POV, it's a reflection of reality. Which is why the vast amount (and I mean truly stupifyingly tidal-wave sized) majority of scholarship and other WP:reliable sources on the topic discuss this fact. Which is why we, in turn, faithfully represent that WP:WEIGHT, not our own pet theories, whether they are of the well-intentioned, the willfully ignorant or the outright trolling varieties, all of which have been represented on the women's safety and human rights articles. That women are vastly more likely to act in self-defense in intimate partner violence is similarly one of the the most straight-forward editorial calls a volunteer could be asked to make, if predicating matters on a faithfully representation of RS. Snow 07:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise Please provide a cite if you can which says such. Proclaiming your feel for the overall body is fine, but that the line did not look supported by the cite used. If you cannot easily find a cite saying this — then please consider it simply a less discussed point not DUE prominence above where studies have it, and as inappropriate to strong !vote enthusiastic advocating. And again ... focusing on just physical violence to the extent that the breadth of Domestic Violence forms are not all mentioned seems a topic failure. It should perhaps be more radically rewritten as a clinical article of forms, without dragging in any gender balancing? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• No per Flyer. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• NO I think article follows the literature and ones own idea of who is getting more sympathy or not shouldn't concerns Misplaced Pages. Nauriya (Let's talk) 17:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• No per Flyer22. While men are also victims, it would be intellectually dishonest to imply that they suffer the same traumatic psychological and physical consequences of DV as women. The research simply does not support this. And the majority of research on women's perpetration of IPV against a male partner finds significant levels of female victimization (esp sexual) suggesting that much of their IPV perpetration is defensive/reactive. More can really be added to the male section as there are documented male victim-specific effects etc. Jayx82 (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The first collapse box shows good-quality or high-quality sources reporting that domestic violence disproportionately affects women or that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women; some of them include commentary on men as victims of domestic violence. The second collapse box addresses the self defense aspect; it's limited to two reviews going over the literature's studies on the matter.

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• . Flyer : One can google up a dozen cites on almost anything, and I surely could google up two dozen back in the field that make no mention of this.... Which says absolutely nothing as far as the WEIGHT and UNDUE question. To do *that*, you need to show what percentage of DV is either, or what percentage of the literature covers which ....EXACTLY the ‘table of everything’ kind of say-it-all I keep pointing out as a way this ‘only room for one’ is not necessary. And again, if it is going to NOT be all Domestic Violence, then it needs a different title. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, your views do not align with the way Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. Your views on WP:UNDUE are out of step with the way that it works. The literature is clear, and however you are arguing against it in this section makes not a bit of sense. You will find no reliable sources stating that "domestic violence disproportionately affects men or that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly men and that they suffer more severe consequences." You will find no reliable sources stating that men are likelier than women to commit domestic violence in self-defense. You can Google and look for sources that don't note the "women are more affected" and "self-defense is a primary motive for women" aspects as much as you want to, but it will not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the literature is about women and is about how domestic violence overwhelmingly affects them. It will not change the fact that sources that go over the literature on domestic violence always mention this fact. You would need to cherry pick to find sources that don't note the "women are more affected" aspect. And those sources, especially quality sources on the matter, are few and far between. And, yes, WP:Due very clearly states, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." No one has argued "only room for one." So stop acting like I or they have. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Flyer - Got citations for that position ? Otherwise listing some and proclaiming your personal feel 'everything is about women' is fine but not WP:V valid for article content, and may simply not something the literature says as a recognized trend. When thousands of publications exist does 18 mean that those 18 are a big weight ? No. Tell me that there are a thousand publications that are actually comparing women and men's claiming self-defense and then you'd at least have plausible OR -- but here it's just your saying so. Get on to things other than IPV... Tell me there are no documents about Economic suppression and control and then it has no WEIGHT. Tell me it has 2,000 and IPV has 3,000 and that just means IPV gets listed first. Otherwise, look -- one can change the wording to a neutral "Domestic violence may be done for self-defense or retaliation." without gendering and then you've got a direct cite and there wouldn't be any gender statement under UNDUE question. Put up a