Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::No drama with you confusing ] with ]. Lack of sleep can skew the mind sometimes. Back to content though, and let's not avoid the issue I've raised, given child murder is on our TV screens, paying Penbat respect in their interest in including an in the media section (different discussion above I know), as well as the reliable sources on ''family violence'', I think ] is satisfied too. Don't you Timothyjosephwood? So far no good reason, based on policy, either ] or ], has been provided by any editor, for not including such a highly relevant section to the article on family violence. That's the only reason I posted here first before going ahead and adding it. Will keep discussing a bit longer before I do in case compelling reasons can be provided not to. Seems a pretty logical and straight forward inclusion to me given its coverage in the '''family''' violence sources.] (]) 22:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
::::No drama with you confusing ] with ]. Lack of sleep can skew the mind sometimes. Back to content though, and let's not avoid the issue I've raised, given child murder is on our TV screens, paying Penbat respect in their interest in including an in the media section (different discussion above I know), as well as the reliable sources on ''family violence'', I think ] is satisfied too. Don't you Timothyjosephwood? So far no good reason, based on policy, either ] or ], has been provided by any editor, for not including such a highly relevant section to the article on family violence. That's the only reason I posted here first before going ahead and adding it. Will keep discussing a bit longer before I do in case compelling reasons can be provided not to. Seems a pretty logical and straight forward inclusion to me given its coverage in the '''family''' violence sources.] (]) 22:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
''''Comment''': Timothyjosephwood, as I (and others) have noted, any thorough examination of the sources in the article, and examination of the literature on domestic violence, shows that the literature on domestic violence is mostly about intimate partner violence. In light of that, other aspects of domestic violence, including family violence, are given decent weight in the article. If more family violence material is needed in the article, we will add it when appropriate. ] (])
'''Comment''': Timothyjosephwood, as I (and others) have noted, any thorough examination of the sources in the article, and examination of the literature on domestic violence, shows that the literature on domestic violence is mostly about intimate partner violence. In light of that, other aspects of domestic violence, including family violence, are given decent weight in the article. If more family violence material is needed in the article, we will add it when appropriate. ] (]) 22:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Revision as of 22:54, 13 April 2016
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Domestic violence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Domestic violence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships
Domestic violence is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
I read an abstract once of a study saying women with higher education married to men with lower education than them had higher risk of being abused. Does anyone happen to have the citation of this? (I know the reverse seems to be the case in Bangladesh, so presumably there's some confounding factor here.)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwibird (talk • contribs) 08:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, now I found it. Martin (2007)
, cites Johnson (2003) as saying that "women with higher education were at greater risk of being physically and sexually assaulted by their partners", although other studies have also shown that unemployed women are at higher risk of marital rape, not sure how to interpret all this. (Martin 2007 seems to be a very good review.)
Violence against children: UN Secretary-General's study (2006) and UNICEF report (2014)
I am placing citations to these sources here in the hope that some editors will find the material useful for working into the article. I haven't had time to go through them myself, but may add material later. In the meantime, I have placed links to the source Web pages in the External links section. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Pinheiro, Paulo Sérgio (2006). "Violence against children in the home and family". World Report on Violence Against Children. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Secretary-General's Study on Violence Against Children. ISBN92-95057-51-1. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
Thank you Coconutporkpie. I think this article is in desperate need of such material. It appears terribly weighted toward couples only (for some unknown reason and which already has its own article page intimate partner violence) rather than the many other dimensions of family violence that this article should be covering.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
If you want to know why this article focuses so much on couple violence, all you need to do is look at the literature, since the domestic violence literature is mostly about couples and since the term domestic violence is used interchangeably with the term intimate partner violence. You've already been told this repeatedly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Undue weight in lede
The lede reads: "In the United States, 35.6% of women and 28.5% of men have experienced some form of domestic violence (including rape, physical violence, or stalking) by an intimate partner in their lifetime. Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such violence."
Why is the United States singled out this way in the lede? It's giving WP:UNDUE to the US, and it appears to be here to push a POV. The lede should not focus on a specific country. And it is also inappropriate to present this figure, 35.6% of women and 28.5% of men, as unequivocally correct. The estimates of DV vary by study, depending on methodology, definition of DV, etc. 2A02:2F01:503F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:570C (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Your deletion of these stats from the CDC, that were sitting in the article for 4 months, seems unnecessary Flyer22reborn. What is the reasoning here exactly? I know the IP address above, mentions the USA, but the USA is used in isolation in many articles, without challenge? I mean the intimate partner violence article edited heavily by Flyer22reborn is almost entirely USA centered and is filled to the brim, with isolated and cherry picked statistics, and you have no problems with that Flyer22reborn?Charlotte135 (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
You not understanding why it was removed is because you do not understand how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. If you restore it, it will be removed again. And if it takes a WP:RfC to make that removal stick, given that you are so often tempted to revert me with no valid reason at all, it will happen. Also, the more you go on and on about your perception of my viewpoints, and other baseless commentary regarding me, the more evidence I have for your inappropriate behavior at this talk page. Like I noted in the #"Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence section below, "You do not heed warnings well, that much is clear. And I will deal with all of this in due time." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
No need to put me down further, and say how superior your editing and knowledge of policy is to mine and other editors. Don't worry. Not going to revert. It was just a valid observation. You don't even need to discuss why you and the IP address did it. No problems at all. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
"Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence
Charlotte135 has returned to this article soon after being restricted from it for three months, and immediately focused on text that was previously disputed; in this case, the text is the "Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence. I reverted yet again. The text does not belong because it is redundant to the first paragraph. That domestic violence affects men, women, and children is quite clear from that first paragraph. Furthermore, this sentence that Charlotte135 insists on adding is not a good topic sentence since the paragraph focuses on couple violence, not on children at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. The sentence you deleted recently was not disputed it was agreed on and settled and stayed in the article for months. Gosh, true to form though you immediately and predictably bring up my now well expired issue. Is that necessary? I mean with your extremely long history of blocks from all articles, not just a single topic and your sockpuppetry cases involving you and your little brother (who you said was using your account apparently without you knowing) in your mum and dad's house, and you being in tears over it as you told administrators at the time, why would you be slinging mud in a desperate attempt to discredit me?
