Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

For NPOV sake

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can read it for yourself here: [1] As you will see, one needs to look at the variables including the population that was studied. Gandydancer (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually looking at this bibliography again it appears there are at least 60 reviews in those 275 articles! wow. the more I dig into the sources which do support this 'so called' minority viewpoint the more you find! see for yourself http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm Charlotte135 (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And I won't apologize for adding this very extensive bibliography, I found today. It makes for an interesting read and supports the significant viewpoint that I and it appears many other editors have been trying to add to this highly emotive topic in a genuine attempt I'm sure to add a NPOV. Please see here a bibliography examining 275 scholarly investigations with an aggregate sample size exceeding 365,000 see here: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm Charlotte135 (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

And yesterday:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multicultural differences / age differences in the research

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Domestic violence affects both genders and children

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clear consensus not to include Scientific American material asserting rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women.

Almost all opposes explicitly cited WP:REDFLAG section of Policy WP:Verifiability, indirectly cited it per-other, or gave arguments substantially mirroring Redflag. To quote:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources

...

claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people.
Alsee (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

Click on this to see the sources.

1. This 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. This 2011 International Human Rights Law and Domestic Violence: The Effectiveness of International Human Rights Law source, from Taylor & Francis, 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. This 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. This 2012 Understanding and addressing violence against women World Health Organization (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. This 2013 Health and Human Rights in a Changing World source, from Routledge, 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. This 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, "[I]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. This 2013 Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence and Abuse source, from ABC-CLIO, 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. This 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. This 2014 Cultural Sociology of Mental Illness source, from SAGE Publications, 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. This 2015 Intimate partner abuse: identifying, caring for and helping women in healthcare settings. review (full link to the article here), 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 [17–19]. 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."

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

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

Yes (and if so, in what way?)

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

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

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

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

No

What is clear is that women are primarily seriously injured due to the greater strength of men. This ref says "Women account for 70% of victims killed by an intimate partner." It also says "Certain factors such as young age, female gender, and having a lower income are associated with higher rates of violence, but IPV affects all socioeconomic and demographic groups. As noted earlier, although women are more likely to be injured in violent relationships, men are also victims of violence. The prevalence rate among men is significant and the NISVS study found that nearly two-thirds of men affected by IPV did not receive the services needed." and "More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%) and 1 in 4 men (28.5%) have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetimes." and "When women experience rape, physical violence, or stalking they are 3 times as likely to be injured compared with men (41.6% vs 13.9% respectively)." and "Women are nearly twice as likely to experience severe physical violence (eg, being hit with fist, kicked, choked, beaten, burned, or the use of a knife or gun) compared with men (24.3% vs 13.8% respectively)." [2] So says that being female is a risk factor and a much better ref than scientific america. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No Per sources and WP:REDFLAG. Johnuniq (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
no per WP REDFLAG--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No, I've looked into this body of research during the past year, and know that the claim to be equal is not valid from better research and other places where statistics are collected. Sydney Poore/FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 15:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No: per reasons given by the others Gandydancer (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
No per WP:REDFLAG. For a claim of this nature, I would prefer a citation from a textbook or well-known NGO (or an actual academic peer reviewed review article at the least). The Scientific American article seems to be little more than a pop-science opinion piece. Kaldari (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
No per Doc James and WP:REDFLAG. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
No per Doc James and WP:REDFLAG. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No Per Doc James and Kaldari. The data from Doc's 2015 review should be used instead. petrarchan47 คุ ก 07:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
No. Apart from the NIH piece that Doc James mentions, and refs 1 and 2 - as this secondary source states, the incidence of lesser forms of violence is disputed, but: "At the extreme, the statistics are indisputable when violence results in death. In the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and around the world, women are far more likely to be killed by their intimate partner." [3] The dissenting authors' viewpoints could go into their own WP bio articles. Their viewpoints about this could reasonably be called fringe-y. Novickas (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
No, per all above. Clearly fringe. Michael P. Johnson sums it up nicely. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presentation of the Adolescents and young adults section

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

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

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

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

I see a few problems with this section:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Once again, lots of teeth gnashing, ultimatums, threats, intimidation and bullying from Flyer22reborn, but as per usual, not much substance to her comments. So, how exactly are my edits, over the past week or two, POV? If possible, please focus on my edits and policy, not me personally and stop talking for me and what I must be "meaning" and Gandydancer, could you too, provide objective reasons as to why you reverted please so we can try and resolve any differences?Charlotte135 (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Will restore my edits if no discussion here. There is absolutely no justification at all to delete my NPOV edits.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, I corrected the mistake Flyer22reborn again made in the section adolescents and young adults. Flyer22reborn, young adults refer to those 18-21. See adolescents are those up until adulthood (ie mostly those persons aged 18years).Charlotte135 (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I was clear with this edit summary why I reverted Charlotte135; the first sentence in my "01:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)" post is also clear why I reverted: "Charlotte135, who has repeatedly made it a goal to attack and downplay the 'Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such abuse.' sentence in the lead, a sentence that is supported by the vast majority of the literature on domestic violence." Like WP:Undue weight states, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." There is no valid reason whatsoever to place domestic violence against men material before the "Globally, however..." sentence. Doing so is such a blatant WP:Undue weight violation that it is ridiculous for Charlotte135 to play blind as to why the order was reverted. My revert has absolutely nothing to do with reverting "NPOV edits." Furthermore, the "Whereas women who experience domestic violence [...] are often openly encouraged to report it to the authorities [...] domestic violence against men is most often unreported" part is missing the very fact that domestic violence against women is also under-reported; severely under-reported, in fact. As for Charlotte135's adolescence claims, see this and this edit. I was not referring to how a sole source in the article is defining adolescence. As I was intending to make clear with my edit summary, adolescence is not solely defined as ages 13-19, and it is certainly true that 18 to 21-year-olds are commonly considered adolescents by researchers; this is especially true in the case of 18 and 19-year-olds. I pointed Charlotte135 to the Adolescence article for further detail. I can also cite various WP:Reliable sources here at this talk page to prove my point on the adolescence matter, but I'm not the least bit interested in doing so. As for replying, Charlotte135 cannot force anyone here to reply. We are tired of replying. Editors are tired of this back and forth between the two of us as well. Charlotte135 has drained editors at this article and talk page enough. If Charlotte135 wants to WP:Edit war wording into the article that violates WP:Due weight and/or that others clearly object to, it clearly will be a severe error on Charlotte135's part, and Charlotte135 will face the consequences. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

What a load of utter gibberish. I mean, really Flyer22reborn! If I wrote this section in the second paragraph "In some countries, particularly where there has been actual, or suspected infidelity by female partners, wife-beating is seen as justified by the majority of the population, and may be codified into law. Recent research has also shown there to be a direct and significant correlation between a country's level of gender equality, and actual rates of domestic violence." obviously I believe that globally women are more affected. The body of scientific research supports this, at a global level, mostly in countries where gender equality and women's rights are very low.

