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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
There has been a brief conversation about the introduction of sexual assault law to the current Domestic violence#Sexual content, now with a high-level summary for both the U.S. and Canada.
There is a question regarding whether the full content should stay in the article from [ this version of the Sexual section]. How do others feel about this?-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
might be an idea for a section on this. see for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/23/police-domestic-abuse-older-couples?CMP=twt_gu -- Penbat ( talk) 19:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph (slightly reworded from the 1st attempt), sites a Spanish source for the material.
This minimization of feminine violence as self-defensive is increasingly refuted by many recent studies that compare the levels of unilaterality and reciprocity of aggressions. In a spanish compilation of 400 international studies on intimate partner violence, spanning more than 40 countries, it has been found that a soubgroup of 84 studies analyze the reciprocity and initiation aspects of aggressions between partners and that most of the studies in this subgroup (60 studies) report higher levels of non-reciprocal violence and initiation of physical aggressions by women. [106]:Alvarez Deca, Javier 400 razones contra un prejuicio.
Two concerns: 1) It's adding specific information to a paragraph that hits the highlights of the concerns about gender aspects of violence. If there is going to be an insertion of specific information, then it should cover both sides of the topic ( WP:POV). 2) I'm confused about why, if the Javier Alvarez Deca study was so ground-breaking and significant, I'm unable to find mention in English language websites or news.
Since we've had two attempts to add this I thought I'd bring it to the talk page to determine:
Any thoughts?-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The two references that SigGoddard used - improperly, such as via minor edits - do have value, and should be incorporated into the article, especially given the second one's containing analyses of the implications for male dominance models. I've made a first attempt at this, but suspect that those with more knowledge in this area than I will do a better job, so don't plan on continuing editing this (still less am I interested in "defending" my edits, although I have to admit that the edit conflict I ran into when I was initially copyediting the references irritated me; could people please use the {{ cite journal}} and similar templates, or the {{ citation}} template, or something?). Allens ( talk | contribs) 18:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
SigGoddard's 2006 Straus source, which is a paper that was presented at a conference (i.e. not peer reviewed) looks like it wasn't even finished. Here's a sample of text from the paper [emphasis mine]:
Of the ?? students who completed the questionnaire, those who were not in a dating relationship were excluded from the analyses reported in this paper. The questionnaires of these ??? were scanned for aberrant response patterns such as an implausibly high frequency of rare events, for example, 10 instances of attacking a partner with a knife or gun in the past year; or inconsistent answers, for example, reporting an injury but no assault. Based on this screening method, 6.2% ?? of the respondents were dropped from the sample, leaving ?? cases,
This seems well short of our standards for a reliable source. I would recommend removing it as well as discussion of the cited study from the article unless a peer-reviewed version of the paper can be located that doesn't include such glaring problems. Kaldari ( talk) 03:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
SigGoddard has reinserted a section in the history section about the women's shelter movement "suppressing data" about domestic violence. I don't see at all how this is central to the history of domestic violence. Also, this is a significant exaggeration of the sources provided. The sources state that (1) some academics have criticized gender symmetry theories because they threaten women's shelters, and (2) Erin Pizzey has accused the women's shelter movement in Britain of being hostile to her work. There might be a case for material about this in the Women's shelter article or Erin Pizzey's article, but it is a violation of WP:UNDUE to present this as central to the history of domestic violence. As SigGoddard's only edits to this article have been to promote a men's rights perspective of domestic violence, I would like to direct his attention to WP:NPOV. Kaldari ( talk) 17:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
SigGoddard added the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph of the Violence against women section (in italics):
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. However, this is not the consensus of the scientific domestic research community and this consensus is not born out in the of body of national government surveys and scientific research on rates of domestic violence.
However, this addition is contradicted by SigGoddard's own source (and numerous other reliable sources). Specifically, his Dutton source includes the following:
SigGoddard also cites Fiebert for this conclusion, yet Fiebert himself disagrees with it: "My take is that women are more likely to be more injured, but not a lot more." [1]
I think SigGoddard's addition should be removed as it does not accurately reflect the majority of reliable sources and is yet more POV-pushing. Kaldari ( talk) 17:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Whether article Violence against men should be deleted. [ [2]] 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 ( talk) 15:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This suggests that domestic violence is primarily a crime targeted towards women, which is already a very common perception.
The section "Situation in the United States" also only mentions female victims. -- Squirtlekin ( talk) 04:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add my input that the "Situation in the United States" section should include both male and female statistics, to remove bias and to facillitate comparison between the two genders. Cstanford.math ( talk) 07:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed a reference which does not discuss reporting patterns or possible under-reporting by men or women.
There is also the problem that the information used from the remaining source appears to be cherry-picked. Dutton writes that "Men grossly underreport both perpetration and victimization by severe violence" (note on p. 686) and that "both sexes tend to over-report minor acts they commit, under- report serious acts they commit, and over-report serious acts they suffer" (p. 685). Despite this the sentence in our article says that men are less likely to report being victims. Dutton's argument that they are also less likely to report being perpetrators is not mentioned. The other thing is that Dutton does not mention stigma. He assumes that some men may under-report on crime victim surveys because they do not view female violence against them as a crime but, again, he does not mention stigma or elaborate on the reasons that may lead some women and men to under-report their own and their partner's use of violence. Lots of WP:OR happening in one sentence. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 17:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Section is much too long, it should be split into a new article, I think. 86.121.66.131 ( talk) 10:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph based on a Cathy Young article that was published in Reason (magazine) in 1998 [3]. The article consists of a collection of anecdotes about the effects of so-called "must arrest" laws. Young tells the stories of Susan Finkelstein, John Manning, Joel Gehrke etc. to make her case that people were arrested although their partner claimed that nothing had happened. She does not cite any sources or statistics or representative data. If there is up-to-date research on the subject, it might be worth including. A 1998 article in Reason magazine in not it. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 15:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
This image is the first appearing in the article, featuring prominently in the section "Physical". This is not by any means a representative image for domestic violence. Statistically, most domestic violence is male on female (especially at a global level), plus that image depicts a historical scene (1875), and it's definitely not representative for that period (when male on female DV was rampant). There's nothing wrong with that image, but it can't stay in the article on its own, as it is now; either more images are added for balance, or for now it has to go. 5.12.221.158 ( talk) 04:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, it seems completely unclear to me whether or not this image is actually portraying violence. The man seems to be kneeling as if in prayer rather than defending himself or cowering as one would expect if the woman were actually inflicting violence. It's entirely possible the woman is blessing him or performing some ritual that we have no understanding of. Without some sort of context for the image it is impossible to know. Kaldari ( talk) 23:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to amend this article to globalize it. This article is called "Domestic violence" not "Domestic violence in the US" or "Domestic violence in the West". Therefore, it has to explain the global situation, not focus on just a few industrialized countries. DV as conceptualized in West (Europe/US) is very different than the way it is understood in most of the world. Research has shown that in most parts of the world (most of Asia, Africa, and to a lesser extent some parts of Latin America) a husband using "moderate" physical violence to keep his wife from "straying" or to "punish" her, is not seen as abusive, by either men or women. In most parts of the world, the autonomy of a wife (going out without asking permission from husband, arguing with the husband, wearing "inappropriate" clothes, refusing sex - the standard questions asked for years in these surveys) is not considered as the right of a wife - if a woman does these things, this is seen by most members of the society as justifying violence by husband/relatives. This has to be clearly explained in this article, which is supposed to present and explain a global issue. This is especially more so, as most people who read this article (probably youth in the West) may not be aware of and not understand the worldwide situation. 188.25.171.193 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
There are two paragraphs regarding Murray Straus in the "Violence Against Women" section which someone had decapitated. The paragraphs are:
there is clearly a paragraph missing before "In 2007, Murray Straus explored some of these problems," because it's hiding the actual problems. What are "some of these problems". The problem is right here visible on Wikipedia, isn't it? Where is the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project ever mentioned?
Can someone please point me to and work with me to find the head leading to Murray Strauss paragraphs? And then work on rectifying some of this stuff by using actual research evidence as in PASK? Gschadow ( talk) 02:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
There were two sections of the article claiming that domestic violence was most often perpetrated or initiated by women. These statements were supported by two different sources, Whitaker 2007 and Straus 2008. Let's look at what these sources actually said:
Both of these studies were primarily of young dating couples. (In the case of Whitaker's study, as young as 12.) Neither represents a study of IPV prevalence among the general public. Kaldari ( talk) 22:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The lede was modified to include, among other inaccuracies, a gross misrepresentation of Commentaries on the Laws of England, by William Blackstone, in regard to common law and civil law. Here is the text of William Blackstone: [4]
2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AAC3 ( talk) 16:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
CALVIN BRADLEY vs. THE STATE. [5]
An editor is trying to change the lede to make it appear that DV in most Western countries was already considered a serious criminal offense in the 18th century, and that there was no problem and everything was just fine for women. ARE YOU BEING SERIOUS?? What you're writing borders on vandalism!
"We may assume that the old doctrine, that a husband had a right to whip his wife, provided he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not law in North Carolina. Indeed, the Courts have advanced from that barbarism until they have reached the position, that the husband has no right to chastise his wife, under any circumstances.
But from motives of public policy,--in order to preserve the sanctity of the domestic circle, the Courts will not listen to trivial complaints.
If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty nor dangerous violence shown by the husband, it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forget and forgive.
No general rule can be applied, but each case must depend upon the circumstances surrounding it.
Without adverting in detail to the facts established by the special verdict in this case, we think that they show both malice and cruelty.
In fact, it is difficult to conceive how a man, who has promised, upon the altar to love, comfort, honor, and keep a woman, can lay rude and violent hands upon her, without having malice and cruelty in his heart.
Let it be certified that the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AAC3 ( talk) 02:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The section on women's domestic violence, versus the men's, shows an enormous amount of gender bias on behalf of the contributors. Half of the woman's section had been composed of arguments "against" the numbers of abuse reported against them (the Strauss study). If that part is removed (which really should be in the Gender-study difficulties section), the section about abuse against women seems to almost be an afterthought. The men's, however, is written in length, fleshed out, and picks topics/sources that go well out of their way to try and argue that men are the 'real victims'.
I am reminded of the survey that Wikipedia did in 2011, that showed that 80-90% of the contributors were male:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians
So I guess you mean size matters?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Survey_2011
And to this dude goes the internet. should have just said, yes we see you're trying tobe a victim.
The domestic violence section needs a giant look-over. The section as a whole really isn't about DV against men or women either - it's mostly attempts that try to make any sort of claim of DV against women as somehow unsubstantiated. It's laughable, and further perpetuates the notion that Wikipedia really isn't a serious source of information, as well inflates the stereotype that most of the information is written by young males with no real experience in the real world/with females.