stats table for all factually showing all forms of DV which happens more and even by sex and again there would be no bias / POV and scope issues. Going beyond these into motives or justified by what is where the POV/UNDUE comes up and it does not have to be that way. There are other ways to go. Think about it, and which would be most acceptable to you. Over & out. Markbassett (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Got citations for that position? What are you even talking about? Your "everything is about women" claim is you projecting and showing how you really feel. You wanting to hide information that women are disproportionately and more severely affected by domestic violence, and the importance of self-defense in women's motives...by putting up tables as if this article shouldn't mostly include prose or as Misplaced Pages articles don't typically include prose with tables...is one of the oddest suggestions I've ever read/heard. You can conclude however you want to. You are wrong, for the reasons that Snow Rise and I stated above. You are wrong for the reasons that others (opposed to what you are arguing for) in the RfC stated above. You are wrong for the same reason we will not make the Sexism or Serial killer article "balanced" to be "equally" about men and women. You are wrong for reasons similar to why you were wrong in the 2015 RfC at this talk page. Most importantly, you are wrong per what the quality and high-quality sources that have reviewed the literature state very clearly, including with regard to the supposed gender symmetry you are always so keen on supporting (such as in that aforementioned 2015 RfC). That and our rules are the reasons others have voted opposite your position. In 2016, at the Campus sexual assault article, you opposed appropriately following the literature with due weight and supported unnecessary in-text attribution. So that you voted and commented the way you have above is not a surprise to me. What might be a surprise to some people is that you still haven't learned how to appropriately follow and apply WP:Due weight. Or that, to suit your own POV, you still refuse to follow Misplaced Pages's rules on this matter. Whatever the case, I am done debating this with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn - Specifically, do you or do you not have a cite for the mentioned "sources that have reviewed the literature" which speak to the question in RFC is "article lends undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason"? (It is unclear if you are speaking hyperbolically or actually have a usable item.) The existing language and position in lead does not appear supported by the existing cite to Swan or the article content, and giving a handful of cites above is not addressing WP:WEIGHT of the entire field. If there is a citeable table covering all forms of physical, emotional, sexual, and economic that would be WP:V content that would cover ALL Domestic Violence and not require exclusions or a POV statement. The WP:ONUS is on article text to ahow WP:V -- and if there is no suitable cite, particularly for something like a comparison, justification, and lead position -- then the line should simply not be there. So again -- just looking for cite(s) to literature survey(s) or to data source(s). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Bombarding talk pages with good faith demands for this and that did not work at Talk:Objections to evolution and it won't work here. Consensus does not require that every POV pusher is happy. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, "sources that have reviewed the literature" are above. So I fail to see what you are going on about on that. As for the rest, I've already been over how you have not mentioned exactly what form of domestic violence is missing from this article (whether one in which women prevail in as abusers or not) and that your views of the rules are not in line with how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. So, again, my discussion with you on this is over. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn - thanks for pointing to your source. If you'll look again at how they are studies of "Violence against women" you may also see I view it as just not speaking to WEIGHT and UNDUE questions across all forms of domestic violence. Some seem not literature surveys, although the WHO study of violence against women seems of interest for international variations in violence against women and is an authoritative body, just not speaking beyond its focus. I was asking at least in part because I wonder if there is an overview out there. It's not easy to match the whole DV as framed in the article, it seems partly as definitions vary and emotional and economic abuse may not be included - or literature may exclude acid attacks and genital mutilation -- or literature may be limited to entirely IPV physical violence -- and so forth. If I may offer a few links in exchange from googling 'domestic violence' literature review, you may see that interesting data occurs in focus areas that may broaden your outlook but I'm just not seeing an external broad literature survey to resolve the question. (Though I suspect such survey exists SOMEwhere.):

• Inspectorate of Probation, Domestic Violence: A Literature Review (Barnish, 2004) - a gov.uk public document from webarchive
• Domestic Violence Literature Review: Analysis Report, (JSI 2016) health focus, lead finding "More than one in three women (35.6%) and one in four men (28.5%) aged 18 and older reported a lifetime prevalence of physical violence, rape, and/or stalking by an intimate partner"
• Domestic Violence: A Literature Review Reflecting an International Crisis(Ely et al 2001), a bit short and non-specific but I did note mentions on international variations and older woman vs younger.