And Flyer22reborn, I hate to tell you, but 19 to 21-year-olds are not "commonly considered adolescents by researchers" as you so confidently state. That again is utter nonsense. They are referred to as young adult or college samples in the literature. Period. You are simply wrong again Flyer22 reborn, on that front too. Feel free to present those reliable sources, but somehow I doubt you will, mostly because they don't exist. Just stating the facts which you consistently choose to ignore, similar to you ignoring all of those quality meta analyses/critical reviews from international journals.Charlotte135 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I already mentioned above that "Any claims by Charlotte135 to have '[brought] violence issues against women to the forefront' over the past week because of this material to the lead are claims to combat the transparent nature of Charlotte135's POV-pushing." As for the adolescence topic again, anyone wanting to know that scholars are not in full agreement about what ages pertain to adolescence can surely research the matter themselves. They can Google "19 to 21-year-old adolescents" on regular Google to see that it's common to include "19 to 21-year-old adolescents" in the definition of adolescence, especially age 19 since ages 13-19 are, as this MedlinePlus source and this Psychology Today source from the Adolescence article state, generally understood to represent adolescence. They can go to Google Books and locate various sources like this 2013 The Anatomy of Adolescence (Psychology Revivals) source, from Routledge, page 7, which states, "In contemporary terms, adolescence is identified approximately with the age-range of 11 to 22 years. The traditional age-range of adolescence, 13 to 18 years, is based on the physiological growth and pubertal changes that occur in youth. The contemporary definition reflects increasing social, as well as physical, pressures on young people across a broader age span because of changing social structures." The search approaches, when it comes to reading up on how researchers define adolescence, are numerous. If Charlotte135 goes into more talk about how I'm wrong on adolescent matters, despite my knowledge on the topic, I will ignore it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

And that book was originally published in 1989; the definition of adolescence had shifted that far back, and remains true to this day. There is no single definition of adolescence, and the inclusion of 19 to 21-year-olds in the definition has been common for decades, as indicated by this 1997 Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine source from Cambridge University Press (page 5) and this 2010 Nelson Essentials of Pediatrics source from Elsevier Health Sciences (page 272). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Signed again because I updated this post with sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: I was talking about the research lit in this domain Flyer22reborn. This age group are referred to as young adult, or college samples, as I said. Fact. It is important to separate in this article, the hypothetical statements, theorizing and postulation by some researchers you have now decided to include in that section, about why they personally think it may be that the vast majority of empirical research consistently finds such a significant percentage of adolescent females committing more acts of violence against males. They were not referring to the 19, 20 or 21 year old college/young adult samples when they came up with possible explanators. My problem is that what the body of scientific research (in the form of high quality meta analyses/critical reviews in international journal articles) actually shows, is being consistently blocked from this article. And anyone who points this out, scientist or not, is branded a POV-pusher! Interesting.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Long comment by Flyer22 Reborn collapsed by Flyer22 Reborn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment (I collapsed this comment during my reply because of its length): Regarding Charlotte135's "23:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)" backtracking about what Charlotte135 was actually referring to, despite Charlotte135 having stated "I hate to tell you, but 19 to 21-year-olds are not 'commonly considered adolescents by researchers' as you so confidently state. That again is utter nonsense." and "Feel free to present those reliable sources, but somehow I doubt you will, mostly because they don't exist.".... Unless Charlotte135 can provide reliable sources showing the exact way that adolescents are defined in the domestic violence literature, any claims by Charlotte135 that the domestic violence literature doesn't include 19 to 21-year-olds in the definition should be taken with a grain of salt. And it barely matters anyway, since the 17 to 21-year-old age range is often counted together and compared only slightly with regard to domestic violence literature or any other literature on adolescents/young adults/emerging adults. When someone is as familiar with the literature on adolescence as I am, or with a variety of scientific topics as I am, that person knows this. The section in question is mostly about adolescents because the sources are mostly focused on adolescents. The 2008 source that Charlotte135 added, which, as I've already pointed out, is U.S.-centric, states that it "reviews 62 empirical studies that examine the prevalence of female perpetrated intimate partner violence across three distinct populations (adolescents, college students, and adults)." But, on this talk page (as seen in the #Multicultural differences / age differences in the research section above), Charlotte135 focused on the adolescent piece, the one that states "Among adolescents, where many preventative and educative interventions, in Western countries are currently aimed, research consistently shows that females perpetrate more acts of violence in intimate relationships than males." The section in the article, because of Charlotte135's edit and my edit after that, states "IPV is common among adolescent and young adult populations. Among adolescents [...]"; so the distinction is already made.

I already explained above why I edited the section the way I did, and others, with the exception of Charlotte135, are apparently fine with it. The only current issue with the section (except for the title...if the person defines "adolescents" strictly and therefore doesn't consider a 19-year-old both an adolescent and a young adult) is Charlotte135 debating me about the definition of adolescents and the fact that I included two points by scholars who are well-versed on the domestic violence literature, points that I saw over and over again when looking at sources noting that the "equal rates of domestic violence" aspect is unique to the adolescent population (not unique to the young adult population or specifically to the "college students" population); they were clear over and over again that, in the adult population, females are more often the victims. And they were sure to offer explanations as to why. Not including those explanations would be excluding a vital part of what scholars believe differentiates the adolescent relationship from the adult relationship; scholars make it clear that the thinking, dynamic and power structures of the relationships are very different. And so should we. They also usually state that the rates of IPV are equal among this demographic, not that adolescent females commit more IPV, but Charlotte135 repeatedly focuses on the "more" aspect, based on a U.S.-centric source; and my statements on why Charlotte135 has done that are clear. When Charlotte135 added the section, the text was presented in a way to make it seem like females in the adolescent, college student, and adult population commit more acts of IPV than males in those populations. The section needed fixing; I fixed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Questionable Source