I knew this would happen though. That's why I tried to get advice from an actual administrator, Diannaa. This discussion is here and my reply to administrator Diannaa is here
I realize I am giving as good as I get here and I wish you had just decided to be civil and leave the past in the past. I think policy even talks about that principle somewhere I've read. Why not just discuss your issue in a civil manner instead, like we all should Flyer22reborn? Why do you need to try to discredit other editors? Why bring up their past? How do you like having your very long history of blocks and sockpuppetry thrown in your face every time you try to edit in good faith? And the edit you deleted recently, which had been in the article for months, I reverted today, once. But then you again deleted. Are you not supposed to instead take it to talk first and discuss? I may revert back and discuss instead, if you can be respectful that is. Is that okay with you Flyer22 reeborn?Charlotte135 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
There was nothing agreed upon when it comes to that sentence. And since you've repeatedly mischaracterized me on your talk page, continue to do so, have shown up here engaging in the same disruptive behavior, including with inaccurate and irrelevant comments about my block log (when the fact that it is inaccurate and irrelevant commentary has been made thoroughly clear to you before, as seen here and here), it's obvious that you did not learn your lesson when you were banned from this article for three months. It's also obvious that you did not take the advice that Diannaa gave you. You clearly have not headed anything Mark Arsten told you either. And you've been recently tracking the articles I edit, including the Sex reassignment surgery article; that is not a coincidence. You could have easily focused on the edit. I did focus on the edit; it's an edit that I disputed in the past on this very talk page, and it ties into the problems I had with you editing this article before you were topic-banned from it. Coming to this article and continuing past disputes soon after your topic ban expired is relevant. Your inaccurate commentary on my block log is not relevant. And to boot, you got it wrong yet again even. There was no "my mum and dad's house." It is my house; you already know that. My brother used my account once, and I was blocked for that by Boing! said Zebedee to protect my account. Really, how many administrators do you need to talk to before you get commentary on my block log right? Must you talk to Boing! said Zebedee, Alison, The ed17? Or do you simply want to keep commenting on it wrongly so that you have some imaginary dirt to throw my way, to try to make me look as bad as, or worse than, you? Whatever the case, you do not heed warnings well, that much is clear. And I will deal with all of this in due time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Flyer 22 you deleted this comment of mine? What's going on please? Even if you are angry and keep making this personal with me, for no reason, when I keep trying to work things out with you, why do you believe you can delete my comments please? and then accuse me of doing so? What a dirty trick to try and discredit me? You should know better. Anyway I will restore my comment you just deleted in anger.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I won't revert your deletion of this statement from the article you made and breached the WP:BRD cycle guideline, and you instead inviting/encouraging an edit war. I will instead immediately take this matter to dispute resolution, rather than get entrapped in an edit war with you. I do invite you though, before I do so, to revert yourself and us try to work this out here on the talk page?Charlotte135 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Notice that, with this edit, I was reverting your deletion of my comment. I do not care that your deletion was accidental, if it was, and I did not care to restore your comment in the process. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Flyer22. After looking at the editing, my edit must have been added the same time as your last one. That's all I can think happened. That means it was not just accidental but completely innocent. However your deletion of my text, 10 minutes after, seemed quite obviously to anyone, malicious, and your comment "I do not care that your deletion was accidental, if it was, and I did not care to restore your comment in the process." seems both angry and disregarding of the community standards? Can you apologize to me please.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi again Flyer22. Is this what you were referring to above, when you distorted what Mark Arsten actually told me? You see, I asked Mark as well. Was it the bit about he was not sure how other editors (you) may treat me? Here was his comments on my talk page anyway, given you chose not to include the truth. I'm wondering what both Mark and Diannaa, or any administrator, would think about you maliciously deleting my comments here in anger? As I said, would you consider apologizing, first? Charlotte135 (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Flyer 22. this is ridiculous. This is a public space, correct? Redundancy is a opinion. I don't understand this either. DV does affect men, women and children. this can be stated more than once. it is to emphasize the reach. --Shy1alize (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Redundancy is not an opinion. The sentence is not needed in the least. If you want to go to WP:Dispute resolution over it, be my guest. For example, I don't mind wasting editors' time at all by starting a WP:RfC on this trivial matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
you see it redundant, i don't. i think that is perception. I may be corrected, i assume you will attempt to belittle my trivial matter. This website cannot even be utilized for any real academic works. marinate in that ok. public space. not real source of information. Shy1alize (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You stated, "DV does affect men, women and children. this can be stated more than once." Seems like you were arguing for redundancy to me. Stating essentially the same thing twice, or more than twice, in the lead is not how good Misplaced Pages articles are written. It is easy to see from the very first paragraph that domestic violence affects men, women, and children since the very first paragraph talks about domestic violence affecting heterosexual and same-sex couples, and children. No need to state it again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree with Shy1alize, Flyer22reborn. And I find your response toward Shy1alize quite rude and demeaning. It seems our views outweigh your revert. Please also discuss here and show some respect for the WP:BRD cycle guideline. You boldly deleted that sentence recently and the sentence had remained in the article for a long while. I then reverted your bold edit once. You should have then discussed here, rather than provoke a potential edit war, by then again reverting the edit. You know better, as you say to everyone, very often that you hold much experience here on Misplaced Pages. You are also going against two other editors opinion on this one so please respect consensus. Further the word "affect" in that sentence is not mentioned in the first paragraph nor is therefore the intent of that sentence. Let me explain. Some synonyms for the word affect are: upset, troubled, overwhelmed, devastated, damaged, hurt, pained, grieve, sadness, distress etc. So, no it is not redundant as the first paragraph does not discuss the fact that men, women and children are "affected" by domestic violence.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
It's redundant. Your "affects" argument makes no sense. And WP:BRD is an essay, not a guideline. If you really want me to start a WP:RfC on this issue, I certainly will. I will start a WP:RfC on something each time I disagree with you on a matter if need be. WP:Consensus is not a vote; WP:Consensus is about the weight of the arguments. And rarely does two against one equate to consensus on Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, I'm certain that Gandydancer agrees with me that the sentence in question should not be included. And, for the record: I couldn't care less what you think about my behavior, especially since you mischaracterize it all the time, as is clear by my initial reply to you above, and by Boing! said Zebedee's comment below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Stop bullying your edits out of the article. You and Gandydancer are very close affiliates on Misplaced Pages. Everyone knows this fact. The two of you always back each other up, without fail. Your opinions count as one opinion Flyer22reborn. You know that, especially given your experience and how you are "not a newbie" line you keep jamming down other editors throats. Whereas I don't know Shy1alize but agree with their logic. You're outnumbered and both mine and Shy1alize's logic are sound despite your opinion. Do whatever you want. But stop edit warring and respect other editors and respect WP:BRD.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
There you again with the silliness: "Stop bullying." More silliness is you stating "The two of you always back each other up, without fail. Your opinions count as one opinion Flyer22rebon." And these two aspects are yet more reasons for why that sentence will not be staying. You do not grasp how Misplaced Pages is supposed to work. You never do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Stop it and let it go. You are wrong. Go and read policies on canvassing too. What I guarantee very soon though and as sure as the sun rises of a morn, is that your close affiliate Gandydancer, will come flying in soon after you have contacted them over this, and revert the edit, for you so you don't breach the revert rule. Without fail. Just watch. And this Flyer22reborn. will ultimately illustrate my point.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I just said your close affiliate with identical opinions and ordered by you, will come in soon, and delete it, like clock work, after you contact them outside of Misplaced Pages. Like clock work I say, and without even thinking, or considering the solid arguments put forth here on talk. My point Flyer22reborn, is that my argument and Shy1alize's separate argument both make a lot of sense. And we are are actually independent editors with separate minds of our own, and separate opinions I'm sure. That's the difference.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick update here after reflection. I can only talk for myself, but I regret not following Diannaa's excellent advice on my talk page, particularly her advice, not react to 'put downs'. Hard to do, when you're being demeaned and belittled and your past keeps being dragged up. The discussion with administrator Diannaa is here and my reply to Diannaa is here Anyway my sincere apology for insinuating you and Gandydancer hold the same opinions Flyer22reborn. Please accept my apology. I retract that comment, which was only in reaction to you belittling me and the other editor's Shy1alize's valid points and you putting us both down and not respecting the WP:BRD cycle guideline. But again, I will try not to react to demeaning comments like that in the future. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
It would be best if you cease replying to me, or citing guidelines or policies you do not understand; your arguments are weaker with each response, and you cannot help but throw out insults such as "ordered by you." I do not like discussing anything with you, and I will likely make it so that I never need to discuss anything with you in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, please stop following me around and trying to entrap me. I should not take your bait. And yes, perhaps you and I should have an interaction ban? But you saying things like: "policies you do not understand; your arguments are weaker with each response" is an attack. Your recent attacks on editor Shy1alize's good faith comments can be seen by this editor saying "...i assume you will attempt to belittle my trivial matter." says a lot too. You keep attacking demeaning and belittling other editors and their understanding of policies. I'm sure there are other editors on Misplaced Pages you have demeaned and belittled too and thought your understanding of policies are superior. In this case your redundancy argument is overruled and in IMHO makes no sense nor have you provided any argument or logic only demeaning comments and stating your superiority.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Me following you? No. You are following me. You have suddenly taken an interest in any article I heavily edit, and your contribution history shows that. You are clearly seeking a confrontation with me any and everywhere you can get it. No worries. I will deal with that just like I deal with every disgruntled editor who becomes obsessed with me. I will not agree to a WP:Interaction ban unless it's a one-way interaction ban where you are not allowed to comment on me or focus on any article I heavily edit. For example, visiting an article I heavily edit and then reverting me on it? That would be a no. And you should know that it's a no without an interaction ban. Common sense should tell you to stay clear of me unless necessary. It's nothing but a WP:Hounding attempt by you. If I revert you at any of these articles, you get your confrontation. If someone else reverts me, and I revert back, you can simply show up and invalidly support that person's revert with the excuse that you've edited the article before. You are quite easy to read. Everything you do is so transparent (predictable) to me. And any denials you make in that regard will not be believed by me. But, yes, feel free to reply with denials and inaccurate commentary...as expected. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Just for the record, I want to confirm that Flyer 22's block log is the result of a genuine "My brother did it" episode. I communicated with Flyer by email at the time (as did other admins), and I was convinced that she was not guilty of any abuse herself - and the block that I made was indeed to help her secure her account, as I noted in the log. In fact, none of the blocks is a result of any misbehaviour by Flyer 22. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Charlotte135 has not changed a bit and is using the same tactics as she did that caused her to be blocked. She can wear us all down and get her way to bias this article or she can again be blocked. There are no other choices. Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
What the hell has that got to do with anything Johnuniq. I realise you are a close friend of Flyer22, but hey, why don't you drop the stick and act with some neutrality eh. Any comments on content, while you are here? Anything to say about the discussion Johnuniq and drop the personal stuff?Charlotte135 (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Opinions are needed on whether or not the "Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence in the lead is redundant. One concern is that the sentence is redundant to what the first paragraph states because it is easy to see from the first paragraph that domestic violence affects men, women and children, and that the sentence is at conflict with what was the topic sentence in the third paragraph. The other concerns are that redundancy is an opinion, and that, even if the content is redundant, we can state the same thing more than once in the lead, and that the first paragraph doesn't use the word affects.