For starters, I included the recent UN study of violence/rape against women in their section: http://www.partners4prevention.org/about-prevention/research/men-and-violence-study — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.216.187.117 ( talk) 17:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I can totally understand what you are talking about. I also think the same-sex relationships seems even worse. They are correct in saying that men are victims of domestic violence but it is disproportionally about women. And LGBT people are definitely mentioned in a fairly tokenizing "they have it too" kind of way. What do you propose we do about theses issues. I'm behind you.- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 20:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed a large portion of text from the Epidemiology on United States and added a section on Europe from the main article. Disproportionately much of the entry is focused on the United States with a "Situation in the Unites States" entry as well apart from being mentioned in epidemiology. I will try to clean it up. CFCF ( talk) 06:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Text removed for discussion:
However, more recent research has called into question the notion that sexism and patriarchy are the sole or even primary causes of domestic violence. A 2013 review of studies from five continents found no correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence as measured by general population or community studies and found that gender inequality explained the variance for only 17% of male abuse and 19% of female abuse as measured by dating samples. The authors conclude that "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."
There are a couple problems with the section recently added on the 2013 Esquivel-Santovena study (which I've moved here for discussion). First, it says "five continents", which doesn't appear to be accurate (the 5 regions in the study do not correspond to continents. Secondly, the way it presents the statistics about gender inequality correlation is confusing. The results for general population and the results for dating samples should at least be divided into two separate sentences, otherwise it sounds like they are talking about the same data. Another possibility would be to remove the part about dating couples entirely, although this would necessitate narrowing the claim about the scope of the study (since the majority of the studies were on dating couples). Kaldari ( talk) 22:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Domestic violence can also include violence, including threats, between people who live together, such as a person renting a room in someone's house, or roommates. This is the case in the state of Washington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:9D80:2B5:E452:75CA:CAA5:EA00 ( talk) 22:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Why are these acronyms necessary? Surely it's not a space concern, nor a case of editors being lazy. These acronyms can confuse people who skip to a section in the article, and simply spelling out 'intimate partner violence' each time would hardly be detrimental to anything. -- 71.116.235.10 ( talk) 23:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
In the article, under Counseling for Offenders, it says: "Anger management is recommended as a part of an offender treatment curriculum". It is my understanding that many Batterer Intervention Programs no longer see Anger Management as an effective tool, for the the simple reason that batterers already have their anger well managed. When they are in private and their partner does anything they don't like, they can instantly turn it ON as a tool to control their partner. When they are in public and someone else does something they don't like, perhaps a police officer giving them a speeding ticket or a supervisor correcting them, they can turn their anger OFF. To compare the two, see this page from Oregon: [1] or this one from Massachusetts: [2] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaKine ( talk) 10:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC) DaKine ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Would it be possible to have the 'Violence against women' box moved above the 'Violence against men' box? Considering that, statistically, many more women are abused in this situation than men, it leaves a sour taste that 'Violence against men' is the first one that you see of the two. -- Drowninginlimbo ( talk) 02:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There are so many definitions that it is no longer illuminating, but is confusing. For instance, why are there three definitions for US, UK and Malta government definitions? Do they somehow represent a world view?
For now, I moved these over here:
US, UK and Malta definitions
|
---|
Broad definitions of domestic violence are common today. For instance the Act XX on Domestic Violence 2006, in Malta, defines DV as follows: [1]
The US Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) defines domestic violence as a "pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner". The definition adds that domestic violence "can happen to anyone regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, religion, or gender", and can take many forms, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional, economic, and psychological abuse. [2] The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service in the United Kingdom in its "Domestic Violence Policy" uses domestic violence to refer to a range of violent and abusive behaviours, defining it as:
|
Options:
Thoughts?-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 04:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This start of the article says, which is pretty much in synch with what had been and is in the first section of the definition section:
But, then, in the Dynamics classification there's a distinction between intimate partners and family members:
...but the rest of the article seems to be about intimate partners... and doesn't seem to get into family issues (elder abuse, etc.).
Do we need to address this? Or, just leave it as-is (i.e., readers can clink to child abuse, elder abuse, etc. if desired)-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 06:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This information is specific to Violence against women... although I like that it's from an international organization.
Shouldn't this go in the Violence against women section? or Violence against women article?
It does bring up points about sanctioned violence, etc.... but it's muddying the waters here for a broad definition of domestic violence that would include violence against men, isn't it?-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 06:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The following sentence was in the IPV types section:
Should we get into the statistics and info by type of Interpersonal violence? If so, there's a lot more that could be said (e.g., statistics, prevalence by gender, heterosexual/homosexual relationship differences, other factors)... perhaps splitting off to another article since this is already 3 times recommended length.
Votes for:
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 09:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this uncited bit necessary?
For instance, would a similar block of text be included in articles about murder, assault, etc.?
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 17:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There are many problems with that section.
I'm not sure why my edit was removed.
was put by me in the reference but it was removed. I think however that it should stay, since it's very important.
Again, I'm not sure why it was removed. I think it should stay, if not in the article normal text, than at least hidden inside a reference. A global overview is important.
I think that a general global overview is much better than the current "Marital rape is illegal in many countries, including Australia, Denmark, England, the United States, Argentina, Canada, and Zimbabwe. There are many countries in which marital rape is legal,[39] including Afghanistan.[40]" I' m not really sure why these specific countries are singled out. I mean if some countries are specifically chosen for discussion, it would be more logical to chose only English speaking ones, not just random countries (as it was in the original version) because this is the English WP.
And now something different: I think the section on sexual abuse should address in detail child sexual abuse in the family; including lack of proper redress for child victims in many parts of the world; and phenomena such as child prostitution - where impoverished parents force their children to go sell sex (as it happens in some parts of the world). What do other people think? 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 ( talk) 22:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
--Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 00:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
There are many useful sources. Here are just a few; there are, of course, many more, but I don't have time now.
I think a few paragraphs based on these sources would be fine.
2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (
talk)
00:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a paste of what I wrote in the section 'Sexual abuse section' above; I re-posted here to give visibility to the issue, and to start a new section for discussion (the one above is already very long).
Shouldn't elder abuse be addressed here? A few paragraphs would do. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 ( talk) 05:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
These are some books that could be useful as sources for this article; and could be interesting for many readers - so I think they should be added to the section 'Further reading' of the article.
2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 ( talk) 04:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if this article should have a section on global laws on DV? Which forms of abuse are criminalized and which are not in various countries around the world.
Good source for member states of the European Council:
ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE RESULTS of the Fourth Round of Monitoring the Implementation of Recommendation Rec(2002)5 on the Protection of Women against Violence in Council of Europe member states [23]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 ( talk) 08:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the sections 'Around the world' and 'Epidemiology' should be merged into a single section - which should be short (a few paragraphs). The rest could go into Epidemiology of domestic violence. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 ( talk) 05:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I got started here sorting out some definition issues in the article and realized that there were a number of issues, some of which have been placed on this talk page for discussion.
In addition, I'm also working on:
This article is 3 times larger than the recommended length for most readers... hopefully the edits will help. It may be that a split approach may need to be considered. I see that someone started an article for Management of domestic violence, but it appears to be a duplicate of that section - i.e., the 2nd article was created by the content doesn't seem to have been pared down here. It would seem that this would be the most helpful information to have here... hmmm.... but it may be that there is more content that could be added there that would be helpful and wouldn't require sorting through this large article.
I know I'm a charge-ahead editor, but I haven't seen any updates to the talk page, so I've just been assuming all is well.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of important errors in the description of Johnson's typology. I'll comment and then paste the current text below my comments.
(1) Common couple violence: Johnson has not used the term "common couple violence" since at least 2000 (Johnson and Ferraro, 2000). He and others now refer to this type as "situational couple violence." Thus, the description of CCV should be labelled SCV with a note that in early papers he used the term CCV. SCV often involves more than one incident. Thus, this description should refer to "arguments where one or both" rather than "a single argument." The sentence on intimate terrorism should be moved to the next paragraph. You probably should move the final paragraph about situational couple violence up into this paragraph. It is not "another type."
(2) Intimate terrorism: It might worth adding a note here that in early papers Johnson referred to this as "patriarchal terrorism," and that recently he and others have suggested "coercive controlling violence" as a less inflammatory term for use in courtroom settings (Kelly and Johnson, 2008). Also, intimate terrorism is not more common than situational couple violence. On the contrary, it is much less common. The writer here might be misunderstanding "frequency," which refers to number of incidents in a single couple's experience. So, I would edit that sentence to fix that, and start the sentence with "On average, intimate terrorism involves more violent incidents per couple, ...." The "on average" is important because this is merely a correlation, not a definition, and some intimate terrorism can involve few incidents, little escalation, and less severe violence. Then I would add, "By definition, intimate terrorism involves a general pattern of coercive behavior, often including emotional and psychological abuse."
(3) Violent resistance: because this is not always self-defense, I would change this a bit. Perhaps just cut the reference to self-defense from the original sentence, and add a sentence such as "Sometimes violent resistance meets the legal definition of self-defense, sometimes it is simply an immediate reaction to violence, sometimes it involves carefully planned acts of retribution." ≈≈≈≈Michael P. Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commitmpj ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
ORIGINAL TEXT
Distinctions are not based on single incidents, but rather on patterns across numerous incidents and motives of the perpetrator. Types of violence identified by Johnson:[23][24][25][26]
Another type is situational couple violence, which arises out of conflicts that escalate to arguments and then to violence. It is not connected to a general pattern of control. Although it occurs less frequently in relationships and is less serious than intimate terrorism, in some cases it can be frequent and/or quite serious, even life-threatening. This is probably the most common type of intimate partner violence and dominates general surveys, student samples, and even marriage counseling samples.
Should the Social views and Custom and tradition sections be merged?
Aren't they really the same thing?
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 23:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Aren't the sections on 'Causes' and 'Effects' going to be split? I tagged them. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:B4C8 ( talk) 11:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=2088
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/11/511_125655.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/05/world/do-korean-men-still-beat-their-wives-definitely.html
http://www.talkvietnam.com/2012/10/vietnamese-wife-beaten-to-death-by-south-korean-husband/
http://talk.onevietnam.org/til-death-do-us-part-foreign-vietnamese-bride-killed-in-south-korea/
Rajmaan ( talk) 02:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Nothing on LGBT domestic violence.-- Penbat ( talk) 17:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The fact that most DV is perpetrated by males against females is recognized by international conventions, human rights organizations; by the UN; by the WHO, and so on. It is clearly the accepted mainstream position; dissent comes mainly from MRAs.