I find it troublesome to use the Esquivel-Santoveña, et al. article, "Partner Abuse Worldwide" as a source for such a controversial argument when Hamel is both an author and the founder/editor of the journal. This seems to be a clear conflict of interest and defeats the purpose of being a peer reviewed journal. I'm making my way through all of the citations and will comment as concerns arise. I don't have experience editing wikipedia, but I can tell that I'm walking into an editing war, so I didn't want to make any changes without mentioning it here first. If I should put these comments elsewhere, please advise. Permstrump (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Permstrump, am I to assume that you followed me to this talk page after our recent exchange? Because, going by the odds (and my math is usually on-point), that's what I'm assuming. As for the source in question, it's usually used by men's rights editors to try and argue gender symmetry. Because of that, sometime back, I made the text in that section clear about how broadly those authors define domestic violence, that they acknowledge that their definition conflicts with the mainstream view, and that they acknowledge that women are worse off with regard to domestic violence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The other likely way you wound up here is because of this notification I left there about the Scientific American source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I clicked on the notification about the scientific american source the other day and followed this page. My "thing" recently has been that I hate clicking on a citation only to find it doesn't support the argument it's being used for or doesn't exist, so I've more or less randomly been taking notice of it on different pages as I'm browsing. Your explanation for including the source in this case makes sense. Permstrump (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't include the source, though. I don't care if it and its text stays or goes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

DV legislation by country

Many countries have their own Wikipedia pages for DV. Some of those pages include relevant legislation, the lack of legislation and/or attempts at legislation. I'm interested in a definitive and comprehensive reference on a per country basis. What would be the best way to go about this? Themoother (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:Alternative name policy and separating terminology on an arbitrary basis

Issue closed per ANI case

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 with this and this edit (note here and here), Charlotte135 has chosen to ignore the WP:Alternative name policy and has separated the terminology on an arbitrary basis. Graham11 already had to correct one of the mistakes. See Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 5#Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title) for what I mean about the terms. The article's own Definitions section also supports what I mean.

And as if all of the following only concerns couple violence, Charlotte135 removed the following: "Domestic violence can take a number of forms, including physical, verbal, emotional, economic and sexual abuse, which can range from subtle, coercive forms to marital rape and to violent physical abuse such as female genital mutilation and acid throwing that results in disfigurement or death. Domestic murders include stoning, bride burning, honor killings and dowry deaths." Charlotte135 made all of this text part of the intimate partner violence paragraph, as if all of this violence is only attributed to couple violence.

I await other opinions. I will likely start a WP:RfC on it, with various WP:Reliable sources proving my point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Extra comment: And just so we're clear, I do not like how the new lead sentence "Domestic violence (also known as family violence or domestic abuse) is a pattern of behavior which involves violence or other abuse by one person against another in a home or family setting." makes it seem like intimate partner violence (which obviously does not only pertain to couples living in a home together) is not also domestic violence, and as though the terms domestic violence and intimate partner violence are generally considered distinct. As the literature on domestic violence, and as the Domestic violence article, clearly show, that is not the case. These two terms usually mean the same thing. The vast majority of the Domestic violence article is about intimate partner violence (which, yes, makes the existence of the Intimate partner violence article seem unneeded). That lead sentence failing to connect domestic violence to couple violence is not something I can agree with. Charlotte135's distinguishing is moot not only by so much of the literature and this article, but also by the "Domestic violence can take place in heterosexual and same-sex family relationships" sentence in the same paragraph. To me, these latest changes by Charlotte135 are perhaps yet another attempt to combat the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such violence." sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That whole block of text seems pretty confusing to be honest. And just for the record, for the 100th time over, I completely and utterly agree with the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such violence." sentence, which you, for some reason appear fixated on, to the detriment of improving the rest of this article. Please drop it now Flyer22reborn, your accusations are boring and patently unfounded.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: If what I stated above is truly confusing to anyone, it will be less confusing once I list various sources showing why Charlotte135's distinguishing is moot and is not best for the article. Then again, the truly confused can assess the Definitions section for themselves, as well as the many sources in the article that are about intimate partner violence while using the term domestic violence or some other alternative. Bottom line is this: Charlotte135 made changes to the lead after being pointed to the aforementioned archived discussion, where the WP:Consensus was indeed to go with all of the alternative terms in the first sentence. In that discussion, I also stated that I could be fine with "intimate partner violence" not being in the lead sentence, but nowhere did I indicate being okay with the type of lead Charlotte135 has constructed. And this entire talk page shows which one of us has been obsessed with the "Globally, however..." sentence. Charlotte135 keeps focusing on the lead, for reasons I've been clear about, including with regard to the rearranging noted in the #Presentation of the Adolescents and young adults section section above. But just like I've handled Charlotte135's other problematic editing, I'll handle this as well. Another WP:RfC is what will be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Give the personal stuff a rest Flyer22reborn. Based on the 5 archived sections of this talk page dating back to 2004, and which you look like being involved in over the past few years at least, and your long history of edit warring, blocks and suspected sock puppetry, it appears that you may be the problematic editor, even though you appear to be the type who believes they are never wrong. On a constructive note though, and quickly back to content, a WP:RfC seems like a good idea!Charlotte135 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Again on a constructive, content related point, the reason I made these changes was that we already have an article on intimate partner violence. Seems redundant. Perhaps a solution may be to call this article family violence instead, and keep the intimate partner violence article? Family violence currently re-directs to the DV article. Family violence encompasses so much more than spousal abuse, as does the body of this current article.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Like I told another problematic editor, anyone looking into the history of my block log should get it right before they speak on it. Only problematic editors get it wrong, as is the case yet again. Charlotte135's "02:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)" comment is false with regard to me (as various editors who watch my talk page can attest to), and is nothing but a misguided attempt to get a rise out of me. But, yes, that WP:RfC will be coming. As for the latest name proposal, that is a huge no, per WP:Common name and what the vast majority of the literature states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I really don't care about your personal history of blocks, edit warring and suspected sock puppetry to be honest. But again, back to content you really have confused me now. Weren't you saying that DV is the same as IPV? My suggestion (and it was only a suggestion) was to change the title to family violence which would then encompass all of the other areas this article is attempting to cover as well as IPV. Haven't we already got an article on intimate partner violence? I'm trying to build a lead that actually covers all forms of violence and abuse in the domestic or home environment. Family violence is not just about spousal abuse Flyer22reborn, which for some reason you seem perpetually fixated on.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: My suggestion to anyone who doesn't understand what I mean is that they read the Definitions section and thoroughly read the Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 5#Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title) discussion. The term domestic violence is the WP:Common name, not family violence. Despite the term domestic violence covering all forms of domestic violence, the vast majority of the literature on domestic violence concerns intimate partner violence. This is reflected by this very Domestic violence article. That is not going to change by retitling this article away from its common name and moving most of the material in this article to the Intimate partner violence article. Having this article titled "Family violence", while the term domestic violence redirects to the Intimate partner violence article is not a solution since family violence is also a synonym for domestic violence. And if the term domestic violence redirected to the Family violence article, with that article mostly focusing on family violence, it would be problematic since domestic violence does not solely mean "family violence" and since it most commonly refers to intimate partner violence. The best solution is to keep the article titled "Domestic violence" and include the alternative terms in the lead, per the WP:Common name and WP:Alternative title policies. I will later gather sources for my points on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It is impossible to put up with Charlotte's disruptive edits and get much of anything else done. Flyer22 thanks for your endless patience and please continue to revert Charlotte as needed. Gandydancer (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious Gandydancer? Enough with the childish nonsense. Either contribute to the discussion on the scientific content of this article and how to present it, or please, just keep your childish comments to yourself. This is not a school yard. I hope you are not going to tell everyone you have an IQ in the top 5% again either? How was telling me you supposedly have an IQ in the top 5% of any relevance to this discussion? I now see that you are still livid that I politely pointed out a few weeks ago your use of primary sources and single studies in this article's content was not allowed, but it was nothing personal Gandydancer. I think your friend Flyer22reborn could articulate precisely why we can't use primary sources in this article.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I will get back to this soon. I've been busy with other matters on and off Wikipedia. The sources speak for themselves, as I've already stated in this section. If we have to do a WP:RfC every time Charlotte135 reverts me for whatever invalid reason, always making it seem like it's me who has to make my case despite what the sources state, what past WP:Consensus is clear, and despite the WP:STATUSQUO, then so be it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: I was looking at the previous discussion on this topic in October, and Penbat’s discussion was noteworthy, I thought. Penbat presented a particularly strong case with these comments and presented with a clearly NPOV Charlotte135 (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Given that the discussion with Penbat, where Penbat's views were challenged, is already linked above, I don't see any advantage in Charlotte135 having linked to that response. If Charlotte135 thinks naming the article "Family violence" is WP:NPOV, Charlotte135 is more than free to start a WP:Requested move discussion. But I'll be supporting WP:Common name on that matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:RfC: Is the current lead sentence best for the article?