Yes. It's clear, and common sense, that domestic violence affecting men, women, and children is supported by the following content: "is a pattern of behavior which involves violence or other abuse by one person against another in a domestic setting, such as in marriage or cohabitation. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is violence by a spouse or partner in an intimate relationship against the other spouse or partner. Domestic violence can take place in heterosexual and same-sex family relationships, and can involve violence against children in the family." There is no need to plainly state the obvious in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Leave it out. Besides Charlotte's inappropriate editing, for which they've already been blocked, it sounds sloppy. It's not just redundant, but it makes the paragraph sound like a middle-school essay. Domestic violence affects men, women, and children? Wow, you don't say? There is nothing wrong with the lead as it is, without these kinds of unnecessary personal touches some editors wish to add. This isn't a class presentation. Ongepotchket (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Not redundant - "Takes many forms" and "affects men, women and children" are not redundant sentences. Likewise "affects people" is not a replacement for "affects men, women and children" because "affects people" is true even if it only affected male gay Hispanic midgets, because they are people. There are possible alternatives like "Affects people regardless of gender and age", or also pointing out that both men, women and children can be victims, etc. I do think it's important to somewhere in the lead point out that it's not only women or not only children or not only men that are victims, as it is a common misconception that it is primarily women and children that are victims, but it does not necessarily have to be in this exact form. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
"Affects people regardless of gender and age" is not a bad idea. It's an addition I'd support if the previous paragraph didn't already state it. I don't see the need to repeat it at every turn, just like I wouldn't see the need to add how DV affects your example of gay Hispanic "midgets". The article likewise doesn't say only women or only children are victims. If the article is implying women and children are primarily the victims, it's likely because (according to sources) women and children are primarily the victims. This is especially true on a global scale. The article should be allowed to reflect what sources say without being challenged constantly. Ongepotchket (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
The previous paragraph does miss out in pointing out that men can be victims and women can be perpetrators. I think this should be made more clear. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's redundant. I just think it's not necessary. The language from Ongepotchket is perfectly fine, but again, probably isn't necessary since the article already addresses DV related to men, women and children.
On a side note, a few additional points because why not, I'm already here:
"Domestic violence occurs when the abuser believes that abuse is acceptable, justified, or unlikely to be reported." This is a bit of mind reading. What about a guy who just gets blackout drunk and hits his wife, even though he feels guilty the next morning and knows she'll call the cops. What about someone who just generally has anger issues and poor impulse control? Overly simplistic, overly homogenizing and probably systematically unknowable (Prof X fired up Cerebro and looked at every DV perp), not to mention unsourced.
I'm not sure I agree with a second sentence being completely about a tangentially related topic that has its own article. Should be some tie in like "DV is related to IPV however they are distinct because such and such."
"A wife or female partner" is completely redundant, like saying "a Toyota Corolla or car". Specific category compared one-on-one to inclusive category which includes it.
"Often" in the last sentence is a WP:WEASEL via numeric vagueness.
The whole two last paragraphs have a weaselly "may" problem. "May" appears 10 times. I'm fine with the first two uses in the third par. But there's no reason to say "may be supported by laws". No, it is supported by laws in many countries, end of debate. The may infestation in the fourth paragraph nearly makes the whole thing say nothing. I may spontaneously combust, but probably not. It is a tentative, speculative, inane writing style that is non-encyclopedic. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
After a second look. Large portions of the article seem to have a "may" problem. The word appears 116 times. In the first paragraph of Social Stress, literally every sentence includes the word. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the sentence is redundant and doesn't add anything to the article. I would favor removing it. Also, the part of the lead paragraph that says domestic violence "can involve... in some U.S. states, violence against a roommate." is confusing and misleading. It makes it sound like people only attack their roommates in certain U.S. states. It should either remove the "in certain U.S. states" part, or say that in some states violence against roommates is also legally classified as domestic violence. Kaldari (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
why is this section so small? Verbal abuse (gas lighting) is what causes learned helplessness, battered woman syndrome, and Stockholm syndrome. Did any one cut this section out. no i did not look in the history. but i feel that these phenomenon is a essential component to the pattern of violence. --Shy1alize (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I totally agree Shy1alize. I believe that it needs to be expanded too, as there is certainly a lot of reliable sources out there to support its inclusion to a larger degree than it currently is. There seems to be too much focus and weight being placed on physical violence and violence between partners in this broad article on family violence.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyber Bullying
For some reason, the references are not staying. I haven't looked at the history yet to see if someone feels the need to edit or delete them. Anyone know wth?
Shy1alize (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Shy1alize (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
So this is whats left of the cyberbullying section when you remove unsourced material and otherwise WP:COATRACKs.
Cyber bullying is when the abuser uses electronics to bully the victim through intimidation. More specifically a form of Cyber bullying can be performed through sexting. Sexting is an sensual message and or photography shared via cell phone. Authorities on occasions blame the victims of non-consensual sexting.
There needs to be sources to connect the issue with DV, and establish that this is not WP:UNDUE. Right now there are none; there is a single source referring to it as a form of IPV (which has it's own article btw), none that refer to it as a from of DV. Notwithstanding the fact that the section is called cyberbullying, when only a dozen words were about cyberbullying, and the rest of the section was about sexting, but not really about sexting because it was really about revenge porn.
Furthermore, half the things in the section were a blatant WP:SOAPBOX in addition to an almost complete lack of WP:RS:
"It is considered a form of intimate partner violence" (by whom?),
"The victim does not consent for the images to be sent" (according to whom?),
"The abuser looks to damage the victim’s social reputation" (based on what?),
"In most cases" (how many?),
"taking over the victims Facebook account" (they're hackers as well?),
"anti-revenge porn bill" (what bill?),
"The only rule" (the bill contains only one provision? must be short),
"80% of the time" (where does this number come from?),
"The bullying occurs because it causes emotional distress to the victim." (according to?),
"can feel shame or embarrassment" (Most people can. This doesn't say anything.)
"Unfortunately" (this is not a blog),
"becoming popular among young daters" (based on what statistics?)
"This type of abuse is difficult to detect by law since" (law enforcement? according to?),
"most sexting starts" (According to?)
"Regrettably" (this is not a blog),
"abusers threaten the victims who converts" (what?),
"they are looked as the provokers" (a. English? b. by whom? c. according to whom?),
"Authorities on occasions" (What occasions?)
"The problem is not sexting. The problem is that abusers take it and exploit the victims without consent." (according to?)
So yeah, this section has a long way to go. It's not a lost cause, but it needs a lot of sources and almost a 100% rewrite. Again, this needs to start with reliable sources saying cyberbullying (or sexting, or revenge porn) is a form of DV, otherwise including it in the article at all is WP:OR via WP:SYNTH.