Examples:
See paragraph 18. It defines violence in a close relationship and then says: [25]
The very definition of violence against women by the UN says: [26]
You've nicely described the problem some editors would like to address. Domestic violence is generally thought of as male against female, leaving male victims of domestic violence feeling ashamed and without recourse. By deliberately phrasing the problem in terms of male aggressors and female victims, abused men may be less likely to report abuse for fear of being seen as less 'male'. While its fine to mention the relative rates of violence in the article, presenting domestic violence as an exclusively male on female problem and becoming defensive towards any comments to the contrary is akin to presenting violent crime in America as an exclusively black on white problem because of the relative rates of incarceration. It's an incomplete biased view that certainly misses some key facts and can harm others from its presentation. Besides, what harm does it do to present domestic violence as something that can happen to anyone? Why is it offensive to suggest woman can be as variable as men? Is there a reason to emphasize that women are overwhelmingly victims? 2605:E000:1609:8022:E988:7885:DCE4:3F92 ( talk) 21:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
My attempts to include information that demonstrates gender symmetry in IPV have been called out for giving the issue too much weight, and for citing less than reputable sources. How many peer reviewed studies published in reputable scientific journals must I cite before my contribution is considered legitimate? An overwhelming body of research spanning decades points to gender symmetry in IPV, just as there is research that suggests IPV is overwhelming male to female. I feel neutrality demands all of this information is presented, and I will continue to include it unless someone is able to demonstrate that it is 1) a minority view (particularly within the field), and 2) that the sources I cite are invalid. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 14:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you WhatamIdoing. Can I use both peer reviewed research and review articles as sources, or just one but not the other? Is it important to have a variety of sources or may I lean on just one? There are sections of this and other Wikipedia articles that rely so heavily on a single source that it is almost like reading a abridged version of the source. Is that ok, or should I avoid that? Casusbelli1 ( talk) 15:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The "Gender Aspects of Abuse" section begins by pointing out how IPV and gender is a controversial subject, but then includes the following statement: "Sociologists Michael P. Johnson and Kathleen J. Ferraro argue that the rate of domestic violence against men is often inflated due to the practice of including self-defense as a form of domestic violence." Inclusion of this statement without presenting it as an example of the controversy within the field gives the impression that female to male perpetrated IPV is mostly explained as self defense on the perpetrator's part. This is a point of contention within the field, and should either be presented as such, or removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.67.26 ( talk) 15:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
For one, this: "The findings from the present study did not support the male control view of IPV, in the following ways. First, we found, as in many previous studies using unselected samples (Archer, 2000; Straus, 2011), that men were not more physically aggressive to their partners than women were. Indeed, we found the opposite, that women reported being more physically (and verbally) aggressive to their partners than men were." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21499/full#ab21499-sec-0004
For another, this: "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B10E:28D1:CC44:3E41:52E3:E3E7 ( talk) 16:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's all try to resolve this. Tutelary ( talk) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I am not engaging in sockpuppery. Yes, that was my ip. I have only ever before made occasional edits to Wikipedia articles, but yesterday decided to finally register. Hence, all of my edits will be under this account. Secondly, I am fairly certain that the gender symmetry data is not a minority view, but rather that it is as well represented in the literature as is the gendered view. Demonstrating this, however, seems an impossible task. Are you saying I have to come up with a comparison of the number of peer reviewed articles that argue for a gendered view vs the number that argue for gender symmetry? I am genuinely confused as to what the criteria is here, especially as the most respected researchers of IPV fall on either side of the divide, and acknowledge that gendered/gender symmetry is one of the most contentious subjects within the field. Not including this information in the article essentially turns it into a polemic. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 14:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I am reviewing those policies now. I still contend that my sources are reliable as required by Wikipedia's standards. A cursory review of those standards also seems to support my position that exclusion of opposing voices within the field violates the neutrality policy. However, I will review the policies more closely, re-check my sources, and edit with respect to those findings in the future. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 14:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23, do you think that perhaps the Domestic violence article needs some sort of sanction with regard to Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation? Or no, since there is no evidence to suggest that is necessary? Flyer22 ( talk) 16:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Those portions of the articleWhat part of the article specifically is related to Men's Rights and therefore subjec to sanctions? Tutelary ( talk) 18:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The above is an astonishingly misdirected discussion of editor conduct, on a page that is supposedly dedicated to discussing edits to an article. Please comment on wp:Edits not editors. Conduct issues are best addressed on user talkpages, or if that fails, on various noticeboards. Not here, in other words. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I have two questions about the dynamics classification subsection. 1) What does dynamics classification even mean? It seems like the heading could be deleted while all the information below it is retained under "definitions." 2) There's a definition of family violence immediately followed by, in the same paragraph, a UN definition of violence against women and girls. I feel like the UN definition should be moved to the violence against women section, but would like to get some sort of consensus before doing so. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 20:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. I think that the U.N. definition should get a different paragraph though. The U.N. was defining violence against women in general, not only within the context of the family. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 11:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I am confused about the role(s) of children in this article. Most of the article is actually about (domestic) violence between/among adults, and in many cases I feel that it should be clarified if a statement or section does or does not include children. In most cases here it seems that only female children are included, and the violence against them is sexual. There are boys who are sexually abused, and there are many other forms of abuse/violence aimed (probably equally) against boys and girls. -- Hordaland ( talk) 15:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the source in this section may violate WP: MEDRS, as it is over a decade old, was written as an argument for the inclusion of new pathologies in the DSM V, and would in any case be better represented by a summary of the actual content of the DSM V. I would like to delete this section and replace it with information from the DSM V. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 08:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I feel that Kaldari's removal of the Straus statement obscures what the majority of sources make quite clear is one of, if not the, largest debate between IPV researchers. The introductory sentence states, quite correctly, that gender and IPV is highly controversial. Frankly, this entire section needs a rewrite in which the controversy, which has spanned several decades now, is better explained. In the mean time, however, Chan's criticisms of the CTS juxtaposed to a concise but clear statement from Straus (or some other leading family violence researcher) will serve to present the controversy to the reader in a neutral manner. I would like to make this edit, unless there is some compelling reason not to. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 15:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, I have no idea why you reverted an edit that fixed grammar, of all things. Is the following even defensible?
Frankly, that's not English. I am going to re-edit this, although I will wait to see if anyone else would like to weigh in. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 05:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the last sentence about same sex male violence because it violates wp:medrs. It is old research (2004) that is a single study. More than that, the authors call it a preliminary study and highlight possible issues with its findings. In sum, this is not up to date evidence and is a primary source, and thus does not comport with wp:medrs on at least those grounds.
Incidentally, I think holding this article to the wp:medrs standard risks eliminating wide swaths of it. I have not been applying that standard to the clearly socio-political aspects of domestic violence, instead reserving it for dv stats, which I believe can be construed as falling within the purview of wp:medrs. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 05:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the following: "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.[97][98][99]"
This sentence plagiarizes a similar passage in a work by John Hamel (cited in my edit). Even though that could be fixed by a simple rewording, the cited sources still violate wp:medrs as they depend on research that is at least a decade old. This is true even of the Compton work (2010), which references studies conducted a couple of decades ago. While the rates are no doubt disputed, and while women may in fact be subjected to domestic violence significantly more than men, the cited sources do not back the statement according to the wp:medrs standard.
About not fully removing the references, sorry about that, I'm still new to this. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 05:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Couples who smoke cannabis together less likely to engage in domestic violence http://ind.pn/1nCO7cv -- Penbat ( talk) 14:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Lyoh ( talk · contribs). I see that as part of a WP:Class assignment, you are with Education Program:Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis/Advanced Mental Health for the Occupational Therapist (Fall 2014) and have been expanding the article (as seen here and here). Well, with a WP:Class assignment, the student editor(s) should attempt to communicate with the regular editors of the article so that these sides can collaborate more efficiently, and so that the more experienced editors can guide the student editors if needed, and address any concerns with their additions. For example, the Domestic violence article is big enough as it is, so WP:SIZE is an issue. Seeing as domestic violence is largely (but not solely) a medical issue, making sure that sources added to the article regarding health information are up to the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) standards is also a concern. I'm pinging Doc James via WP:Echo to see if he perhaps has any opinion on the sources you've added to the article. Lyoh, what is everything you are looking to add to the article? And will others from your course be assisting you? Flyer22 ( talk) 15:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Occupational therapy can impact the health and well-being of survivors of domestic violence by enabling participation in occupation and addressing a diminished skill-set caused by a prolonged situation of occupational apartheid. [8] Occupational therapists work with individuals to develop the skills needed to acquire desired occupational roles and satisfactorily perform everyday tasks. Occupational therapy practitioners can provide services through direct or indirect treatment, advocacy efforts, consultation, or group sessions. [9] They may work with survivors of domestic violence and their families in a variety of settings such as hospitals, skilled nursing and rehabilitation centers, outpatient clinics, mental health facilities, schools, homes, and in shelters or other community programs. [10] Within any of the practice settings, occupational therapists may encounter victims or survivors of domestic violence including individuals who have not reported abuse. Occupational therapists are in a position to uncover information that leads to suspicion of violence or identification of abuse that has occurred. As health care professionals, occupational therapists follow state mandated requirements to report abuse. [10] They may provide specialized treatment for individuals who have: [10]
Domestic violence survivors have experienced trauma and abuse leading to a loss of empowerment and poor self-worth. These consequences of domestic violence may impact the ability to perform occupations. Occupational therapy contributes to recovery by enabling survivors to create new roles, develop satisfying and productive routines, and gain the self-efficacy necessary to overcome the effects of domestic violence. Occupational therapy interventions for this population include: [10] [11] [9]
|
Have moved the text here. These words "Sustained injuries or disabilities as a result of domestic violence, Chosen to remain in and rebuild a relationship in which abuse has occurred, or Decided to leave the abusive relationship and reconstruct their lives." Are exactly the same as this copyrighted work [30]. Have not investigated the rest of it yet. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I am a student charged with creating or revising a Wikipedia article to better reflect the goal of my class: social justice, inequality, and the capabilities of humans to make meaningful changes. I have chosen the topic of intimate partner violence as it applies to LGBT communities. This article covers little to do on the subject as I believe it should. This article has developed into a general overview of types of domestic violence, causes, and even some social implications surrounding the topic. However, I have found significant information on the topic in the realm of LGBT relationships. Consequently, I will be adding an article on this specific topic under the current headin of “same-sex relationships”. This section, I feel, I lacking in statistical data and reference. My small section will detail the significance of IPV in the LGBT community, ways that this type of violence occurs, and implications for LGBT individuals. Under the headings of “social view” and “intergenerational cycle of violence” I will also insert a few sentences on the LGBT community, as these topics are relevant beyond what has already been included. I will include data on the prevalence of the issue and donate a few sentences to the efforts of those who are working to bring this issue to light.
With that being said, I need your help Wikipedians. I will be posting a draft of my proposed sections within two weeks. I would appreciate constructive criticism, especially as it applies to organizations of the material and use of citations. Additionally, i will be creating a sub article with greater detail on the topic. If it interests you, please take the time to provide feedback or suggestions on that page as well. Especially on what information should be used in the subsection of this article.