This, this, this and this edit show the heart of the concerns. For those viewing this from the WP:RfC page, click on Talk:Domestic violence#WP:Alternative name policy and separating terminology on an arbitrary basis for the initial part of the discussion. One concern is that the current wording of "Domestic violence (DV) (also known as family violence or domestic abuse)" neglects the "spousal abuse, intimate partner violence, battering" terminology, which, per WP:Alternative names, is well-served there, and subsequently makes it seem that domestic violence is different than couple violence. The current lead sentence neglects defining domestic violence as a couple issue at all. The other concern is that "family violence is not spousal abuse," and "Perhaps a solution may be to call this article family violence instead, and keep the intimate partner violence article? Family violence currently re-directs to the DV article. Family violence encompasses so much more than spousal abuse, as does the body of this current article." Previous WP:Consensus, seen at Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 5#Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title), was to keep the "spousal abuse, intimate partner violence, battering" terminology in the lead sentence because domestic violence generally refers to intimate partner violence (as does most of the article); it was agreed that we'd leave the Definitions section to address the ways the terms are at times distinguished; see Domestic violence#Definitions. So is the current lead sentence best for the article? Below are what sources state on the terminology matter. I will alert WP:Med to this WP:RfC.

Click on this to see the sources.

1. This 2007 Battered Women and Their Families: Intervention Strategies and Treatment Programs source, from Springer Publishing Company, page 17, states, " Intimate. partner violence, also known as family violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and spouse abuse, is all too pervasive around the world."

2. This 2007 A Practical Approach to Trauma: Empowering Interventions: Empowering Interventions source, from SAGE Publications, page 224, states, "Domestic violence is also referred to as spousal abuse, partner violence, family violence, intimate partner violence, wife beating, and wife battering."

3. This 2010 Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 390, states, "Domestic violence (also known as intimate partner violence, spouse abuse, and battering) is the willful use of violence and other forms of abuse to establish control and fear within a current or former intimate relationship."

4. This 2010 The War Against Domestic Violence source, from CRC Press, page 71, states "[...] domestic violence, also known as intimate partner violence (IPV)."

5. This 2010 Child Abuse and Neglect: Diagnosis, Treatment and Evidence source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 23, states, "Although often used interchangeably, the term intimate partner violence is distinct from other, more inclusive terms such as family violence or domestic violence, which may encompass additional forms of violence, including child abuse and elder abuse."

6. This 2012 The Reasons of Family Violence source, from GRIN Verlag, page 1, states, "Domestic violence has many names, including 'intimate partner violence'. Additional terms that are or have been used include 'spouse abuse', 'domestic abuse', 'domestic assault', 'battering' [...]."

7. This 2013 Social Work and Intimate Partner Violence source, from Routledge, page 1, states, "Domestic violence, also known as intimate partner violence, is an issue which has been seen to be problematic within social work practice."

8. This 2013 Encyclopedia of Community Policing and Problem Solving source, from SAGE Publications, page 129, states, "Domestic violence, also known as intimate partner violence [...]."

9. This 2013 Psychology and Crime: An Introduction to Criminological Psychology source, from Routledge, page 140, states, "Indeed, the issue of domestic violence is one that has attracted attention across the members of the European Commission (2010). ... Among the various terms used in the literature, Robinson (2010: 245) lists: 'Wife abuse, battered women, domestic violence, domestic abuse, spousal abuse, spousal assault, family violence, violence against women, intimate partner violence, gender-based violence'. Some of these terms have become outdated; for example, it is now judged entirely appropriate to include within this grouping partners who are not married and partners of the same sex alongside those who are married."

10. This 2014 Child Welfare for the Twenty-first Century: A Handbook of Practices, Policies, & Programs source, from Columbia University Press, page 312, states, "Domestic violence, also known as intimate partner violence [...]."

11. This 2014 Encyclopedia of Human Services and Diversity source, from SAGE Publications, page 541, states, "Domestic violence has been referred to as domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence, and intimate partner violence."

12. This 2014 Maternity and Women's Health Care source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 97, states, "Other terms such as partner abuse and domestic or family violence are common. Older terms such as wife battering or spouse battering are generally not used."

13. This 2014 Violence: From Theory to Research source, from Routledge, page 162, states, "Intimate partner violence is a term that is specific to intimate relationships and is preferred to other terms, such as domestic violence or family violence, because the latter terms can refer to violence against elders or between other family members, including children." The same source, however, notes, "Some of the common terms used to describe intimate partner violence are domestic abuse, spouse abuse, courtship violence, battering, marital rape, and date rape."

14. This 2015, Massachusetts General Hospital Comprehensive Clinical Psychiatry source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 897, states, "The term domestic violence may be broadly interpreted to include child and elder abuse. [...] Other terms for this phenomenon include battering, spouse abuse, and wifebeating."