For now I'm going to blank the section as it's not simply a matter of incremental improvement, but a basic issue of establishing what the section is supposed to be about, and that it should be in the article at all. Because of this, the more appropriate place is to work on it on the talk or in a sandbox, not on the live article. I realize this might start a shit storm. Try to work with the fact that I've pointed out the things that need fixing, and not blanked it outright, which was my initial inclination. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyber bullying is when the abuser uses electronics to bully the victim through intimidation. More specifically a form of Cyber bullying can be performed through sexting. Sexting is an sensual message and or photography shared via cell phone. In this type of intimate partner abuse the abuser exploits the victim’s sexting messages and or images via mobile phone, social media, or email. It is considered a form of intimate partner violence because it is non-consensual. The victim does not consent for the images to be sent to the family, friends, or posted on social media. The abuser looks to damage the victim’s social reputation or place fear in their victim through threats. In most cases the images and texts were taken with consent but then the abuser later threatens to use the images and or texts against the victim by taking over the victims Facebook account or email and posting them on social media. Non-consensual posting practices by the abuser is done without the victims consent by using the pictures in other ways, refusing to discharge of the pictures, by making threats, and by degrading the victim. In some cases since the pictures are nude or erotic the victims can be looked as porn participants. In California an anti-revenge porn bill has been put in place to charge a misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct for those who post images of someone else without their consent and in which can cause them emotional distress to the victim. The only rule is that for cases like this it has to be the poster who took the picture. The picture could not have been taken by the victim themselves. Convicting the abuser becomes difficult because 80% of the time it is the person themselves (victim) who takes the sexual picture and sends it to the abuser as an innocent sext. The only way the abuser can be charged is if they took the picture of the post themselves. The bullying occurs because it causes emotional distress to the victim. They can feel shame or embarrassment. Unfortunately the problem will not go away easily by just turning off all forms of technology. This type of abuse, cyber bullying through sexing, is becoming popular among young daters in their relationships. This type of abuse is difficult to detect by law since most sexting starts off con-sensually. Regrettably the abusers threaten the victims who converts the consented sexting text and or photography to a non-consensual text or image. This type of cyber bullying sexting has a negative effect on women because they are looked as the provokers. Authorities on occasions blame the victims of non-consensual sexting. The problem is not sexting. The problem is that abusers take it and exploit the victims without consent.
"Whereas women who experience domestic violence, at least in the developed world, are often openly encouraged to report it to the authorities, it has been argued that domestic violence against men is most often unreported because of social norms and pressure against such reporting; those that do often face social stigma regarding their perceived lack of machismo and other denigrations of their masculinity."
This can be done much more neatly:
"Men face gender specific disincentives in reporting domestic violence as male victimization is widely seen as emasculating."
Besides the unnecessarily complicated sentence structure, the citations are relatively weak. The Canadian study says only that males under report victimhood as well as perpetration and makes no comment as to why. The other study is a very small examination of 12 people. There's also a problem with this being in the lead, when the actual section on underreporting doesn't even address it.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, that was shorter, but perhaps not a simplification. Maybe something like this:
Women who experience domestic violence are often openly encouraged to report it to the authorities, at least in the developed world. In contrast, domestic violence against men is often unreported because victims face social stigma and risk ridicule as being less masculine."
I agree with OpenFuture's proposal, but we should use decent or good sources to directly support it. For example, this 2009 Manual of Forensic Emergency Medicine source, from Jones & Bartlett Learning, page 129, states, "The data on abuse of male husbands by wives or female spouses are limited. Because of societal biases, violence directed against male patients is likely to be very underreported and consequently overlooked by the healthcare provider. It is estimated that 1.5% of men are victims of domestic abuse by a female." This 2013 Kidnapping: An Investigator’s Guide source, from Newnes, page 30, states, " There is general agreement that DV against men is underreported due to the stigma of male victimization." This 2013 Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence and Abuse source, from ABC-CLIO, page 163, states, "Underreporting is often due to men not wanting to suffer the stigma due to loss of 'machismo'; men are often not believed by police or domestic violence crisis workers." It lists other reasons too. This 2016 Criminal Investigation source, from Cengage Learning, page 323, states, "Although it is common for battered women to feel shame at being victims of domestic abuse, the stigma for battered men is even greater. Many reports of husband abuse go unreported because these men anticipate an unsympathetic or incredulous reaction from responding officers. Indeed, the misperception persists that women who commit violence against men have been driven to it through years of victimization at the hands of these men (the battered women syndrome), and thus, the men 'have it coming.' However officers responding to a domestic violence call must not assume that the male is always the perpetrator and the female always the victim."
Domestic violence against women is also commonly underreported. This 2010 The Marriage and Family Experience: Intimate Relationships in a Changing Society source, from Cengage Learning, page 447, states, "Intimate violence against women is one of the most common and most underreported crimes in the United States and throughout the world." This 2011 Sourcebook on Violence Against Women reference, from Sage Publications, page 9, states, "Police, the courts, and the public used to consider domestic violence a private family matter. It is not surprising that domestic violence was the most underreported crime in the country. Too many women, for too long, silently fought what some advocates have called 'the war at home.'" This 2013 Domestic Violence in Iran: Women, Marriage and Islam source, from Routledge, page 1, "According to many criminologists, domestic violence against women is the most under-reported crime worldwide." This 2013 Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence and Abuse source, from ABC-CLIO, page 137, states, "Other researchers agree that in spite of the national mandatory reporting laws, most cases go unreported or underreported."Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
My issue, other than simple clarity, is the "while women are encouraged" line. This is, as it stands, an assumption. My experience with the SJ DV movement is that it's pretty inclusive, and especially sensitive to gays when it comes to male victimization. Barring any forthcoming evidence, we should scrap the line.
Also, a few paragraphs need rearranged. There are under reporting paragraphs stuck here and there, not in the under reporting section.
I don't know. The last paragraph of the lead is a mash of unrelated topics, not at all vetted for overall importance to general reader understanding. I'm relegating my role to editorial changes for now, while this can see some fresh air. Lead changes to genedered articles are a thing unto themselves. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that the more in-depth information about gender differences with regard to domestic violence being underreported should be in the lower body of the article, perhaps in their respective sections. But since the lead notes some of the issues women face as a result of domestic violence, I think it should note some of the issues men face, per the sources I cited above. I don't think this would be a WP:Undue weight violation. A brief mention of the gender symmetry debate should also be in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
DV is among the most underreported crimes worldwide. Men face additional gender related barriers in reporting, due to social stigmas regarding male victiminzation, and the increased likelihood of being overlooked by healthcare providers.
Maybe change "DV is among the most underreported crimes worldwide." to "Domestic violence is one of the most underreported crimes among men and women worldwide.", so that it is clearer that the underreporting is the case for both genders, and to better ease into addressing the "men face additional gender related barriers in reporting" aspect? I also used "Domestic violence" instead of "DV" since I think we should consistently use the full word. And regarding that second source for the first sentence, I think you should use a different source (or a different page number for that source) since the one you are using is (as I noted above) about elder abuse when it comes to that page number . While elder abuse can also be domestic violence, it's best that, in this case, we don't use a source when it is specifically talking about elder abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
That is, unless the "Other researchers agree that in spite of the national mandatory reporting laws, most cases go unreported or underreported." sentence is referring to domestic violence in general, which seems to be what is addressed on the previous page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
DV is among the most underreported crimes worldwide for both men and women. Men face additional gender related barriers in reporting, due to social stigmas regarding male victiminzation, and an increased likelihood of being overlooked by healthcare providers.
Okay, that's fine, but add this source to the first sentence since that first source only supports domestic violence being underreported for women. I'd still change "DV" to "Domestic violence," though. Also, looking at the aforementioned source via Internet Explorer (as opposed to via FireFox, where I couldn't see the previous page), pages 136 and 137 are talking about elder abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
My bad. I changed DV at first but then had an editing conflict with you, and didn't change it the second time.
DV is among the most underreported crimes worldwide for both men and women. Men face additional gender related barriers in reporting, due to social stigmas regarding male victiminzation, and an increased likelihood of being overlooked by healthcare providers.
Feel free to go ahead and make the change. And LOL about FireFox; I'm used to it and the page is always saved when I click back, unlike when using Internet Explorer; I usually never use Internet Explorer. And when I once installed Chrome, I got a virus or adware; apparently, so have a lot of others. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this, the History section is usually placed last, or close to last, for medical articles; see MOS:MED#Sections. The reason why is because it's usually more important for our readers to know the definitions, types, causes, effects, etc. before the history of the topic. And, yes, I know that domestic violence is not just a medical topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure how this is a medical article...at all. It seems heck of a lot like a soc article, DV being a societal problem and all. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The article isn't primarily about a disease, disorder, syndrome, drug, symptom, sign, medical test, anatomy, medical specialty, or a person with a medical condition. It certainly isn't a stub. So it doesn't seem to fit in the MOS's own classification system. Sure, you can make the case that poverty should use the med mos because it can lead to malnutrition, but that's getting silly. Sex is a medical article; sexism is not.