Ratilley ( talk) 00:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This is what the Same-sex relationships section looked like after Ratilley's expansion of it. I tweaked/added to the section here and here, and am likely to tweak it or add to it in the future. Given the limited data out there on domestic violence in same-sex relationships, you did a decent job with the text, Ratilley. I would stay away from using university sources for this information, however (not that you added those sources; they were there before your additions). Use of primary sources are seemingly unavoidable in this particular case (domestic violence in same-sex relationships). Flyer22 ( talk) 01:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Appleangel11 ( talk) 00:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
As seen here, here and here, Penbat and I have disagreed on labeling domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence and intimate partner violence as domestic violence in the first sentence. I changed the "closely related to" wording that Penbat added; I changed it to "also," and I did this because, like the Domestic violence article and an abundance of WP:Reliable sources make clear, all of these terms are often or usually used interchangeably. Intimate partner violence having its own Wikipedia article does not make it distinct from domestic violence; of course, it is domestic violence, and it is currently called such in the lead of its Wikipedia article. And the term domestic abuse, a term that Penbat considers broader than the term domestic violence, as shown in the #Children section above, and therefore wants the Domestic violence article titled Domestic abuse, is even more so used interchangeably with the term domestic violence; they are the same thing. Like I told Penbat in the aforementioned Children section, the term domestic violence, just like the term sexual violence, does not only concern physically violent acts. In other words, the term domestic violence is just as broad as the term domestic abuse. I see no valid reason to describe the aforementioned terms as simply related to domestic violence, as opposed to being domestic violence. It's just that a few of these terms cover specific forms of domestic violence.
I'll alert WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 09:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Alerted. Flyer22 ( talk) 09:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Update: Bluerasberry and Jmh649 (Doc James), with this edit, Ewawer (Enthusiast) moved "intimate partner violence" out of the first sentence. I'm okay with that, since that term has its own Wikipedia article, but it's still a fact that, as stated above, the term is often used interchangeably with the term domestic violence, and, when people state "domestic violence," it is usually intimate partner violence that they are referring to. I, however, disagree with this edit by Ewawer, which moved mention of intimate partner violence out of the lead; the reason that I gave for reverting is: "[It] should be mentioned in the lead; the lead summarizes the article. And that term is often used interchangeably with 'domestic violence,' as noted lower." Ewawer reverted, stating, "I am try to unclutter the intro." And I reverted once again, adding, "lead material is lead material; it's as simple as that, per WP:LEAD." Flyer22 ( talk) 07:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed this from the lede: "Whereas women who experience domestic violence are openly encouraged to report it to the authorities, it has been argued that domestic violence against men is most often unreported because of social pressure against such reporting, with those that do facing social stigma regarding their perceived lack of machismo and other denigrations of their masculinity.[1][2]"
The paragraph was biased and inappropriate for the lede, at least in its current form. 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C3C8 ( talk) 14:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert/scholar. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated person for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Elitre (WPS) ( talk) 16:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot POV pushing around this issue, so this is important to note: in 1993, the UN published Strategies for Confronting Domestic Violence - A Resource Manual, and it says this, at page 4 ( at note ** down the page): [35]
It is important to understand that on Wikipedia, when we write articles, we report what sources say, we do not search for the "truth". 2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:50C:7134 ( talk) 15:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This page reads like someone's paper...Not like an encyclopedia page...This is written with the underlying point that it's "accepted by society" and tries to blame different aspects society for it's existence...
I'm simply going to start with one neutrality issue...As I believe it's the most prominant example:
This is not cited... It NEEDS to be if it's going to be presented... Disobeying should not be in quotation marks... You CANNOT say "[it's] not considered a form of abuse by society (both men and women)" because that's not cccurate... You cannot group all people into "society" when that simply isn't accurate... By the mere fact that I consider it to be a form of abuse her claim is now false...
On another note, this page lacks considerable citations...Each of their separate points seems to rely on an individual source...
UsernameTBD ( talk) 16:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"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."
"Numerous other empirical studies since 1975 suggest there is evidence for it [the symmetry between violence perpetuated by men and women]."
contradiction (?). I think we can agree that this is an emotional loaded dispute and we need more evidence/studies and someone with a NPOV to improve this article Citogenitor talk needed 15:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)"In Canada more women than men report being pushed, shoved or slapped while more men than women report being kicked, bit, or hit with something."
TWELVE percent of SWISS women suffered sexual abuse? Seriously? That's encyclopedic statistics? Based on a Penguin book? In my modest vocabulary that is called typical feminist BS. Le Grand Bleu ( talk) 12:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. Unfortunately, the expert who had agreed to review had to decline later on. Our first call for community review was already 6 months ago and since then the article has changed quite a lot. We have identified another expert to help review the article. We would like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before October 31, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere ( talk) 14:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Antizepho added the following sentence to the "Gender aspects" section: "However, Straus, designer of the conflict tactics scale (CTS), argues the opposite; that men underestimate their partner's violence and overestimate their own." This was cited to two papers by Straus. Both papers seem to say the opposite of what they are being cited for. The first paper says "Most studies have shown little difference in prevalence rates reported by males and females (Archel; 2000). However, enough studies have shown a tendency for males to underreport both perpetration and victimization to make it desirable to test both partners or if that is not possible, to exercise caution in conclusions based on the report of only one partner." The second paper says "In addition, a meta-analysis (Archer 1999) found that although both men and women underreport, the extent of underreporting is greater for men." This seems to be a serious mis-representation of the sources. Kaldari ( talk) 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Any reasons we cannot introduce some statistics? to represent the significant percentage of men affected, particularly given the huge under reporting by men in western societies. Please don't remove referenced material either I dont want to edit war. Lets seek some dispute resolution instead. Seem fair flyer 22? Charlotte135 ( talk) 03:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the sentence and statistic is talking about all forms of DV not just physical....."indicated that rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women." ... Domestic violence can take a number of forms Flyer 22, as you obviously know, including physical, verbal, emotional, economic and sexual abuse why are you focusing on physical violence? that sentence is talking about all forms of DV not just physical. Why then would we include an abstract quote about physical violence and men being bigger? Why are you so focused on the physical? Lets keep this article about all forms of DV balanced please flyer 22. sound fair? Charlotte135 ( talk) 05:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
For those interested, Charlotte135 took the aforementioned Archer source to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard without alerting this talk page to the matter; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Domestic Violence article. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
"There is increasing evidence to suggest that women commit as much or more IPV as men" Trauma Violence Abuse. 2008 Oct; 9(4): 227–249.
How can these significant viewpoints that have been published by verifiable sources be integrated into this article's lead? I have asked the question here so as to avoid any possibility of edit warring and to discuss in a civil, respectful manner. Thanks. Charlotte135 ( talk) 02:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: With regard to the above question in this section, I've been thoroughly over this matter with Charlotte135, mainly regarding this Archer piece. And as thoroughly noted in this discussion (that's a WP:Permalink) at the WP:MEDRS talk page, there are different aspects of intimate partner violence (IPV), and most of its aspects point to men committing IPV more than women committing IPV...and women more often being victims of IPV. That discussion was started by WhatamIdoing, in an effort to address CFCF. WhatamIdoing's statements in that section were clear that IPV applies more to women as victims than to men as victims, and more to men as the perpetrators. She gave ideas for reporting on gender symmetry in the article, with WP:Due weight. In other words, so that we are careful not to give it the same weight as the majority viewpoint/aspect. She perhaps has ideas for reporting on it in the lead. If it is included in the lead, the lead should also be clear that gender symmetry is highly disputed, and briefly note why it is. In that aforementioned discussion, I listed sources that note/explain why it is. I don't think it should be formatted like the current final paragraph of the Domestic violence against men article, especially since the Domestic violence article doesn't yet address all of that. The main article addressing all of that is the Domestic violence against men article, and WhatamIdoing and I are in agreement that the Domestic violence article should not go into too much detail about the gender symmetry debate. On a side note: For those needing reminders about the non-lead material on this matter, gender symmetry is addressed in the General and Violence against men subsections of the Gender aspects section. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 10:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I am removing this study [36] from the article. It is far from anything significant enough to include here. Can anyone really believe that a "check the box" questionnaire sent out to 1000 people living in England is adequate to establish the conclusions of this, what I can only call "so called" study? This reply puts it quite well:
limitations of study mainly concern lack of ecological validity and overstating the findings, possibility that women simply admit more then men in a questionnaire response (i.e. more honest), student responses are likely to be different from domestic violence relationships (i.e. dynamics and patterns involved - here a static measure), using a scale is far removed from anything to do with patriarchy and actually the opposite of what has been concluded here might play a part (as in more admission from women, possibly exaggeration), this extremely limited study being seen as important enough to be discussed in the press is slightly embarrassing for the psychology profession ... Gandydancer ( talk) 13:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: Again, anyone wanting to know my views on this matter can see this discussion, where I pointed to the ways that Charlotte135 misrepresents my views (for example, acting like I am some raging feminist trying to take a political stance), and what I've stated above on this talk page. It is not productive for me to engage an editor who continually misrepresents my views, even after being told what they are, and refuses to understand and adhere to the WP:Neutral/WP:Due weight policy. Charlotte135, for some reason, thinks that a number of scholars supporting the gender symmetry viewpoint negates the number of scholars who don't support it. Charlotte135, for some reason, thinks that gender symmetry should be given the same weight as the mainstream viewpoint/aspect that consistently finds that men are more often than women the perpetrators of IPV and that women are more often than men the victims of IPV. Charlotte135, for some reason, is eager to add that 2008 material while negating sources presented by me (and Doc James) in the #Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included? section above, or the sources I presented in the other discussion, where WhatamIdoing (I already WP:Pinged her above) made it clear that IPV applies more to women as victims than to men as victims, and more to men as the perpetrators. Charlotte135, for some reason, is eager to add that 2008 material in order to state "There is increasing evidence to suggest that women commit as much or more IPV as men.", even though there are different forms of IPV, and even scholars who support the gender symmetry viewpoint note that women are victims of IPV more than men are in different ways. Charlotte135, for some reason, wants to add that biased text to the lead, when it is vague and conflicts with various other WP:Reliable sources, and leaves out the counterargument. And this is why I, for reasons I've already noted, will do what I can to avoid engaging Charlotte135. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
To get back on track, the information that has been removed: "A 2014 study of intimate partner violence by the British Psychological Society concluded that women are more likely to be physically aggressive in domestic scenarios than men." was not done by BPS but by a researcher who presented it at their yearly symposium. It consisted of a questionnaire sent out 1100 students with a "circle the best answer" type of format. It does not appear to have been peer reviewed or to have appeared in a medical journal. Just that should be enough to rule it out, but looking for info that agrees with the findings re physical violence, I'm not finding it. Per guidelines we don't use a lesser study to refute well sourced information. It should no be in this article. Gandydancer ( talk) 07:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 9 |
There has been a brief conversation about the introduction of sexual assault law to the current Domestic violence#Sexual content, now with a high-level summary for both the U.S. and Canada.