Yes (if yes, how so?)

yes it is consistent with the references cited, and helps introduce/define the article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, did you look at the sources I included above? Sources on domestic violence usually do not divide domestic violence and intimate partner violence in the way that the lead is currently formatted. In any case, I've closed this WP:RfC per what I stated below in the Discussion section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No (if no, how so?)

Alternative proposal

Discussion 2

As is clear by my having included a few sources above that support distinguishing some of the terms, I am well-aware of what those who argue for distinguishing some of the terms mean. As seen at Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 5#Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title), I also noted that "I can be fine with leaving 'intimate partner violence' out of the parentheses of the first sentence, since it is addressed/linked to in the same paragraph; however, since it is domestic violence, I don't think that we should refer to it as simply closely related to domestic violence." and "One point that has been made [...] is that some of these terms are more interchangeable than others; a few of them (intimate partner violence, spousal abuse and family violence) are aspects of domestic violence, and so are not used as interchangeably as the others." But that is what the Definitions sections is for. My concern is that the current lead sentence focuses on "violence or other abuse by one person against another in a home or family setting," as if domestic violence is separate from couple violence (including couples who may not be living in a home together). The literature generally does not limit "domestic violence" in that way. Also note that Charlotte135 added "also known as spousal abuse" to the lead of the Intimate partner violence article as if it's spousal abuse that is the term intimate partner violence is usually used interchangeably with, and not domestic violence. This is also despite the fact that intimate partner violence is not solely or even mostly about married couples. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is useless because a) it is not neutral. b) the question is ill-posed. How can someone reply whether something is the "best"? What exactly are we comparing against? The most fruitful way to proceed is to have a draft lead. And then post it in the RfC and ask if it is better than the current lead. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how the RfC is not neutral, since I presented both concerns. That I listed sources showing what the literature states also is not problematic. I additionally fail to see how the question is ill-posed, given that I provided background on the issue. I had considered asking "Should all the WP:Alternative names be in the lead?", but that's not exactly what I'm looking for. There are various alternative names; my concern is the specific alternative names that were removed, and that "such as in marriage or cohabitation" was removed from the lead sentence as well. The question "Is the current lead sentence best for the article?" allows editors to assess the situation and propose an alternative lead sentence, which is what the "Alternative proposal" section is for. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

On a side note: I added "Discussion 2" to the heading above to keep editors from being taken to the previous WP:RfC Discussion section currently on the talk page when they reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's simple: When you have an extended conflict with another person, you should not characterize their position. They can write it out themselves. Also, asking whether something is the "best" is meaningless. This is why I said, make a draft proposal, and let people comment on it. And you don't need to list a bunch of sources. People who make the argument for or against will do so. Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_policies.2C_or_other_non-user_issues, point 3. Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. The current statement is neither brief, nor neutral, nor does it give a well-posed question. Also, If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and save the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and signature. The RfC header should be short and sweet. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

It's simple: I did not characterize that person's position; I stated what the concerns are, including having directly quoted that person. That is very much allowed, and is common practice in WP:RfCs. It is not practical to post a WP:RfC about a dispute without noting what the dispute is about, which ideally means noting both concerns, not just my concern. Waiting for another person to post their concern would also mean that their statement does not show up on the WP:RfC page. I disagree that I "don't need to list a bunch of sources." I do when the matter at hand is specifically about what the literature states, and when outsiders are unlikely to be familiar with the literature. Expecting others to list a bunch sources is usually expecting too much; I've seen various WP:RfCs where the matter at hand concerns what the body of literature states and people haven't a clue as to what that body of literature states, and acknowledge so, often stating that their opinion is limited or may be useless because they are not too familiar with how sources cover the topic. You and I have disagreed on the matter of WP:RfC formatting before. Here, we disagree once more. I know what I am doing with WP:RfCs, which is why my WP:RfCs always work, including the above WP:RfC you had an issue with. That stated, I will remove the WP:RfC tag in this case, essentially closing this WP:RfC, because I have far too many other things to do, and I am tired of interacting with Charlotte135 and certain others enabling Charlotte135 or not doing enough to stop Charlotte135's editing when it is problematic. I am taking this and the Intimate partner violence article off my WP:Watchlist, which is what certain POV-pushers wanted anyway. If others are willing to let Charlotte135 roam free doing whatever it is Charlotte135 wants to do, so be it. But I don't have to watch it. I've been clear that I'm taking a WP:Don't-give-a-fuckism approach. I might check back in to see any additional replies you make to me about this WP:RfC or something else, but that's it. At some point, since I work on policies and guidelines in addition to all the other things I do at this site, I will see about rewording Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues, since certain editors are interpreting it in ways that make for sorry WP:RfCs. As shown at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All (WP:Permalink here), there is no one way to create a successful WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

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

More to Domestic Violence

The general overview and definition of domestic violence is covered by the editors on this page. The references and sources on the page are reliable and bring a valid point to the discussion. In the opening paragraph, there seems to be a clarification of what domestic violence actually means to society. Many times society in the United States think that domestic violence only pertains to the abusive actions of the male father/husband to the female mother/wife. This is not necessarily the case, because there are many diverse spouses and families where the domestic violence could be occurring between two females or two males. As the article goes on, I feel the editors confuse the reader by referring domestic violence to a man and woman, and not leave the options open to whomever may be participating. I believe the reader gets distracted as to what type of societal group refers to domestic violence. The general outlook on this article is for the most part not biased, the article does start to lose its focus when giving examples of what group can refer to domestic violence, so in a way that could be biased towards not listing that information and giving a narrow perspective of this topic. The viewpoint of domestic violence referring to any group but a man and a woman seems to be underrepresented, so it is essential for when the next editing comes along, domestic violence needs to be a bit more broadened up. In general, the article's links are all functioning and there does not seem to be any plagiarism or paraphrasing in this article. Any information that still needs to be published should include more current events of people being involved in domestic violence issues. There could be more scholarly articles that cover more recent years in order to cover public issues that have happened today. Vareyzag (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC) By: Veronica Areyzaga

Hello, Vareyzag. What do you and/or others from your class have planned for this article? One thing to keep in mind with WP:Class editing is that this article is already huge. And so we keep WP:SIZE issues in mind when a new class comes along to edit the article. As for "domestic violence could be occurring between two females or two males", do you mean same-sex couples (as in romantic) or just two males or two females in a general way? Besides noting same-sex couples in the lead, there is a "Same-sex relationships" subsection in the "Gender aspects" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what you mean by "The viewpoint of domestic violence referring to any group but a man and a woman seems to be underrepresented." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Violence against children: UN Secretary-General's study (2006) and UNICEF report (2014)

I am placing citations to these sources here in the hope that some editors will find the material useful for working into the article. I haven't had time to go through them myself, but may add material later. In the meantime, I have placed links to the source Web pages in the External links section. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinheiro, Paulo Sérgio (2006). "Violence against children in the home and family". World Report on Violence Against Children. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Secretary-General's Study on Violence Against Children. ISBN 92-95057-51-1. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
United Nations Children's Fund (2014). Hidden in Plain Sight: A statistical analysis of violence against children (PDF) (Report). New York: UNICEF. ISBN 978-92-806-4767-9.