The med talk template can stay forever for all the difference it makes. But I'm certainly not going out of my way to abide by an mos that self evidently doesn't apply to 99% of an article. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
That stated, I am not hard-pressed on the History section being moved back to where it was. I understand the logical argument of having the History section come much earlier and I have argued such myself. But, for medical articles, I've become accustomed to having them placed lower, especially since our medical editors have a valid point that our readers will usually be more interested in reading the definitions, types, causes, effects, etc. rather than reading the history of the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
"if anyone would be so silly to state that it's one"
I think it's a moot point, but all of this applies to the sexism article one-for-one. Similarly, WHO is cited five times in poverty. All three are societal problems that lead to negative health outcomes, but I don't think that makes them medical articles by proxy. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 06:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
While some of what I listed above applies to the Sexism article, not all of it does. I assumed you would state the sexism also deals with those matters, but there is obviously a difference between a topic dealing with certain matters and being specifically about them. Domestic violence is specifically about physical, mental and psychological harm; sexism is not. Domestic violence is engrossed in the medical literature; sexism is not. Like thiseMedicine source from the infobox states, "The medical literature defines domestic violence in different ways." Like this 2002 Domestic Violence and Clinical Medicine source from Journal of General Internal Medicine states, "The medical community first began to recognize domestic violence as a substantial medical and public health problem in the mid-1970s, but it was not until the 1990s that attention to the diagnosis and treatment of domestic violence became recognized as legitimate in the discipline of medical practice." Like this 2002 source from the American Family Physician states, "Domestic violence is an ongoing experience of physical, psychologic, and/or sexual abuse in the home that is used to establish power and control over another person. Although awareness about the rate of domestic violence in our society is increasing, the public health ramifications have only recently been recognized in the medical community. The majority of the medical literature to date has focused on the effect of domestic violence on the primary victim." Like this 2004 Domestic Violence Screening and Intervention in Medical and Mental Healthcare Settings source, from Springer Publishing Company, page 261, states, "While the medical community acknowledges that domestic violence is a major public health issue, research efforts have been focused on the identification and care of the victim, primarily women." This 2007 Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence source, from Taylor & Francis, page 178, states, "Because domestic violence remains the number one reason women seek emergency medical care, a community also assumes some of the costs for a victim's medical treatment." This 2009 Health Care Ethics: Critical Issues for the 21st Century source, from Jones & Bartlett Learning, page 365, states, "Despite widespread recognition of domestic violence as a public health problem, many clinicians still have have difficulty integrating routine intervention into their day-to-day work with patients. This is in part because domestic violence raises a distinct set of challenges for both providers and the institutions that shape clinical practice."
So major health sources, and other medical sources, classify domestic violence as a medical topic. I do not see any medical source as concerned with sexism. So comparing domestic violence and sexism when it come to what is or isn't a medical topic is like comparing apples and oranges. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Nuclear option: Domestic violence is inherently, irrevocably, and inseparably an expression of sexism. Ipso facto any classification of DV as a medical topic is transitive to sexism. Mic drop. (But seriously, I really don't care that much, and this whole conversation is an aside not terribly relevant to the editing being done currently.) Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree on this matter then. Like I stated, I'm going by the literature and the fact that any topic that is specifically about physical, mental and psychological harm is a health/medical topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Substance abuse
The current section on EOTH abuse is...bad. Doesn't say anything really and should probably properly be a section on substance abuse generally. Moving here for discussion and improvement to reinsert in the article later.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Trying to take a broader survey of content. I'm seeing two general problems as far as coverage goes. The first is a shotgun strategy where a topic is mentioned basically everywhere. In a lot of these cases, the multiple mentions don't actually add anything that the reader hasn't already gotten, it's just restating a lot of the information over and over where ever it can be at all mentioned. The result is a lot of unnecessary bloat that isn't at all informative, in an article that it probably already way to long. In one case, forced marriages has its own section, but for some reason is also mentioned in three other sections. Honor killing is probably the worse offender, and somehow manages to be mentioned in both physical and sexual abuse.
Either the subject should get it's own section and be largely excised from the rest of the article, or the subject should be clearly categorized and restricted in it's coverage.
Honor Killing: 19 times in History, Physical, Sexual, Violence Against Women, Social Views, Religion, Relation to Forced and Child Marriage, Individual vs Family Unit Rights
FGM: 9 times in Etymology, Sexual, Social Views, Customs and Tradition
Dowery Death: 5 times in Lead, Etymology and definitions, History, Physical, Violence against women, Social views
Forced marriage: 9 times in history, sexual, Custom and tradition, Relation to forced and child marriage
Then you have the opposite touch-and-go problem, where a topic gets coverage in the lead, and then is never mentioned at all, or is only mentioned once in passing with no significant coverage. These should either be clearly covered or removed from the lead.
Some of the first issue can probably be partly solved by resolving duplication of purpose in "customs and tradition", "social views" and "religion" sections. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Burn it. Burn it till we see Savannah. Burn it till we touch the sea.
Ok. Well. I've gone from punctuation, to trimming wording and sentences, to blanking whole sections. So far no one's flipped out...surprisingly. Maybe that's a sign of the kind of shape the article was is. Maybe that's a sign of how few people care. Maybe both.
So here goes. I'm chunking probably 10% of the article.
A lot of this can probably be reinserted in appropriate places. I don't know yet. It's too much to do at once. And if the process starts piece meal the sections are going to make no sense. I did this kind of reintegration with small sections, but this is too much. Unless it's taken out all together, the article will get much worse and make much less sense before it gets better.
This is probably going to nuke named refs. But that's a process in and of itself. Actually no, it wasn't that bad.
Simply put, none of this belongs were it's at. "Gender aspects" is not a form of DV. None of this is. I could just copypaste into Influences and Factors, but that section is already vague and bloated with tangentially related, small, questionable sections, and that would only make the problem worse.
So either help me sort it all out, fuck off, or go ahead and report me to ANI so we can get it over with and we can get on with improving the article. Sorry, but spring cleaning is a nasty process (apologies to anyone in the southern hemisphere). Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you cut so much of the below material, but a lot that should be restored. Gender aspects are an essential piece to domestic violence; this is made explicitly clear in the sources. As for them being a form of domestic violence, it was likely labeled that way because domestic violence against women, domestic violence against men, domestic violence in adolescent and young adult relationships, and domestic violence in same-sex relationships are aspects of domestic violence. Some would call these aspects "forms domestic violence." I am going to restore the material, as its own section, and we can work out here on the talk page what should be cut. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, with this edit, I restored the Gender aspects material, but not to its own section. It fits in the Influences and factors section, and, in my opinion, it should come right after the Social views section; so that's where I placed it. My problem now is that I see some redundancy there. The Social views section addresses gender aspects by talking about women not being seen as equal to men, etc. So we should perhaps cut some of that, and move the relevant, non-redundant material to the Violence against women subsection. I also see that you struck through some pieces below. Perhaps you won't mind explaining why we should discard those pieces? Well, I gather that you struck through "Intimate partner violence types: Johnson's Typology" because intimate partner violence has its own article. I understand that, and that's why I didn't restore that section, but the vast majority of the domestic violence literature is about intimate partner violence anyway, which is why there has been talk of merging the Intimate partner violence article with the Domestic violence article. Also, that section is linked from the Intimate partner violence article and from the Michael P. Johnson article; so if we are not going to keep that section, we should de-link it in those articles.
I also restored the Cycle of abuse section, since it directly relates to domestic violence. I don't think it needs its own section, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Flyer22 Reborn, I began striking sections to try to keep track of what I had incorporated back in the article already. By "stricken for inclusion" I meant, "stricken due to already having been included again." I have changed the parenthetical to "reincorped".
I struck a couple of sections because they were off topic, like the Johnson section, which dealt exclusively with IPV, was covered in better detail in the IPV article, and so didn't need more than maybe casual mentioning in DV. Each strike should have accompanying parenthetical notes. I would appreciate it if you could indicate somehow below what you have reincorporated. I'm not saying this is orthodox at all, I'm just trying to find some way to organize it as it's done, and to know when each section has been discarded/cannibalized/reinserted.