• National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma & Mental Health website, diverse articles seems good resource though not comparison
• Domestic Violence Dryden-Edwards, medicine.net article on diagnosis and treatment not useful for WEIGHT though the numbers (2 million women and 800,000 men victims in US) are noted.
• Male Victims of Domestic Violence (Kimmel, 2002) includes discussion of gender symmetry and Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS).
• And I do not get much better from 'measuring the extent of domestic violence' ... instead winding up at interedting places like Measuring Intimate Partner (Domestic) Violence, NIJ.Gov

So - most I can offer to the RFC question on weight and on self-defense is that it's looking UNDUE as in not supported by cites nor by the article content, and that otherwise the article has some places of issue in images and coverage flaws. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I pointed to more than one source, and they are all good-quality or high-quality. Sources like #13 and #16 address the gender symmetry aspect. Numerous scholars are clear that incidents of minor (meaning not as severe) partner violence do not equate to true gender symmetry. And I don't consider sources like my medicinenet.com. The points that I and others are making are the following: The literature is clear that domestic violence disproportionately affects women. Domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women and they suffer more severe consequences. Sources commonly cite self-defense as the main, or one of the main, reasons that women engage in domestic violence/intimate partner violence. The literature is overwhelming about women. All of this is why the article does not lend undue to weight to women as victims; I know that you disagree with that, but I've already thoroughly addressed you on the matter. You want to rely on survey data, but Misplaced Pages is under no obligation to do so. Not to mention...the issues with survey data. Your "not supported by cites" argument is false. And again, there is no reason at all to keep pinging me to this talk page when it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue in cites above is that items focused to “violence against women” or “physical violence” simply cannot by their nature inform WEIGHT or UNDUE in the overall topic Domestic Violence. They will introduce an inherent POV bias unless the article topic was altered to “Domestic violence against women” or “Domestic violence (physical abuse)”. Not POV as ‘bad’, just POV as in looking at a part, and/or looking at it one way. The cites were winding up with seeking and bolding gender comparisons and doing things like additional depth on justification for solely women committing physical violence against solely men - looking at cites of ‘gender comparisons’ studies further feed feed that aspect. I am saying that these are not looking or able to answer the RFC question of if the coverage for Domestic Violence is predominantly about that. One can compare them to the ‘Medical POV’ or the ‘Law Enforcement POV’ and get different highlights and different conclusions, and numerical comparisons at 5:2 ratio or iirc about 40 to 30 percent for POV aspects within physical victim stats. To the UNDUE question and particularly ‘self-defense’, I will point out that where it takes deleting ‘or retaliation’ and ignoring ‘mutual violence’ makes it whiff of undue, and that supporting phrases are waaaaay back at pg 780 or 644 or 961 is not supporting LEAD prominence for the self defense mention. Going with ‘physical abuse predominantly affects women, the young, and minorities’ would seem much more prominent and supportable and that there is a better choice. Frankly, this part all seems contradictory — having women be mostly the victim, yet lead with having women committing is disjointed; adding it as justified seems a bit of obviously over the top. I think I have stated my input, I think the underlying flaw is in narrowing an overall topic into physical and gendered narratives depth. The overview or even coverage at all of aspects other than that winds up missing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

More twisted, flawed and repetitive logic that will have me repeating myself, I see. Yep, I'm done discussing this with you. Cheers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Mid-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• High-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Systems articles
• Mid-importance Systems articles
• Systems articles in systems psychology
• WikiProject Systems articles
• B-Class Feminism articles
• High-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class South Africa articles
• Unknown-importance South Africa articles
• B-Class PSP SA articles
• Unknown-importance PSP SA articles
• Misplaced Pages Primary School articles
• WikiProject South Africa articles