Thank you Coconutporkpie. I think this article is in desperate need of such material. It appears terribly weighted toward couples only (for some unknown reason and which already has its own article page intimate partner violence) rather than the many other dimensions of family violence that this article should be covering.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to know why this article focuses so much on couple violence, all you need to do is look at the literature, since the domestic violence literature is mostly about couples and since the term domestic violence is used interchangeably with the term intimate partner violence. You've already been told this repeatedly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Verbal Violence

why is this section so small? Verbal abuse (gas lighting) is what causes learned helplessness, battered woman syndrome, and Stockholm syndrome. Did any one cut this section out. no i did not look in the history. but i feel that these phenomenon is a essential component to the pattern of violence. --Shy1alize (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree Shy1alize. I believe that it needs to be expanded too, as there is certainly a lot of reliable sources out there to support its inclusion to a larger degree than it currently is. There seems to be too much focus and weight being placed on physical violence and violence between partners in this broad article on family violence.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight in lede

The lede reads: "In the United States, 35.6% of women and 28.5% of men have experienced some form of domestic violence (including rape, physical violence, or stalking) by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[2] Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such violence.[3][4]"

Why is the United States singled out this way in the lede? It's giving WP:UNDUE to the US, and it appears to be here to push a POV. The lede should not focus on a specific country. And it is also inappropriate to present this figure, 35.6% of women and 28.5% of men, as unequivocally correct. The estimates of DV vary by study, depending on methodology, definition of DV, etc. 2A02:2F01:503F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:570C (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and removed. I didn't like when it was added either, since it focuses on the United States and since studies on that aspect vary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion [4] of these stats from the CDC, that were sitting in the article for 4 months, seems unnecessary Flyer22reborn. What is the reasoning here exactly? I know the IP address above, mentions the USA, but the USA is used in isolation in many articles, without challenge? I mean the intimate partner violence article edited heavily by Flyer22reborn is almost entirely USA centered and is filled to the brim, with isolated and cherry picked statistics, and you have no problems with that Flyer22reborn?Charlotte135 (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You not understanding why it was removed is because you do not understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If you restore it, it will be removed again. And if it takes a WP:RfC to make that removal stick, given that you are so often tempted to revert me with no valid reason at all, it will happen. Also, the more you go on and on about your perception of my viewpoints, and other baseless commentary regarding me, the more evidence I have for your inappropriate behavior at this talk page. Like I noted in the #"Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence section below, "You do not heed warnings well, that much is clear. And I will deal with all of this in due time." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No need to put me down further, and say how superior your editing and knowledge of policy is to mine and other editors. Don't worry. Not going to revert. It was just a valid observation. You don't even need to discuss why you and the IP address did it. No problems at all. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Problematic Lead Sentence

"Whereas women who experience domestic violence, at least in the developed world, are often openly encouraged to report it to the authorities, it has been argued that domestic violence against men is most often unreported because of social norms and pressure against such reporting; those that do often face social stigma regarding their perceived lack of machismo and other denigrations of their masculinity."

This can be done much more neatly:

"Men face gender specific disincentives in reporting domestic violence as male victimization is widely seen as emasculating."

Besides the unnecessarily complicated sentence structure, the citations are relatively weak. The Canadian study says only that males under report victimhood as well as perpetration and makes no comment as to why. The other study is a very small examination of 12 people. There's also a problem with this being in the lead, when the actual section on underreporting doesn't even address it.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was shorter, but perhaps not a simplification. Maybe something like this:

Women who experience domestic violence are often openly encouraged to report it to the authorities, at least in the developed world. In contrast, domestic violence against men is often unreported because victims face social stigma and risk ridicule as being less masculine."

That said, we should try to keep close to the sources, and I haven't bothered to check those. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably should do that first. As far as I can tell, the whole first sentence is a WP:COAT Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with OpenFuture's proposal, but we should use decent or good sources to directly support it. For example, this 2009 Manual of Forensic Emergency Medicine source, from Jones & Bartlett Learning, page 129, states, "The data on abuse of male husbands by wives or female spouses are limited. Because of societal biases, violence directed against male patients is likely to be very underreported and consequently overlooked by the healthcare provider. It is estimated that 1.5% of men are victims of domestic abuse by a female." This 2013 Kidnapping: An Investigator’s Guide source, from Newnes, page 30, states, "[...] There is general agreement that DV against men is underreported due to the stigma of male victimization." This 2013 Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence and Abuse [2 Volumes] source, from ABC-CLIO, page 163, states, "Underreporting is often due to men not wanting to suffer the stigma due to loss of 'machismo'; men are often not believed by police or domestic violence crisis workers." It lists other reasons too. This 2016 Criminal Investigation source, from Cengage Learning, page 323, states, "Although it is common for battered women to feel shame at being victims of domestic abuse, the stigma for battered men is even greater. Many reports of husband abuse go unreported because these men anticipate an unsympathetic or incredulous reaction from responding officers. Indeed, the misperception persists that women who commit violence against men have been driven to it through years of victimization at the hands of these men (the battered women syndrome), and thus, the men 'have it coming.' However officers responding to a domestic violence call must not assume that the male is always the perpetrator and the female always the victim."

Domestic violence against women is also commonly underreported. This 2010 The Marriage and Family Experience: Intimate Relationships in a Changing Society source, from Cengage Learning, page 447, states, "Intimate violence against women is one of the most common and most underreported crimes in the United States and throughout the world." This 2011 Sourcebook on Violence Against Women reference, from Sage Publications, page 9, states, "Police, the courts, and the public used to consider domestic violence a private family matter. It is not surprising that domestic violence was the most underreported crime in the country. Too many women, for too long, silently fought what some advocates have called 'the war at home.'" This 2013 Domestic Violence in Iran: Women, Marriage and Islam source, from Routledge, page 1, "According to many criminologists, domestic violence against women is the most under-reported crime worldwide." This 2013 Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence and Abuse [2 Volumes] source, from ABC-CLIO, page 137, states, "Other researchers agree that in spite of the national mandatory reporting laws, most cases go unreported or underreported." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I struck through the last source since that sentence is about elder abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

~~Note: Per what I stated below, perhaps that sentence is not about elder abuse.~~ Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

My issue, other than simple clarity, is the "while women are encouraged" line. This is, as it stands, an assumption. ~~My experience with the SJ DV movement is that it's pretty inclusive, and especially sensitive to gays when it comes to male victimization.~~ Barring any forthcoming evidence, we should scrap the line.