I'm not saying that all of this needs to be cut out of the article. As I said above, my objective was to sort it all out from the talk so I didn't have half deleted, mangled sections hanging out on the live article as they were being moved and dissected. If I thought it all needed to be deleted, I would have deleted it.
As it stands, the influences and factors section is meaningless. It's a catch all for every random thing anyone could think to write about. It has no order at all and no continuity of purpose. Again, as I said above, I could have copypasted this all into I&F, meaningless as it is, but I wanted to avoid, as much as possible, the article being more disorganized before it gets less.
The question of IPV merger should be tabled until all this is done. Timothyjosephwood (talk)
I'd read what you stated about deleting the material, but I still don't see that the vast majority of it needed deleting. What I reincorporated is clear with this edit that I pointed to above. I restored all of the Gender aspects material except the "Intimate partner violence types: Johnson's Typology" section (though I don't consider that material off-topic, per what I stated above about the vast majority of the domestic violence literature, and therefore the Domestic violence article, being about intimate partner violence). From what I'm seeing, most of the gender aspects material should be kept. And right now, the best place for that material is the Influences and factors section. While the Influences and factors section can be cleaned up, or just titled "Factors" or something else, I don't see that it should be entirely discarded. I think it's best that you attempt to discuss proposed changes when the changes will be massive instead of simply making the massive changes. That way, we can be more so on the same page and avoid edit conflicts or unnecessary disputes. When it comes to your smaller edits, I am likelier to agree. For example, with this edit, you moved the Cycle of abuse section, and I agree with that. And with this edit, you moved the Pregnancy section, and I agree with that. I also agree with enough of your blanking, but I think it's best to discuss the blanking here on the talk page when it's massive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that you having created a Demographics section for the gender aspects material is an okay solution (even though a lot of people associate "demographics" with "epidemiology"). I like this solution. I would make "Adolescents and young adults" a subsection of "Gender differences," though, since it's mostly about gender differences. And the "Social views" section is still very much redundant to detail in the Gender differences section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Ugh. Edit conflicts everywhere.
As you can see, it wasn't so much a blank, as it was an extended rearrangement. Most of it fit nicely into demographics (for the time being), but I didn't know that until I started chopping and placing.
Yes, a lot more needs to be done. But this is a much more solid foundation to work on, and that work can be more incremental and less disruptive to people seeing the work in progress (thus the temporary move to talk). Although I suspect something similar will be needed when the factors section is finally parsed out into sections that make sense.Timothyjosephwood (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, edit conflicts are one of the main pains of editing here. As for this, where is this duplicated at? I know that the section mentioned that researcher twice, but the material was different. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
There continues to be debate regarding gender differences with relation to domestic violence. Limitations of existing survey tools (e.g., conflict tactics scale), disparate sampling procedures, respondent reluctance to self-report, and differences in operationalization all pose challenges to existing research. In addition, normalization of domestic violence in those who experience subtle forms of abuse, or have been abused for long periods of time, reduces the likelihood of recognizing, and therefore reporting domestic violence.(DEMOGRAPHICS)
A 2011 review article by IPV researcher Ko Ling Chan found men tended to under-report their own perpetration of domestic violence while women were more likely to under-report their victimization. Financial or familial dependence, normalization of violence, and self-blaming were found to reduce the likelihood of self-reporting victimization in women. By contrast, fear and avoidance of legal consequences, the tendency to blame their partner, and a narrative focus on their own needs and emotions reduced the likelihood of self-reporting perpetration in men.(added to self report)
A 2013 review examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence. The authors found that if one examines who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, experience subsequent psychological problems, domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims. However, they went on to conclude "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." Many organizations have made efforts to use gender-neutral terms when referring to perpetration and victimization. For example, using broader terms like family violence rather than violence against women.
A 2011 review by researcher Chan Ko Ling from the University of Hong Kong found that minor partner violence was equal for both men and women but more severe partner violence was more likely to be perpetrated by men. His analysis found that men were more likely to beat up, choke or strangle their partners while women were more likely to throw objects, slap, kick, bite, punch, or hit with an object. Researchers have also found differing outcomes for men and women in response to intimate partner violence. A 2012 review from the journal Psychology of Violence found that women suffered disproportionately as a result of IPV, especially in terms of injuries, fear, and posttraumatic stress. The review also found that 70% of female victims in one study were "very frightened" in response to intimate partner violence from their partners, but 85% of male victims reported "no fear". The review also found that IPV mediated the satisfaction of the relationship for women but not for men.(demographics)
The United Nations Population Fund found violence against women and girls to be one of the most prevalent human rights violations worldwide, stating that "one in three women will experience physical or sexual abuse in her lifetime." Violence against women tends to be less prevalent in developed Western nations, and more common in the developing world.
Wife beating was made illegal nationally in the United States by 1920. Although the exact rates are disputed, 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, and this is exacerbated by economic or social dependence.
The United NationsDeclaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993) states that "violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which has led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men".
The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women classifies violence against women into three categories: that occurring in the family (DV), that occurring within the general community, and that perpetrated or condoned by the State.
The Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women defines violence against women as "any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere". Similarly with the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, it classifies VAW into three categories; one of which being DV - defined as VAW which takes place "within the family or domestic unit or within any other interpersonal relationship, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the woman".
The Maputo Protocol adopted a broader definition, defining VAW as: "all acts perpetrated against women which cause or could cause them physical, sexual, psychological, and economic harm, including the threat to take such acts; or to undertake the imposition of arbitrary restrictions on or deprivation of fundamental freedoms in private or public life in peace time and during situations of armed conflicts or of war".
The Istanbul Convention states: ""violence against women" is understood as a violation of human rights and a form of discrimination against women (...)". (Article 3 – Definitions). In the landmark case of Opuz v Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights held for the first time that gender-based domestic violence is a form of discrimination under the European Convention.
Femicide is usually defined as the gender-based killing of women by men, although the exact definitions vary. Femicides often occur in the context of DV, such as honor killings or dowry killings. For statistical purposes, femicide is often defined as any killing of a woman. The top countries by rate of femicide are El Salvador, Jamaica, Guatemala, South Africa and Russia (data from 2004–09). However, in El Salvador and Colombia, which have a very high rate of femicide, only three percent of all femicides are committed by a current or former intimate partner, while in Cyprus, France, and Portugal former and current partners are responsible for more than 80% of all cases of femicide.(demographics)
During pregnancy a woman may begin to be abused or long-standing abuse may change in severity, causing negative health effects to the mother and fetus. Pregnancy can also lead to a hiatus of domestic violence when the abuser does not want to harm the unborn child. The risk of domestic violence for women who have been pregnant is greatest immediately after childbirth.(physical)
In Russia, pregnancy of the victim is an aggravation, while pregnancy of the offender is a mitigation.(removed)
Domestic violence against men includes physical, emotional and sexual forms of abuse, including mutual violence Male domestic violence victims may be reluctant to get help for various reasons. One study investigated whether women who assaulted their male partners were more likely to avoid arrest even when the male victim contacts police, and found that, "police are particularly unlikely to arrest women who assault their male partners." The reason being that they "assume that the man can protect himself from his female partner and that a woman's violence is not dangerous unless she assaults someone other than her partner". Another study concluded "some support for qualitative research suggesting that court personnel are responsive to the gendered asymmetry of intimate partner violence, and may view female intimate violence perpetrators more as victims than offenders." Moreover, a study in Ireland by the National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence on the general population's attitudes to domestic violence, found that the higher the education status of an individual, the less likely they were to agree that a male could be a victim of domestic violence by a female. The report concluded that since there is little research in the area of female on male domestic violence, students are unlikely to become familiar.(demographics)
Among adolescents, researchers have primarily focused on heterosexual Caucasian populations. The literature indicates that rates are similar for the number of girls and boys in heterosexual relationships who report experiencing IPV, or that girls in heterosexual relationships are more likely than their male counterparts to report perpetrating IPV. Ely et al. stated that, unlike domestic violence in general, equal rates of IPV perpetration is a unique characteristic with regard to adolescent dating violence, and that this is "perhaps because the period of adolescence, a special developmental state, is accompanied by sexual characteristics that are distinctly different from the characteristics of adult." Wekerle and Wolfe theorized that "a mutually coercive and violent dynamic may form during adolescence, a time when males and females are more equal on a physical level" and that this "physical equality allows girls to assert more power through physical violence than is possible for an adult female attacked by a fully physically mature man."