There is a question regarding whether the full content should stay in the article from [ this version of the Sexual section]. How do others feel about this?-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
might be an idea for a section on this. see for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/23/police-domestic-abuse-older-couples?CMP=twt_gu -- Penbat ( talk) 19:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This paragraph (slightly reworded from the 1st attempt), sites a Spanish source for the material.
This minimization of feminine violence as self-defensive is increasingly refuted by many recent studies that compare the levels of unilaterality and reciprocity of aggressions. In a spanish compilation of 400 international studies on intimate partner violence, spanning more than 40 countries, it has been found that a soubgroup of 84 studies analyze the reciprocity and initiation aspects of aggressions between partners and that most of the studies in this subgroup (60 studies) report higher levels of non-reciprocal violence and initiation of physical aggressions by women. [106]:Alvarez Deca, Javier 400 razones contra un prejuicio.
Two concerns: 1) It's adding specific information to a paragraph that hits the highlights of the concerns about gender aspects of violence. If there is going to be an insertion of specific information, then it should cover both sides of the topic ( WP:POV). 2) I'm confused about why, if the Javier Alvarez Deca study was so ground-breaking and significant, I'm unable to find mention in English language websites or news.
Since we've had two attempts to add this I thought I'd bring it to the talk page to determine:
Any thoughts?-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 18:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The two references that SigGoddard used - improperly, such as via minor edits - do have value, and should be incorporated into the article, especially given the second one's containing analyses of the implications for male dominance models. I've made a first attempt at this, but suspect that those with more knowledge in this area than I will do a better job, so don't plan on continuing editing this (still less am I interested in "defending" my edits, although I have to admit that the edit conflict I ran into when I was initially copyediting the references irritated me; could people please use the {{ cite journal}} and similar templates, or the {{ citation}} template, or something?). Allens ( talk | contribs) 18:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
SigGoddard's 2006 Straus source, which is a paper that was presented at a conference (i.e. not peer reviewed) looks like it wasn't even finished. Here's a sample of text from the paper [emphasis mine]:
Of the ?? students who completed the questionnaire, those who were not in a dating relationship were excluded from the analyses reported in this paper. The questionnaires of these ??? were scanned for aberrant response patterns such as an implausibly high frequency of rare events, for example, 10 instances of attacking a partner with a knife or gun in the past year; or inconsistent answers, for example, reporting an injury but no assault. Based on this screening method, 6.2% ?? of the respondents were dropped from the sample, leaving ?? cases,
This seems well short of our standards for a reliable source. I would recommend removing it as well as discussion of the cited study from the article unless a peer-reviewed version of the paper can be located that doesn't include such glaring problems. Kaldari ( talk) 03:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
SigGoddard has reinserted a section in the history section about the women's shelter movement "suppressing data" about domestic violence. I don't see at all how this is central to the history of domestic violence. Also, this is a significant exaggeration of the sources provided. The sources state that (1) some academics have criticized gender symmetry theories because they threaten women's shelters, and (2) Erin Pizzey has accused the women's shelter movement in Britain of being hostile to her work. There might be a case for material about this in the Women's shelter article or Erin Pizzey's article, but it is a violation of WP:UNDUE to present this as central to the history of domestic violence. As SigGoddard's only edits to this article have been to promote a men's rights perspective of domestic violence, I would like to direct his attention to WP:NPOV. Kaldari ( talk) 17:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
SigGoddard added the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph of the Violence against women section (in italics):
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. However, this is not the consensus of the scientific domestic research community and this consensus is not born out in the of body of national government surveys and scientific research on rates of domestic violence.
However, this addition is contradicted by SigGoddard's own source (and numerous other reliable sources). Specifically, his Dutton source includes the following:
SigGoddard also cites Fiebert for this conclusion, yet Fiebert himself disagrees with it: "My take is that women are more likely to be more injured, but not a lot more." [1]
I think SigGoddard's addition should be removed as it does not accurately reflect the majority of reliable sources and is yet more POV-pushing. Kaldari ( talk) 17:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Whether article Violence against men should be deleted. [ [2]] 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AC67 ( talk) 15:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This suggests that domestic violence is primarily a crime targeted towards women, which is already a very common perception.
The section "Situation in the United States" also only mentions female victims. -- Squirtlekin ( talk) 04:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add my input that the "Situation in the United States" section should include both male and female statistics, to remove bias and to facillitate comparison between the two genders. Cstanford.math ( talk) 07:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed a reference which does not discuss reporting patterns or possible under-reporting by men or women.
There is also the problem that the information used from the remaining source appears to be cherry-picked. Dutton writes that "Men grossly underreport both perpetration and victimization by severe violence" (note on p. 686) and that "both sexes tend to over-report minor acts they commit, under- report serious acts they commit, and over-report serious acts they suffer" (p. 685). Despite this the sentence in our article says that men are less likely to report being victims. Dutton's argument that they are also less likely to report being perpetrators is not mentioned. The other thing is that Dutton does not mention stigma. He assumes that some men may under-report on crime victim surveys because they do not view female violence against them as a crime but, again, he does not mention stigma or elaborate on the reasons that may lead some women and men to under-report their own and their partner's use of violence. Lots of WP:OR happening in one sentence. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 17:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Section is much too long, it should be split into a new article, I think. 86.121.66.131 ( talk) 10:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I removed a paragraph based on a Cathy Young article that was published in Reason (magazine) in 1998 [3]. The article consists of a collection of anecdotes about the effects of so-called "must arrest" laws. Young tells the stories of Susan Finkelstein, John Manning, Joel Gehrke etc. to make her case that people were arrested although their partner claimed that nothing had happened. She does not cite any sources or statistics or representative data. If there is up-to-date research on the subject, it might be worth including. A 1998 article in Reason magazine in not it. -- Sonicyouth86 ( talk) 15:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
This image is the first appearing in the article, featuring prominently in the section "Physical". This is not by any means a representative image for domestic violence. Statistically, most domestic violence is male on female (especially at a global level), plus that image depicts a historical scene (1875), and it's definitely not representative for that period (when male on female DV was rampant). There's nothing wrong with that image, but it can't stay in the article on its own, as it is now; either more images are added for balance, or for now it has to go. 5.12.221.158 ( talk) 04:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, it seems completely unclear to me whether or not this image is actually portraying violence. The man seems to be kneeling as if in prayer rather than defending himself or cowering as one would expect if the woman were actually inflicting violence. It's entirely possible the woman is blessing him or performing some ritual that we have no understanding of. Without some sort of context for the image it is impossible to know. Kaldari ( talk) 23:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I have tried to amend this article to globalize it. This article is called "Domestic violence" not "Domestic violence in the US" or "Domestic violence in the West". Therefore, it has to explain the global situation, not focus on just a few industrialized countries. DV as conceptualized in West (Europe/US) is very different than the way it is understood in most of the world. Research has shown that in most parts of the world (most of Asia, Africa, and to a lesser extent some parts of Latin America) a husband using "moderate" physical violence to keep his wife from "straying" or to "punish" her, is not seen as abusive, by either men or women. In most parts of the world, the autonomy of a wife (going out without asking permission from husband, arguing with the husband, wearing "inappropriate" clothes, refusing sex - the standard questions asked for years in these surveys) is not considered as the right of a wife - if a woman does these things, this is seen by most members of the society as justifying violence by husband/relatives. This has to be clearly explained in this article, which is supposed to present and explain a global issue. This is especially more so, as most people who read this article (probably youth in the West) may not be aware of and not understand the worldwide situation. 188.25.171.193 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
There are two paragraphs regarding Murray Straus in the "Violence Against Women" section which someone had decapitated. The paragraphs are:
there is clearly a paragraph missing before "In 2007, Murray Straus explored some of these problems," because it's hiding the actual problems. What are "some of these problems". The problem is right here visible on Wikipedia, isn't it? Where is the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project ever mentioned?
Can someone please point me to and work with me to find the head leading to Murray Strauss paragraphs? And then work on rectifying some of this stuff by using actual research evidence as in PASK? Gschadow ( talk) 02:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
There were two sections of the article claiming that domestic violence was most often perpetrated or initiated by women. These statements were supported by two different sources, Whitaker 2007 and Straus 2008. Let's look at what these sources actually said:
Both of these studies were primarily of young dating couples. (In the case of Whitaker's study, as young as 12.) Neither represents a study of IPV prevalence among the general public. Kaldari ( talk) 22:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The lede was modified to include, among other inaccuracies, a gross misrepresentation of Commentaries on the Laws of England, by William Blackstone, in regard to common law and civil law. Here is the text of William Blackstone: [4]
2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AAC3 ( talk) 16:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
CALVIN BRADLEY vs. THE STATE. [5]
An editor is trying to change the lede to make it appear that DV in most Western countries was already considered a serious criminal offense in the 18th century, and that there was no problem and everything was just fine for women. ARE YOU BEING SERIOUS?? What you're writing borders on vandalism!
"We may assume that the old doctrine, that a husband had a right to whip his wife, provided he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not law in North Carolina. Indeed, the Courts have advanced from that barbarism until they have reached the position, that the husband has no right to chastise his wife, under any circumstances.
But from motives of public policy,--in order to preserve the sanctity of the domestic circle, the Courts will not listen to trivial complaints.
If no permanent injury has been inflicted, nor malice, cruelty nor dangerous violence shown by the husband, it is better to draw the curtain, shut out the public gaze, and leave the parties to forget and forgive.
No general rule can be applied, but each case must depend upon the circumstances surrounding it.
Without adverting in detail to the facts established by the special verdict in this case, we think that they show both malice and cruelty.
In fact, it is difficult to conceive how a man, who has promised, upon the altar to love, comfort, honor, and keep a woman, can lay rude and violent hands upon her, without having malice and cruelty in his heart.
Let it be certified that the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:AAC3 ( talk) 02:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The section on women's domestic violence, versus the men's, shows an enormous amount of gender bias on behalf of the contributors. Half of the woman's section had been composed of arguments "against" the numbers of abuse reported against them (the Strauss study). If that part is removed (which really should be in the Gender-study difficulties section), the section about abuse against women seems to almost be an afterthought. The men's, however, is written in length, fleshed out, and picks topics/sources that go well out of their way to try and argue that men are the 'real victims'.
I am reminded of the survey that Wikipedia did in 2011, that showed that 80-90% of the contributors were male:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians
So I guess you mean size matters?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_Survey_2011
And to this dude goes the internet. should have just said, yes we see you're trying tobe a victim.
The domestic violence section needs a giant look-over. The section as a whole really isn't about DV against men or women either - it's mostly attempts that try to make any sort of claim of DV against women as somehow unsubstantiated. It's laughable, and further perpetuates the notion that Wikipedia really isn't a serious source of information, as well inflates the stereotype that most of the information is written by young males with no real experience in the real world/with females.