Also, a few paragraphs need rearranged. There are under reporting paragraphs stuck here and there, not in the under reporting section.

I don't know. The last paragraph of the lead is a mash of unrelated topics, not at all vetted for overall importance to general reader understanding. I'm relegating my role to editorial changes for now, while this can see some fresh air. Lead changes to genedered articles are a thing unto themselves. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

With a fresh cup of coffee, striking one sentence. It really has nothing to do with my experience. The point is that it's not in the sources we have. So it's a WP:COAT, WP:OR or both. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 11:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm fine with the lead saying something like:

DV is among the most underreported crimes worldwide.^[1]^[2]

References

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=qjvoSOMB5JMC&pg=PA447

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=AW-jAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA137

and then get into the nitty gritty gender differences etc in the body. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that the more in-depth information about gender differences with regard to domestic violence being underreported should be in the lower body of the article, perhaps in their respective sections. But since the lead notes some of the issues women face as a result of domestic violence, I think it should note some of the issues men face, per the sources I cited above. I don't think this would be a WP:Undue weight violation. A brief mention of the gender symmetry debate should also be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This may be closer. (Obviously I haven't formatted the refs.) Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

DV is among the most underreported crimes worldwide.^[1]^[2] Men face additional gender related barriers in reporting, due to social stigmas regarding male victiminzation, and the increased likelihood of being overlooked by healthcare providers.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=qjvoSOMB5JMC&pg=PA447

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=AW-jAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA137

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=keng9ELAE2IC&pg=PA129

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=-KdueQed_sgC&pg=PA30

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=AW-jAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA163M

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=QbYaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA323

Maybe change "DV is among the most underreported crimes worldwide." to "Domestic violence is one of the most underreported crimes among men and women worldwide.", so that it is clearer that the underreporting is the case for both genders, and to better ease into addressing the "men face additional gender related barriers in reporting" aspect? I also used "Domestic violence" instead of "DV" since I think we should consistently use the full word. And regarding that second source for the first sentence, I think you should use a different source (or a different page number for that source) since the one you are using is (as I noted above) about elder abuse when it comes to that page number . While elder abuse can also be domestic violence, it's best that, in this case, we don't use a source when it is specifically talking about elder abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That is, unless the "Other researchers agree that in spite of the national mandatory reporting laws, most cases go unreported or underreported." sentence is referring to domestic violence in general, which seems to be what is addressed on the previous page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

DV is among the most underreported crimes worldwide for both men and women.^[1] Men face additional gender related barriers in reporting, due to social stigmas regarding male victiminzation, and an increased likelihood of being overlooked by healthcare providers.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]

References

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=qjvoSOMB5JMC&pg=PA447

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=keng9ELAE2IC&pg=PA129

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=-KdueQed_sgC&pg=PA30

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=AW-jAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA163M

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=QbYaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA323

Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=-KdueQed_sgC&pg=PA30

Okay, that's fine, but add this source to the first sentence since that first source only supports domestic violence being underreported for women. I'd still change "DV" to "Domestic violence," though. Also, looking at the aforementioned source via Internet Explorer (as opposed to via FireFox, where I couldn't see the previous page), pages 136 and 137 are talking about elder abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

My bad. I changed DV at first but then had an editing conflict with you, and didn't change it the second time.

DV is among the most underreported crimes worldwide for both men and women.^[1]^[2] Men face additional gender related barriers in reporting, due to social stigmas regarding male victiminzation, and an increased likelihood of being overlooked by healthcare providers.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=qjvoSOMB5JMC&pg=PA447

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=-KdueQed_sgC&pg=PA30

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=keng9ELAE2IC&pg=PA129

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=-KdueQed_sgC&pg=PA30

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=AW-jAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA163M

^ https://books.google.com/books?id=QbYaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA323

Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Also Firefox? Eww. Chrome bae bee. Dev tools for days. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead and make the change. And LOL about FireFox; I'm used to it and the page is always saved when I click back, unlike when using Internet Explorer; I usually never use Internet Explorer. And when I once installed Chrome, I got a virus or adware; apparently, so have a lot of others. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That's weird. Never had a problem with chrome. I'll probably wait until I format the refs properly. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Substance abuse

The current section on EOTH abuse is...bad. Doesn't say anything really and should probably properly be a section on substance abuse generally. Moving here for discussion and improvement to reinsert in the article later.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Alcohol consumption^[1] and mental illness^[2] can be co-morbid with abuse.

References

^ Markowitz, Sara (October 2000). "The price of alcohol, wife abuse, and husband abuse". Southern Economic Journal. 67 (2). Southern Economic Association: 279–303. doi:10.2307/1061471. JSTOR 1061471. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link) Pdf.

^ Dutton, Donald G. (Summer 1994). "Patriarchy and wife assault: the ecological fallacy". Violence & Victims. 9 (2). Springer: 167–182. PMID 7696196. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link) Pdf.

Shotgun strategy vs touch and go

Trying to take a broader survey of content. I'm seeing two general problems as far as coverage goes. The first is a shotgun strategy where a topic is mentioned basically everywhere. In a lot of these cases, the multiple mentions don't actually add anything that the reader hasn't already gotten, it's just restating a lot of the information over and over where ever it can be at all mentioned. The result is a lot of unnecessary bloat that isn't at all informative, in an article that it probably already way to long. In one case, forced marriages has its own section, but for some reason is also mentioned in three other sections. Honor killing is probably the worse offender, and somehow manages to be mentioned in both physical and sexual abuse.

Either the subject should get it's own section and be largely excised from the rest of the article, or the subject should be clearly categorized and restricted in it's coverage.

Honor Killing: 19 times in History, Physical, Sexual, Violence Against Women, Social Views, Religion, Relation to Forced and Child Marriage, Individual vs Family Unit Rights
FGM: 9 times in Etymology, Sexual, Social Views, Customs and Tradition
Dowery Death: 5 times in Lead, Etymology and definitions, History, Physical, Violence against women, Social views
Forced marriage: 9 times in history, sexual, Custom and tradition, Relation to forced and child marriage

Then you have the opposite touch-and-go problem, where a topic gets coverage in the lead, and then is never mentioned at all, or is only mentioned once in passing with no significant coverage. These should either be clearly covered or removed from the lead.