While the genders engage in IPV at about equal rates, females are more likely to use less dangerous forms of physical violence (e.g. pushing, pinching, slapping, scratching or kicking), while males are more likely to punch, strangle, beat, burn, or threaten with weapons. Males are also more likely to use sexual aggression, although both genders are equally likely to pressure their partner into sexual activities. In addition, females are four times more likely to respond as having experienced rape and are more likely to suffer fatal injuries inflicted by their partner, or to need psychological help as a result of the abuse. Females are more likely to consider IPV a serious problem than are their male counterparts, who are more likely to disregard female-perpetrated IPV. Along with form, motivations for violence also vary by gender: females are likely to perpetrate violence in self-defense, while males are likely to perpetrate violence to exert power or control. The self-defense aspect is supported by findings that previous victimization is a stronger predictor of perpetration in females than in males. Other research indicates that boys who have been abused in childhood by a family member are more prone to IPV perpetration, while girls who have been abused in childhood by a family member are prone to lack empathy and self-efficacy; but the risks for the likelihood of IPV perpetration and victimization among adolescents vary and are not well understood.(demographics)
Same-sex relationships
Historically, domestic violence has been seen as a heterosexual family issue and little interest has been directed at violence in same-sex relationships, but domestic violence can occur in same-sex relationships as well. The Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention states, "For several methodological reasons – nonrandom sampling procedures and self-selection factors, among others – it is not possible to assess the extent of same-sex domestic violence. Studies on abuse between gay male or lesbian partners usually rely on small convenience samples such as lesbian or gay male members of an association."
Some sources state that gay and lesbian couples experience domestic violence at the same frequency as heterosexual couples, while other sources state domestic violence among gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals might be higher than among heterosexual individuals, that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are less likely to report domestic violence that has occurred in their intimate relationships than heterosexual couples are, or that lesbian couples experience domestic violence less than heterosexual couples do. One study focusing on Hispanic men indicated that gay men are less likely to have been perpetrators or victims of domestic violence than heterosexual men but that bisexual men are more likely to have been both. By contrast, some researchers commonly assume that lesbian couples experience domestic violence at the same rate as heterosexual couples, and have been more cautious when reporting domestic violence among gay male couples.(ADDED TO EPI. NEEDS TO BE CANNIBALIZED INTO DEMOGRAPHICS)
A 1999 analysis of nineteen studies of partner abuse concluded that "esearch suggests that lesbians and gay men are just as likely to abuse their partners as heterosexual men." In 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the 2010 results of their National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey and report that 44% of lesbian women, 61% of bisexual women, and 35% of heterosexual women experienced domestic violence in their lifetime. This same report states that 26% of gay men, 37% of bisexual men, and 29% of heterosexual men experienced domestic violence in their lifetime. A 2013 study showed that 40.4% of self-identified lesbians and 56.9% of bisexual women have reported being victims of partner violence. In 2014, national surveys indicated that anywhere from 25-50% of gay and bisexual males have experienced physical violence from a partner.(reincorped)
Gay and lesbian relationships have been identified as a risk factor for abuse in certain populations. LGBT people in some parts of the world have very little legal protection from DV, because engaging in homosexual acts is itself prohibited by the "sodomy laws" of those jurisdictions (as of 2014, same-sex sexual acts are punishable by imprisonment in 70 countries and by death in other 5 countries) and these legal prohibitions prevent LGBT victims of DV from reporting the abuse to authorities. In the face of the 2003 Supreme Court decision, 13 US states have refused to remove sodomy laws from legislation as of 2013.(demographics)
People in same-sex relationships face special obstacles in dealing with the issues that some researchers have labeled "the double closet". A 1997 Canadian study by Mark W. Lehman suggests similarities include frequency (approximately one in every four couples); manifestations (emotional, physical, financial, etc.); co-existent situations (unemployment, substance abuse, low self-esteem); victims' reactions (fear, feelings of helplessness, hypervigilance); and reasons for staying (love, can work it out, things will change, denial). Studies conducted by Emory University in 2014 identified 24 trigger for partner violence through web-based surveys, ranging from drugs and alcohol to safe-sex discussions. A general theme of power and control seems to underlie abuse in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships.(Stricken due to relevance)
At the same time, significant differences, unique issues, and deceptive myths are typically present. Lehman, regarding his 1997 survey, points to added discrimination and fears that gay and lesbian individuals may face. This includes potential dismissal by police and some social services, a lack of support from peers, fear of attracting negative stigma toward the gay community, the impact of HIV/AIDS status in keeping partners together (due to health care insurance/access, or guilt), threat of outing, and encountering supportive services that are targeted, or structured for the needs of heterosexual women, and may not meet the needs of gay men or lesbians. This service structure can make LGBTQ victims feel even more isolated and misunderstood than they may already because of their minority status. Lehman, however, stated that "due to the limited number of returned responses and non-random sampling methodology the findings of this work are not generalizable beyond the sample" of 32 initial respondents and final 10 who completed the more in-depth survey. Particularly, sexual stressors and HIV/AIDS status have emerged as significant differences in same-sex partner violence.(added to demographics)(demographics)
Cycle of abuse
The four phases of the Cycle of Abuse
Main article: Cycle of abuse
Lenore E. Walker presented the model of a Cycle of abuse which consists of four phases. First, there is a buildup to abuse when tension rises until a domestic violence incident ensues. During the reconciliation stage, the abuser may be kind and loving and then there is a period of calm. When the situation is calm, the abused person may be hopeful that the situation will change. Then, tensions begin to build, and the cycle starts again.(added to cycles of violence)
Michael P. Johnson argues that there are four major types of intimate partner violence (Johnson's Typology), a finding supported by subsequent research. Distinctions are made among the types of violence, motives of perpetrators, and the social and cultural context based upon patterns across numerous incidents and motives of the perpetrator. Types of violence identified by Johnson:
Common couple violence (CCV) is not connected to general control behavior, but arises in a single argument where one or both partners physically lash out at the other.
Intimate terrorism (IT) may also involve emotional and psychological abuse. Intimate terrorism is one element in a general pattern of control by one partner over the other. Intimate terrorism is more likely to escalate over time, not as likely to be mutual, and more likely to involve serious injury. IT batterers include two types: "Generally-violent-antisocial" and "dysphoric-borderline". The first type includes people with general psychopathic and violent tendencies. The second type are people who are emotionally dependent on the relationship. Support for this typology has been found in subsequent evaluations.
Violent resistance (VR), sometimes thought of as self-defense, is violence perpetrated by victims against their abusive partners.
Mutual violent control (MVC) is rare type of intimate partner violence occurring when both partners act in a violent manner, battling for control.(Stricken due to relevance. Already included in IPV article in more depth.)
Rose, Susan D. (2014), "Gender violence: the problem", in Rose, Susan D. (ed.), Challenging global gender violence: the global clothesline project, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 12–13, ISBN9781137388483. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Preview.
Wasco, Sharon M.; Bond, Meg A. (2010), "The treatmment of gender in community psychology research", in Chrisler, Joan C.; McCreary, Donald R. (eds.), Handbook of gender research in psychology, Springer, p. 632, ISBN9781441914675. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Pdf.
Cite error: The named reference Grodin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Rogers, Kenneth; Baumgardner, Barbara; Connors, Kathleen; Martens, Patricia; Kiser, Laurel (2010), "Prevention of family violence", in Compton, Michael T. (ed.), Clinical manual of prevention in mental health (1st ed.), Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, p. 245, ISBN9781585623471, Women are more often the victims of domestic violence than men and are more likely to suffer injuries and health consequences...
^ Brinkerhoff, David; Weitz, Rose; Ortega, Suzanne T. (2013), "The study of society", in Brinkerhoff, David; Weitz, Rose; Ortega, Suzanne T. (eds.), Essentials of sociology (9th ed.), Belmont, California: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, p. 11, ISBN9781285545899, A conflict analysis of domestic violence, for example, would begin by noting that women are battered far more often and far more severely than are men...Preview.