For starters, I included the recent UN study of violence/rape against women in their section: http://www.partners4prevention.org/about-prevention/research/men-and-violence-study — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.216.187.117 ( talk) 17:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I can totally understand what you are talking about. I also think the same-sex relationships seems even worse. They are correct in saying that men are victims of domestic violence but it is disproportionally about women. And LGBT people are definitely mentioned in a fairly tokenizing "they have it too" kind of way. What do you propose we do about theses issues. I'm behind you.- Rainbowofpeace ( talk) 20:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I removed a large portion of text from the Epidemiology on United States and added a section on Europe from the main article. Disproportionately much of the entry is focused on the United States with a "Situation in the Unites States" entry as well apart from being mentioned in epidemiology. I will try to clean it up. CFCF ( talk) 06:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Text removed for discussion:
However, more recent research has called into question the notion that sexism and patriarchy are the sole or even primary causes of domestic violence. A 2013 review of studies from five continents found no correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence as measured by general population or community studies and found that gender inequality explained the variance for only 17% of male abuse and 19% of female abuse as measured by dating samples. The authors conclude that "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."
There are a couple problems with the section recently added on the 2013 Esquivel-Santovena study (which I've moved here for discussion). First, it says "five continents", which doesn't appear to be accurate (the 5 regions in the study do not correspond to continents. Secondly, the way it presents the statistics about gender inequality correlation is confusing. The results for general population and the results for dating samples should at least be divided into two separate sentences, otherwise it sounds like they are talking about the same data. Another possibility would be to remove the part about dating couples entirely, although this would necessitate narrowing the claim about the scope of the study (since the majority of the studies were on dating couples). Kaldari ( talk) 22:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Domestic violence can also include violence, including threats, between people who live together, such as a person renting a room in someone's house, or roommates. This is the case in the state of Washington. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:9D80:2B5:E452:75CA:CAA5:EA00 ( talk) 22:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Why are these acronyms necessary? Surely it's not a space concern, nor a case of editors being lazy. These acronyms can confuse people who skip to a section in the article, and simply spelling out 'intimate partner violence' each time would hardly be detrimental to anything. -- 71.116.235.10 ( talk) 23:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
In the article, under Counseling for Offenders, it says: "Anger management is recommended as a part of an offender treatment curriculum". It is my understanding that many Batterer Intervention Programs no longer see Anger Management as an effective tool, for the the simple reason that batterers already have their anger well managed. When they are in private and their partner does anything they don't like, they can instantly turn it ON as a tool to control their partner. When they are in public and someone else does something they don't like, perhaps a police officer giving them a speeding ticket or a supervisor correcting them, they can turn their anger OFF. To compare the two, see this page from Oregon: [1] or this one from Massachusetts: [2] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaKine ( talk) 10:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC) DaKine ( talk • contribs) 05:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
Would it be possible to have the 'Violence against women' box moved above the 'Violence against men' box? Considering that, statistically, many more women are abused in this situation than men, it leaves a sour taste that 'Violence against men' is the first one that you see of the two. -- Drowninginlimbo ( talk) 02:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
There are so many definitions that it is no longer illuminating, but is confusing. For instance, why are there three definitions for US, UK and Malta government definitions? Do they somehow represent a world view?
For now, I moved these over here:
US, UK and Malta definitions
|
---|
Broad definitions of domestic violence are common today. For instance the Act XX on Domestic Violence 2006, in Malta, defines DV as follows: [1]
The US Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) defines domestic violence as a "pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner". The definition adds that domestic violence "can happen to anyone regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, religion, or gender", and can take many forms, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional, economic, and psychological abuse. [2] The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service in the United Kingdom in its "Domestic Violence Policy" uses domestic violence to refer to a range of violent and abusive behaviours, defining it as:
|
Options:
Thoughts?-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 04:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This start of the article says, which is pretty much in synch with what had been and is in the first section of the definition section:
But, then, in the Dynamics classification there's a distinction between intimate partners and family members:
...but the rest of the article seems to be about intimate partners... and doesn't seem to get into family issues (elder abuse, etc.).
Do we need to address this? Or, just leave it as-is (i.e., readers can clink to child abuse, elder abuse, etc. if desired)-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 06:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
This information is specific to Violence against women... although I like that it's from an international organization.
Shouldn't this go in the Violence against women section? or Violence against women article?
It does bring up points about sanctioned violence, etc.... but it's muddying the waters here for a broad definition of domestic violence that would include violence against men, isn't it?-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 06:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The following sentence was in the IPV types section:
Should we get into the statistics and info by type of Interpersonal violence? If so, there's a lot more that could be said (e.g., statistics, prevalence by gender, heterosexual/homosexual relationship differences, other factors)... perhaps splitting off to another article since this is already 3 times recommended length.
Votes for:
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 09:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this uncited bit necessary?
For instance, would a similar block of text be included in articles about murder, assault, etc.?
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 17:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There are many problems with that section.
I'm not sure why my edit was removed.
was put by me in the reference but it was removed. I think however that it should stay, since it's very important.
Again, I'm not sure why it was removed. I think it should stay, if not in the article normal text, than at least hidden inside a reference. A global overview is important.
I think that a general global overview is much better than the current "Marital rape is illegal in many countries, including Australia, Denmark, England, the United States, Argentina, Canada, and Zimbabwe. There are many countries in which marital rape is legal,[39] including Afghanistan.[40]" I' m not really sure why these specific countries are singled out. I mean if some countries are specifically chosen for discussion, it would be more logical to chose only English speaking ones, not just random countries (as it was in the original version) because this is the English WP.
And now something different: I think the section on sexual abuse should address in detail child sexual abuse in the family; including lack of proper redress for child victims in many parts of the world; and phenomena such as child prostitution - where impoverished parents force their children to go sell sex (as it happens in some parts of the world). What do other people think? 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 ( talk) 22:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
--Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 00:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
There are many useful sources. Here are just a few; there are, of course, many more, but I don't have time now.
I think a few paragraphs based on these sources would be fine.
2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 (
talk)
00:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This is a paste of what I wrote in the section 'Sexual abuse section' above; I re-posted here to give visibility to the issue, and to start a new section for discussion (the one above is already very long).
Shouldn't elder abuse be addressed here? A few paragraphs would do. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 ( talk) 05:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
These are some books that could be useful as sources for this article; and could be interesting for many readers - so I think they should be added to the section 'Further reading' of the article.
2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 ( talk) 04:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if this article should have a section on global laws on DV? Which forms of abuse are criminalized and which are not in various countries around the world.
Good source for member states of the European Council:
ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE RESULTS of the Fourth Round of Monitoring the Implementation of Recommendation Rec(2002)5 on the Protection of Women against Violence in Council of Europe member states [23]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 ( talk) 08:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the sections 'Around the world' and 'Epidemiology' should be merged into a single section - which should be short (a few paragraphs). The rest could go into Epidemiology of domestic violence. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:5046 ( talk) 05:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
I got started here sorting out some definition issues in the article and realized that there were a number of issues, some of which have been placed on this talk page for discussion.
In addition, I'm also working on:
This article is 3 times larger than the recommended length for most readers... hopefully the edits will help. It may be that a split approach may need to be considered. I see that someone started an article for Management of domestic violence, but it appears to be a duplicate of that section - i.e., the 2nd article was created by the content doesn't seem to have been pared down here. It would seem that this would be the most helpful information to have here... hmmm.... but it may be that there is more content that could be added there that would be helpful and wouldn't require sorting through this large article.
I know I'm a charge-ahead editor, but I haven't seen any updates to the talk page, so I've just been assuming all is well.-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 21:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There are a number of important errors in the description of Johnson's typology. I'll comment and then paste the current text below my comments.
(1) Common couple violence: Johnson has not used the term "common couple violence" since at least 2000 (Johnson and Ferraro, 2000). He and others now refer to this type as "situational couple violence." Thus, the description of CCV should be labelled SCV with a note that in early papers he used the term CCV. SCV often involves more than one incident. Thus, this description should refer to "arguments where one or both" rather than "a single argument." The sentence on intimate terrorism should be moved to the next paragraph. You probably should move the final paragraph about situational couple violence up into this paragraph. It is not "another type."
(2) Intimate terrorism: It might worth adding a note here that in early papers Johnson referred to this as "patriarchal terrorism," and that recently he and others have suggested "coercive controlling violence" as a less inflammatory term for use in courtroom settings (Kelly and Johnson, 2008). Also, intimate terrorism is not more common than situational couple violence. On the contrary, it is much less common. The writer here might be misunderstanding "frequency," which refers to number of incidents in a single couple's experience. So, I would edit that sentence to fix that, and start the sentence with "On average, intimate terrorism involves more violent incidents per couple, ...." The "on average" is important because this is merely a correlation, not a definition, and some intimate terrorism can involve few incidents, little escalation, and less severe violence. Then I would add, "By definition, intimate terrorism involves a general pattern of coercive behavior, often including emotional and psychological abuse."
(3) Violent resistance: because this is not always self-defense, I would change this a bit. Perhaps just cut the reference to self-defense from the original sentence, and add a sentence such as "Sometimes violent resistance meets the legal definition of self-defense, sometimes it is simply an immediate reaction to violence, sometimes it involves carefully planned acts of retribution." ≈≈≈≈Michael P. Johnson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commitmpj ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
ORIGINAL TEXT
Distinctions are not based on single incidents, but rather on patterns across numerous incidents and motives of the perpetrator. Types of violence identified by Johnson:[23][24][25][26]
Another type is situational couple violence, which arises out of conflicts that escalate to arguments and then to violence. It is not connected to a general pattern of control. Although it occurs less frequently in relationships and is less serious than intimate terrorism, in some cases it can be frequent and/or quite serious, even life-threatening. This is probably the most common type of intimate partner violence and dominates general surveys, student samples, and even marriage counseling samples.
Should the Social views and Custom and tradition sections be merged?
Aren't they really the same thing?
Thanks!-- CaroleHenson ( talk) 23:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Aren't the sections on 'Causes' and 'Effects' going to be split? I tagged them. 2A02:2F0A:506F:FFFF:0:0:BC1A:B4C8 ( talk) 11:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
http://www.occidentalism.org/?p=2088
http://koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/11/511_125655.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/05/world/do-korean-men-still-beat-their-wives-definitely.html
http://www.talkvietnam.com/2012/10/vietnamese-wife-beaten-to-death-by-south-korean-husband/
http://talk.onevietnam.org/til-death-do-us-part-foreign-vietnamese-bride-killed-in-south-korea/
Rajmaan ( talk) 02:43, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Nothing on LGBT domestic violence.-- Penbat ( talk) 17:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The fact that most DV is perpetrated by males against females is recognized by international conventions, human rights organizations; by the UN; by the WHO, and so on. It is clearly the accepted mainstream position; dissent comes mainly from MRAs.