Bride burning: In lead, once in article
Verbal abuse: In lead, not in article
Stoning: In lead, not in article

At any rate, leaving this here for thoughts and comments. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Some of the first issue can probably be partly solved by resolving duplication of purpose in "customs and tradition", "social views" and "religion" sections. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Placement of History section

Regarding this, the History section is usually placed last, or close to last, for medical articles; see MOS:MED#Sections. The reason why is because it's usually more important for our readers to know the definitions, types, causes, effects, etc. before the history of the topic. And, yes, I know that domestic violence is not just a medical topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how this is a medical article...at all. It seems heck of a lot like a soc article, DV being a societal problem and all. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The article isn't primarily about a disease, disorder, syndrome, drug, symptom, sign, medical test, anatomy, medical specialty, or a person with a medical condition. It certainly isn't a stub. So it doesn't seem to fit in the MOS's own classification system. Sure, you can make the case that poverty should use the med mos because it can lead to malnutrition, but that's getting silly. Sex is a medical article; sexism is not.

The med talk template can stay forever for all the difference it makes. But I'm certainly not going out of my way to abide by an mos that self evidently doesn't apply to 99% of an article. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, domestic violence concerns physical, mental and psychological harm; all of that falls under medical. Domestic violence includes, among other things, disfigurement, acid throwing, sexual abuse, marital rape, female genital mutilation, stoning, bride burning, honor killings, the cycle of abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, and death. All of these are medical aspects. A significant portion of this article is medical, and so are many of its sources (such as the World Health Organization). The infobox also links to medical sources clearly defining domestic violence as a medical matter. So it is incorrect to state that 99% of the article is not medical. The fact that domestic violence is medical is why the talk page is tagged with Template:WikiProject Medicine and Template:Reliable sources for medical articles. Yes, domestic violence is a social topic, a psychological topic, and a legal topic. It is also undoubtedly a medical topic. This is not similar to classifying the Sexism article as a medical article, if anyone would be so silly to state that it's one. And the Sex article is a biological article more so than a medical article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

And if you look at the article prior to your edits, it followed MOS:MED#Sections. And it still largely does. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

That stated, I am not hard-pressed on the History section being moved back to where it was. I understand the logical argument of having the History section come much earlier and I have argued such myself. But, for medical articles, I've become accustomed to having them placed lower, especially since our medical editors have a valid point that our readers will usually be more interested in reading the definitions, types, causes, effects, etc. rather than reading the history of the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"disfigurement, acid throwing, sexual abuse, marital rape, female genital mutilation, stoning, bride burning, honor killings"

"if anyone would be so silly to state that it's one"

I think it's a moot point, but all of this applies to the sexism article one-for-one. Similarly, WHO is cited five times in poverty. All three are societal problems that lead to negative health outcomes, but I don't think that makes them medical articles by proxy. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

While some of what I listed above applies to the Sexism article, not all of it does. I assumed you would state the sexism also deals with those matters, but there is obviously a difference between a topic dealing with certain matters and being specifically about them. Domestic violence is specifically about physical, mental and psychological harm; sexism is not. Domestic violence is engrossed in the medical literature; sexism is not. Like this eMedicine source from the infobox states, "The medical literature defines domestic violence in different ways." Like this 2002 Domestic Violence and Clinical Medicine source from Journal of General Internal Medicine states, "The medical community first began to recognize domestic violence as a substantial medical and public health problem in the mid-1970s, but it was not until the 1990s that attention to the diagnosis and treatment of domestic violence became recognized as legitimate in the discipline of medical practice." Like this 2002 source from the American Family Physician states, "Domestic violence is an ongoing experience of physical, psychologic, and/or sexual abuse in the home that is used to establish power and control over another person. Although awareness about the rate of domestic violence in our society is increasing, the public health ramifications have only recently been recognized in the medical community. The majority of the medical literature to date has focused on the effect of domestic violence on the primary victim." Like this 2004 Domestic Violence Screening and Intervention in Medical and Mental Healthcare Settings source, from Springer Publishing Company, page 261, states, "While the medical community acknowledges that domestic violence is a major public health issue, research efforts have been focused on the identification and care of the victim, primarily women." This 2007 Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence source, from Taylor & Francis, page 178, states, "Because domestic violence remains the number one reason women seek emergency medical care, a community also assumes some of the costs for a victim's medical treatment." This 2009 Health Care Ethics: Critical Issues for the 21st Century source, from Jones & Bartlett Learning, page 365, states, "Despite widespread recognition of domestic violence as a public health problem, many clinicians still have have difficulty integrating routine intervention into their day-to-day work with patients. This is in part because domestic violence raises a distinct set of challenges for both providers and the institutions that shape clinical practice."

So major health sources, and other medical sources, classify domestic violence as a medical topic. I do not see any medical source as concerned with sexism. So comparing domestic violence and sexism when it come to what is or isn't a medical topic is like comparing apples and oranges. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Nuclear option: Domestic violence is inherently, irrevocably, and inseparably an expression of sexism. Ipso facto any classification of DV as a medical topic is transitive to sexism. Mic drop. (But seriously, I really don't care that much, and this whole conversation is an aside not terribly relevant to the editing being done currently.) Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter then. Like I stated, I'm going by the literature and the fact that any topic that is specifically about physical, mental and psychological harm is a health/medical topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2378&issue_id=52011

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

[1] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=qjvoSOMB5JMC&pg=PA447

[2] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=AW-jAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA137

[3] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=qjvoSOMB5JMC&pg=PA447

[4] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=AW-jAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA137

[5] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=keng9ELAE2IC&pg=PA129

[6] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=-KdueQed_sgC&pg=PA30

[7] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=AW-jAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA163M

[8] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=QbYaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA323

[9] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=qjvoSOMB5JMC&pg=PA447

[10] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=keng9ELAE2IC&pg=PA129

[11] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=-KdueQed_sgC&pg=PA30

[12] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=AW-jAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA163M

[13] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=QbYaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA323

[14] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=qjvoSOMB5JMC&pg=PA447

[15] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=-KdueQed_sgC&pg=PA30

[16] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=keng9ELAE2IC&pg=PA129

[17] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=-KdueQed_sgC&pg=PA30

[18] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=AW-jAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA163M

[19] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=QbYaCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA323

[Markz-20] Markowitz, Sara (October 2000). "The price of alcohol, wife abuse, and husband abuse". Southern Economic Journal. 67 (2). Southern Economic Association: 279–303. doi:10.2307/1061471. JSTOR 1061471. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link) Pdf.

[dutton1994-21] Dutton, Donald G. (Summer 1994). "Patriarchy and wife assault: the ecological fallacy". Violence & Victims. 9 (2). Springer: 167–182. PMID 7696196. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: postscript (link) Pdf.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]