Examples:
See paragraph 18. It defines violence in a close relationship and then says: [25]
The very definition of violence against women by the UN says: [26]
You've nicely described the problem some editors would like to address. Domestic violence is generally thought of as male against female, leaving male victims of domestic violence feeling ashamed and without recourse. By deliberately phrasing the problem in terms of male aggressors and female victims, abused men may be less likely to report abuse for fear of being seen as less 'male'. While its fine to mention the relative rates of violence in the article, presenting domestic violence as an exclusively male on female problem and becoming defensive towards any comments to the contrary is akin to presenting violent crime in America as an exclusively black on white problem because of the relative rates of incarceration. It's an incomplete biased view that certainly misses some key facts and can harm others from its presentation. Besides, what harm does it do to present domestic violence as something that can happen to anyone? Why is it offensive to suggest woman can be as variable as men? Is there a reason to emphasize that women are overwhelmingly victims? 2605:E000:1609:8022:E988:7885:DCE4:3F92 ( talk) 21:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
My attempts to include information that demonstrates gender symmetry in IPV have been called out for giving the issue too much weight, and for citing less than reputable sources. How many peer reviewed studies published in reputable scientific journals must I cite before my contribution is considered legitimate? An overwhelming body of research spanning decades points to gender symmetry in IPV, just as there is research that suggests IPV is overwhelming male to female. I feel neutrality demands all of this information is presented, and I will continue to include it unless someone is able to demonstrate that it is 1) a minority view (particularly within the field), and 2) that the sources I cite are invalid. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 14:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you WhatamIdoing. Can I use both peer reviewed research and review articles as sources, or just one but not the other? Is it important to have a variety of sources or may I lean on just one? There are sections of this and other Wikipedia articles that rely so heavily on a single source that it is almost like reading a abridged version of the source. Is that ok, or should I avoid that? Casusbelli1 ( talk) 15:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The "Gender Aspects of Abuse" section begins by pointing out how IPV and gender is a controversial subject, but then includes the following statement: "Sociologists Michael P. Johnson and Kathleen J. Ferraro argue that the rate of domestic violence against men is often inflated due to the practice of including self-defense as a form of domestic violence." Inclusion of this statement without presenting it as an example of the controversy within the field gives the impression that female to male perpetrated IPV is mostly explained as self defense on the perpetrator's part. This is a point of contention within the field, and should either be presented as such, or removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.67.26 ( talk) 15:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
For one, this: "The findings from the present study did not support the male control view of IPV, in the following ways. First, we found, as in many previous studies using unselected samples (Archer, 2000; Straus, 2011), that men were not more physically aggressive to their partners than women were. Indeed, we found the opposite, that women reported being more physically (and verbally) aggressive to their partners than men were." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21499/full#ab21499-sec-0004
For another, this: "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B10E:28D1:CC44:3E41:52E3:E3E7 ( talk) 16:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's all try to resolve this. Tutelary ( talk) 14:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I am not engaging in sockpuppery. Yes, that was my ip. I have only ever before made occasional edits to Wikipedia articles, but yesterday decided to finally register. Hence, all of my edits will be under this account. Secondly, I am fairly certain that the gender symmetry data is not a minority view, but rather that it is as well represented in the literature as is the gendered view. Demonstrating this, however, seems an impossible task. Are you saying I have to come up with a comparison of the number of peer reviewed articles that argue for a gendered view vs the number that argue for gender symmetry? I am genuinely confused as to what the criteria is here, especially as the most respected researchers of IPV fall on either side of the divide, and acknowledge that gendered/gender symmetry is one of the most contentious subjects within the field. Not including this information in the article essentially turns it into a polemic. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 14:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I am reviewing those policies now. I still contend that my sources are reliable as required by Wikipedia's standards. A cursory review of those standards also seems to support my position that exclusion of opposing voices within the field violates the neutrality policy. However, I will review the policies more closely, re-check my sources, and edit with respect to those findings in the future. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 14:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Bbb23, do you think that perhaps the Domestic violence article needs some sort of sanction with regard to Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation? Or no, since there is no evidence to suggest that is necessary? Flyer22 ( talk) 16:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Those portions of the articleWhat part of the article specifically is related to Men's Rights and therefore subjec to sanctions? Tutelary ( talk) 18:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The above is an astonishingly misdirected discussion of editor conduct, on a page that is supposedly dedicated to discussing edits to an article. Please comment on wp:Edits not editors. Conduct issues are best addressed on user talkpages, or if that fails, on various noticeboards. Not here, in other words. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I have two questions about the dynamics classification subsection. 1) What does dynamics classification even mean? It seems like the heading could be deleted while all the information below it is retained under "definitions." 2) There's a definition of family violence immediately followed by, in the same paragraph, a UN definition of violence against women and girls. I feel like the UN definition should be moved to the violence against women section, but would like to get some sort of consensus before doing so. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 20:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. I think that the U.N. definition should get a different paragraph though. The U.N. was defining violence against women in general, not only within the context of the family. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 11:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I am confused about the role(s) of children in this article. Most of the article is actually about (domestic) violence between/among adults, and in many cases I feel that it should be clarified if a statement or section does or does not include children. In most cases here it seems that only female children are included, and the violence against them is sexual. There are boys who are sexually abused, and there are many other forms of abuse/violence aimed (probably equally) against boys and girls. -- Hordaland ( talk) 15:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the source in this section may violate WP: MEDRS, as it is over a decade old, was written as an argument for the inclusion of new pathologies in the DSM V, and would in any case be better represented by a summary of the actual content of the DSM V. I would like to delete this section and replace it with information from the DSM V. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 08:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I feel that Kaldari's removal of the Straus statement obscures what the majority of sources make quite clear is one of, if not the, largest debate between IPV researchers. The introductory sentence states, quite correctly, that gender and IPV is highly controversial. Frankly, this entire section needs a rewrite in which the controversy, which has spanned several decades now, is better explained. In the mean time, however, Chan's criticisms of the CTS juxtaposed to a concise but clear statement from Straus (or some other leading family violence researcher) will serve to present the controversy to the reader in a neutral manner. I would like to make this edit, unless there is some compelling reason not to. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 15:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, I have no idea why you reverted an edit that fixed grammar, of all things. Is the following even defensible?
Frankly, that's not English. I am going to re-edit this, although I will wait to see if anyone else would like to weigh in. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 05:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the last sentence about same sex male violence because it violates wp:medrs. It is old research (2004) that is a single study. More than that, the authors call it a preliminary study and highlight possible issues with its findings. In sum, this is not up to date evidence and is a primary source, and thus does not comport with wp:medrs on at least those grounds.
Incidentally, I think holding this article to the wp:medrs standard risks eliminating wide swaths of it. I have not been applying that standard to the clearly socio-political aspects of domestic violence, instead reserving it for dv stats, which I believe can be construed as falling within the purview of wp:medrs. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 05:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I deleted the following: "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.[97][98][99]"
This sentence plagiarizes a similar passage in a work by John Hamel (cited in my edit). Even though that could be fixed by a simple rewording, the cited sources still violate wp:medrs as they depend on research that is at least a decade old. This is true even of the Compton work (2010), which references studies conducted a couple of decades ago. While the rates are no doubt disputed, and while women may in fact be subjected to domestic violence significantly more than men, the cited sources do not back the statement according to the wp:medrs standard.
About not fully removing the references, sorry about that, I'm still new to this. Casusbelli1 ( talk) 05:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Couples who smoke cannabis together less likely to engage in domestic violence http://ind.pn/1nCO7cv -- Penbat ( talk) 14:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Lyoh ( talk · contribs). I see that as part of a WP:Class assignment, you are with Education Program:Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis/Advanced Mental Health for the Occupational Therapist (Fall 2014) and have been expanding the article (as seen here and here). Well, with a WP:Class assignment, the student editor(s) should attempt to communicate with the regular editors of the article so that these sides can collaborate more efficiently, and so that the more experienced editors can guide the student editors if needed, and address any concerns with their additions. For example, the Domestic violence article is big enough as it is, so WP:SIZE is an issue. Seeing as domestic violence is largely (but not solely) a medical issue, making sure that sources added to the article regarding health information are up to the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) standards is also a concern. I'm pinging Doc James via WP:Echo to see if he perhaps has any opinion on the sources you've added to the article. Lyoh, what is everything you are looking to add to the article? And will others from your course be assisting you? Flyer22 ( talk) 15:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Occupational therapy can impact the health and well-being of survivors of domestic violence by enabling participation in occupation and addressing a diminished skill-set caused by a prolonged situation of occupational apartheid. [8] Occupational therapists work with individuals to develop the skills needed to acquire desired occupational roles and satisfactorily perform everyday tasks. Occupational therapy practitioners can provide services through direct or indirect treatment, advocacy efforts, consultation, or group sessions. [9] They may work with survivors of domestic violence and their families in a variety of settings such as hospitals, skilled nursing and rehabilitation centers, outpatient clinics, mental health facilities, schools, homes, and in shelters or other community programs. [10] Within any of the practice settings, occupational therapists may encounter victims or survivors of domestic violence including individuals who have not reported abuse. Occupational therapists are in a position to uncover information that leads to suspicion of violence or identification of abuse that has occurred. As health care professionals, occupational therapists follow state mandated requirements to report abuse. [10] They may provide specialized treatment for individuals who have: [10]
Domestic violence survivors have experienced trauma and abuse leading to a loss of empowerment and poor self-worth. These consequences of domestic violence may impact the ability to perform occupations. Occupational therapy contributes to recovery by enabling survivors to create new roles, develop satisfying and productive routines, and gain the self-efficacy necessary to overcome the effects of domestic violence. Occupational therapy interventions for this population include: [10] [11] [9]
|
Have moved the text here. These words "Sustained injuries or disabilities as a result of domestic violence, Chosen to remain in and rebuild a relationship in which abuse has occurred, or Decided to leave the abusive relationship and reconstruct their lives." Are exactly the same as this copyrighted work [30]. Have not investigated the rest of it yet. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I am a student charged with creating or revising a Wikipedia article to better reflect the goal of my class: social justice, inequality, and the capabilities of humans to make meaningful changes. I have chosen the topic of intimate partner violence as it applies to LGBT communities. This article covers little to do on the subject as I believe it should. This article has developed into a general overview of types of domestic violence, causes, and even some social implications surrounding the topic. However, I have found significant information on the topic in the realm of LGBT relationships. Consequently, I will be adding an article on this specific topic under the current headin of “same-sex relationships”. This section, I feel, I lacking in statistical data and reference. My small section will detail the significance of IPV in the LGBT community, ways that this type of violence occurs, and implications for LGBT individuals. Under the headings of “social view” and “intergenerational cycle of violence” I will also insert a few sentences on the LGBT community, as these topics are relevant beyond what has already been included. I will include data on the prevalence of the issue and donate a few sentences to the efforts of those who are working to bring this issue to light.
With that being said, I need your help Wikipedians. I will be posting a draft of my proposed sections within two weeks. I would appreciate constructive criticism, especially as it applies to organizations of the material and use of citations. Additionally, i will be creating a sub article with greater detail on the topic. If it interests you, please take the time to provide feedback or suggestions on that page as well. Especially on what information should be used in the subsection of this article.
Ratilley ( talk) 00:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: This is what the Same-sex relationships section looked like after Ratilley's expansion of it. I tweaked/added to the section here and here, and am likely to tweak it or add to it in the future. Given the limited data out there on domestic violence in same-sex relationships, you did a decent job with the text, Ratilley. I would stay away from using university sources for this information, however (not that you added those sources; they were there before your additions). Use of primary sources are seemingly unavoidable in this particular case (domestic violence in same-sex relationships). Flyer22 ( talk) 01:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Appleangel11 ( talk) 00:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
As seen here, here and here, Penbat and I have disagreed on labeling domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence and intimate partner violence as domestic violence in the first sentence. I changed the "closely related to" wording that Penbat added; I changed it to "also," and I did this because, like the Domestic violence article and an abundance of WP:Reliable sources make clear, all of these terms are often or usually used interchangeably. Intimate partner violence having its own Wikipedia article does not make it distinct from domestic violence; of course, it is domestic violence, and it is currently called such in the lead of its Wikipedia article. And the term domestic abuse, a term that Penbat considers broader than the term domestic violence, as shown in the #Children section above, and therefore wants the Domestic violence article titled Domestic abuse, is even more so used interchangeably with the term domestic violence; they are the same thing. Like I told Penbat in the aforementioned Children section, the term domestic violence, just like the term sexual violence, does not only concern physically violent acts. In other words, the term domestic violence is just as broad as the term domestic abuse. I see no valid reason to describe the aforementioned terms as simply related to domestic violence, as opposed to being domestic violence. It's just that a few of these terms cover specific forms of domestic violence.
I'll alert WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 09:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Alerted. Flyer22 ( talk) 09:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Update: Bluerasberry and Jmh649 (Doc James), with this edit, Ewawer (Enthusiast) moved "intimate partner violence" out of the first sentence. I'm okay with that, since that term has its own Wikipedia article, but it's still a fact that, as stated above, the term is often used interchangeably with the term domestic violence, and, when people state "domestic violence," it is usually intimate partner violence that they are referring to. I, however, disagree with this edit by Ewawer, which moved mention of intimate partner violence out of the lead; the reason that I gave for reverting is: "[It] should be mentioned in the lead; the lead summarizes the article. And that term is often used interchangeably with 'domestic violence,' as noted lower." Ewawer reverted, stating, "I am try to unclutter the intro." And I reverted once again, adding, "lead material is lead material; it's as simple as that, per WP:LEAD." Flyer22 ( talk) 07:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed this from the lede: "Whereas women who experience domestic violence are openly encouraged to report it to the authorities, it has been argued that domestic violence against men is most often unreported because of social pressure against such reporting, with those that do facing social stigma regarding their perceived lack of machismo and other denigrations of their masculinity.[1][2]"
The paragraph was biased and inappropriate for the lede, at least in its current form. 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:5679:C3C8 ( talk) 14:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert/scholar. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated person for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Elitre (WPS) ( talk) 16:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot POV pushing around this issue, so this is important to note: in 1993, the UN published Strategies for Confronting Domestic Violence - A Resource Manual, and it says this, at page 4 ( at note ** down the page): [35]
It is important to understand that on Wikipedia, when we write articles, we report what sources say, we do not search for the "truth". 2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:50C:7134 ( talk) 15:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
This page reads like someone's paper...Not like an encyclopedia page...This is written with the underlying point that it's "accepted by society" and tries to blame different aspects society for it's existence...
I'm simply going to start with one neutrality issue...As I believe it's the most prominant example:
This is not cited... It NEEDS to be if it's going to be presented... Disobeying should not be in quotation marks... You CANNOT say "[it's] not considered a form of abuse by society (both men and women)" because that's not cccurate... You cannot group all people into "society" when that simply isn't accurate... By the mere fact that I consider it to be a form of abuse her claim is now false...
On another note, this page lacks considerable citations...Each of their separate points seems to rely on an individual source...
UsernameTBD ( talk) 16:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
"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."
"Numerous other empirical studies since 1975 suggest there is evidence for it [the symmetry between violence perpetuated by men and women]."
contradiction (?). I think we can agree that this is an emotional loaded dispute and we need more evidence/studies and someone with a NPOV to improve this article Citogenitor talk needed 15:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)"In Canada more women than men report being pushed, shoved or slapped while more men than women report being kicked, bit, or hit with something."
TWELVE percent of SWISS women suffered sexual abuse? Seriously? That's encyclopedic statistics? Based on a Penguin book? In my modest vocabulary that is called typical feminist BS. Le Grand Bleu ( talk) 12:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. Unfortunately, the expert who had agreed to review had to decline later on. Our first call for community review was already 6 months ago and since then the article has changed quite a lot. We have identified another expert to help review the article. We would like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before October 31, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! -- Anthere ( talk) 14:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
User:Antizepho added the following sentence to the "Gender aspects" section: "However, Straus, designer of the conflict tactics scale (CTS), argues the opposite; that men underestimate their partner's violence and overestimate their own." This was cited to two papers by Straus. Both papers seem to say the opposite of what they are being cited for. The first paper says "Most studies have shown little difference in prevalence rates reported by males and females (Archel; 2000). However, enough studies have shown a tendency for males to underreport both perpetration and victimization to make it desirable to test both partners or if that is not possible, to exercise caution in conclusions based on the report of only one partner." The second paper says "In addition, a meta-analysis (Archer 1999) found that although both men and women underreport, the extent of underreporting is greater for men." This seems to be a serious mis-representation of the sources. Kaldari ( talk) 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Any reasons we cannot introduce some statistics? to represent the significant percentage of men affected, particularly given the huge under reporting by men in western societies. Please don't remove referenced material either I dont want to edit war. Lets seek some dispute resolution instead. Seem fair flyer 22? Charlotte135 ( talk) 03:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but the sentence and statistic is talking about all forms of DV not just physical....."indicated that rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women." ... Domestic violence can take a number of forms Flyer 22, as you obviously know, including physical, verbal, emotional, economic and sexual abuse why are you focusing on physical violence? that sentence is talking about all forms of DV not just physical. Why then would we include an abstract quote about physical violence and men being bigger? Why are you so focused on the physical? Lets keep this article about all forms of DV balanced please flyer 22. sound fair? Charlotte135 ( talk) 05:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
For those interested, Charlotte135 took the aforementioned Archer source to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard without alerting this talk page to the matter; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Domestic Violence article. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
"There is increasing evidence to suggest that women commit as much or more IPV as men" Trauma Violence Abuse. 2008 Oct; 9(4): 227–249.
How can these significant viewpoints that have been published by verifiable sources be integrated into this article's lead? I have asked the question here so as to avoid any possibility of edit warring and to discuss in a civil, respectful manner. Thanks. Charlotte135 ( talk) 02:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: With regard to the above question in this section, I've been thoroughly over this matter with Charlotte135, mainly regarding this Archer piece. And as thoroughly noted in this discussion (that's a WP:Permalink) at the WP:MEDRS talk page, there are different aspects of intimate partner violence (IPV), and most of its aspects point to men committing IPV more than women committing IPV...and women more often being victims of IPV. That discussion was started by WhatamIdoing, in an effort to address CFCF. WhatamIdoing's statements in that section were clear that IPV applies more to women as victims than to men as victims, and more to men as the perpetrators. She gave ideas for reporting on gender symmetry in the article, with WP:Due weight. In other words, so that we are careful not to give it the same weight as the majority viewpoint/aspect. She perhaps has ideas for reporting on it in the lead. If it is included in the lead, the lead should also be clear that gender symmetry is highly disputed, and briefly note why it is. In that aforementioned discussion, I listed sources that note/explain why it is. I don't think it should be formatted like the current final paragraph of the Domestic violence against men article, especially since the Domestic violence article doesn't yet address all of that. The main article addressing all of that is the Domestic violence against men article, and WhatamIdoing and I are in agreement that the Domestic violence article should not go into too much detail about the gender symmetry debate. On a side note: For those needing reminders about the non-lead material on this matter, gender symmetry is addressed in the General and Violence against men subsections of the Gender aspects section. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 10:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I am removing this study [36] from the article. It is far from anything significant enough to include here. Can anyone really believe that a "check the box" questionnaire sent out to 1000 people living in England is adequate to establish the conclusions of this, what I can only call "so called" study? This reply puts it quite well:
limitations of study mainly concern lack of ecological validity and overstating the findings, possibility that women simply admit more then men in a questionnaire response (i.e. more honest), student responses are likely to be different from domestic violence relationships (i.e. dynamics and patterns involved - here a static measure), using a scale is far removed from anything to do with patriarchy and actually the opposite of what has been concluded here might play a part (as in more admission from women, possibly exaggeration), this extremely limited study being seen as important enough to be discussed in the press is slightly embarrassing for the psychology profession ... Gandydancer ( talk) 13:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: Again, anyone wanting to know my views on this matter can see this discussion, where I pointed to the ways that Charlotte135 misrepresents my views (for example, acting like I am some raging feminist trying to take a political stance), and what I've stated above on this talk page. It is not productive for me to engage an editor who continually misrepresents my views, even after being told what they are, and refuses to understand and adhere to the WP:Neutral/WP:Due weight policy. Charlotte135, for some reason, thinks that a number of scholars supporting the gender symmetry viewpoint negates the number of scholars who don't support it. Charlotte135, for some reason, thinks that gender symmetry should be given the same weight as the mainstream viewpoint/aspect that consistently finds that men are more often than women the perpetrators of IPV and that women are more often than men the victims of IPV. Charlotte135, for some reason, is eager to add that 2008 material while negating sources presented by me (and Doc James) in the #Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included? section above, or the sources I presented in the other discussion, where WhatamIdoing (I already WP:Pinged her above) made it clear that IPV applies more to women as victims than to men as victims, and more to men as the perpetrators. Charlotte135, for some reason, is eager to add that 2008 material in order to state "There is increasing evidence to suggest that women commit as much or more IPV as men.", even though there are different forms of IPV, and even scholars who support the gender symmetry viewpoint note that women are victims of IPV more than men are in different ways. Charlotte135, for some reason, wants to add that biased text to the lead, when it is vague and conflicts with various other WP:Reliable sources, and leaves out the counterargument. And this is why I, for reasons I've already noted, will do what I can to avoid engaging Charlotte135. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 03:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
To get back on track, the information that has been removed: "A 2014 study of intimate partner violence by the British Psychological Society concluded that women are more likely to be physically aggressive in domestic scenarios than men." was not done by BPS but by a researcher who presented it at their yearly symposium. It consisted of a questionnaire sent out 1100 students with a "circle the best answer" type of format. It does not appear to have been peer reviewed or to have appeared in a medical journal. Just that should be enough to rule it out, but looking for info that agrees with the findings re physical violence, I'm not finding it. Per guidelines we don't use a lesser study to refute well sourced information. It should no be in this article. Gandydancer ( talk) 07:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)