Cite error: The named reference McQuigg was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Cite error: The named reference europa1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference UN GA Res was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Horgan, J. Mühlau, P. McCormack, P.& Röder, A. (2008) Attitudes to Domestic Abuse in Ireland: Report of a Survey on Perceptions and Beliefs of Domestic Abuse among the General Population of Ireland PDF, Dublin,The National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence, Retrieved 2 March 2016 http://www.cosc.ie/en/COSC/Cosc_Attitudinal_Report_08.pdf/Files/Cosc_Attitudinal_Report_08.pdf
^ Chu, Ann T.; Sundermann, Jane M.; DePrince, Anne P. (2013), "Intimate partner violence in adolescent romantic relationships", in Donohue, William T.; Benuto, Lorraine T.; Woodward Tolle, Lauren (eds.), Handbook of adolescent health psychology, New York, New York: Springer, p. 193, ISBN9781461466338. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Preview.
^ Knox, Lyndee; Lomonaco, Carmela; Alpert, Elaine (2009), "Adolescent relationship violence", in Mitchell, Connie; Anglin, Deirdre (eds.), Intimate partner violence: a health-based perspective, Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 514, 516, ISBN9780199720729. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Preview.
^ Ely, Gretchen; Dulmus, Catherine N.; Wodarski, John S. (2002), "Adolescent dating violence", in Rapp-Paglicci, Lisa A.; Roberts, Albert R.; Wodarski, John S. (eds.), Handbook of violence, New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 36, ISBN9780471214441. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Preview.
Poet, Andrea; Swiderski, Catherine R.; McHugh, Maureen C. (2011), "Developing teen relationships: the role of violence", in Paludi, Michele A. (ed.), The psychology of teen violence and victimization, volume 1, Part III. Teen violence by family and mates, Santa Barbara, California: Praeger, pp. 221–241, ISBN9780313393761. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
Edwards, Katie M.; Dardis, Christina M.; Gidycz, Christine A. (2011), "The role of victimization experiences in adolescent girls and young women's aggression in dating relationships", in Paludi, Michele A. (ed.), The psychology of teen violence and victimization, volume 2, Part I. Impact of teen violence on adolescents, family, and peers, Santa Barbara, California: Praeger, pp. 71–82, ISBN9780313393761. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
^ Contributor (2010), "Same-sex relationships", in Fisher, Bonnie S.; Lab, Steven P. (eds.), Encyclopedia of gender and society, Volume 1, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, p. 312, ISBN9781412960472. {{citation}}: |last= has generic name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help) Preview.
Karmen, Andrew (2010), "Victims of rapes and other sexual assaults", in Karmen, Andrew (ed.), Crime victims: an introduction to victimology (7th ed.), Belmont, California: Cengage Learning, p. 255, ISBN9780495599296. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Preview.
Kaslow, Nadine J.; Thorn, Sheridan L.; Paranjape, Anuradha (2006), "Interventions for abused African-American women and their children", in Hampton, Robert L.; Gullotta, Thomas P. (eds.), Interpersonal violence in the African-American community evidence-based prevention and treatment practices, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, p. 49, ISBN9780387295985. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Preview.
Cite error: The named reference Siemieniuk 2010 763–770 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Rodgers, Lucy; Gutierrez Martin, Pablo Gutierrez Martin; Rees, Martyn; Connor, Steven (10 February 2014). "Where is it illegal to be gay?". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
^ Nicolson, Paula (2010), "What is domestic abuse?", in Nicolson, Paula (ed.), Domestic violence and psychology: a critical perspective, London New York: Taylor & Francis, p. 40, ISBN9781136698613. {{citation}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Preview.
Cite error: The named reference johnson2000c was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Jacobson, Neil; Gottman, John M. (1998). When men batter women: new insights into ending abusive relationships. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN9781416551331.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Seems pretty semantic. Prevalence v Epidemiology v Demographics v etc. Call it what you will, but shouldn't be disparate sections discussing essentially the same thing. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Length of the VAW and Same sex sections under Dems
As long as the Violence against women section retains the important domestic violence information, I am fine with a trim of it. As for the Same-sex relationships section, I argued before that there is not much information out there on domestic violence in same-sex relationships and it therefore does not need its own article. But not long afterward, the Domestic violence in lesbian relationships article was created. So I think that when enough material is gathered on domestic violence among male-male romantic/sexual relationships, that material should be merged with the Domestic violence in lesbian relationships article to create a Domestic violence in same-sex relationships article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, actually, in that linked archived discussion, I suggested that it was perhaps time to create a Domestic violence in same-sex relationships article; this was after I objected to creating one because of the scare literature on that aspect of domestic violence. And then an editor created the Domestic violence in lesbian relationships article instead of an article covering domestic violence in same-sex relationships in general. I think that the section on it currently in the article is mostly fine, and, given that the topic does not yet have its own article, the length is decent; it's not terrible. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Domestic violence's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡17:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
In the media
Flyer22 Reborn and any others, thoughts on Penbat's in the media section? I'm inclined to think it should be fleshed out in a sandbox or on the talk first and then inserted into the article once it's a section and not a bullet point.
Don't want to unilaterally rev without discussion as it is clearly a good faith effort, and it seems like a legitimate topic on the face of it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I saw this section Penbat added before seeing the above post by you, Timothyjosephwood. As soon as I saw the section, I was thinking it shouldn't be there unless very encyclopedic and well-developed. Right now, it has the trivia lean to it, and will attract more trivia. WP:Trivia and WP:In popular culture have advice on matters such as these. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
In the case of order, Penbat was right to place it last. "In the media" (or "Media") or "In popular culture" (or "Popular culture") sections are almost always placed last. This information should not come before the other sections in this Domestic violence article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and move here for the time being until it can be fleshed out. To answer Penbat's question "why not have an 'in the media' section", well...this isn't currently a section; it's a bullet point, and one furthermore dealing with a relatively obscure cultural reference. I don't see a strong justification for inserting it, it its current form, into an article that is already almost 14,000 words long. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
In the media
A domestic abuse story line in the British radio soap opera The Archers is considered to involve classic gaslighting.
I think there should be a new section covering both Parricide and Filicide as part of this article on domestic and family violence, and would like to add it, but am discussing here first. Would any editor object? If so, exactly why please, as both are very relevant components of family violence and are often covered in the media.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest putting a draft together and pitching it, rather than pitching the idea. After all, the appropriateness of the section depends on the strength and number of the sources, and we have no sources without a working draft. TimothyJosephWood10:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Might be a good time to review WP:NOTE, as that is the standard that must be met for inclusion. Also note that per WP:OR, it is not enough to say that (1) familial violence is a form of DV, (2) patricide is by definition familial, (3) therefore patricide is DV. You must actually have sources that cover these topics explicitly as a form of DV. TimothyJosephWood12:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Interesting point Timothyjosephwood. My understanding, based on all reliable sources and previous discussions by other other editors, is that this article is actually covering family violence, not intimate partner violence or other forms of family violence. Therefore the reliable sources, specifically covering family violence, would appear to fit the bill, and topics such as child homicide would clearly fall under this much broader family violence umbrella and certainly deserve their own distinct space in this article commensurate to the weight accorded within the family violence sources. I guess I'm now swaying toward a distinct section on child murder, rather than murder of other relatives and would certainly satisfy the requirements of WP:NOTE.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I think that if you're immediate interest is in writing, producing, then this is probably not the best article for you right now. It's still bloated, and needs substantial refining and reorganizing. While at the same time, there are 7 articles rated high importance by WikiProject:Feminism that are currently stubs. DV needs hatchets and organizers. Those articles need producers. TimothyJosephWood22:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No drama with you confusing WP:NOTE with WP:DUE. Lack of sleep can skew the mind sometimes. Back to content though, and let's not avoid the issue I've raised, given child murder is on our TV screens, paying Penbat respect in their interest in including an in the media section (different discussion above I know), as well as the reliable sources on family violence, I think WP:DUE is satisfied too. Don't you Timothyjosephwood? So far no good reason, based on policy, either WP:NOTE or WP:DUE, has been provided by any editor, for not including such a highly relevant section to the article on family violence. That's the only reason I posted here first before going ahead and adding it. Will keep discussing a bit longer before I do in case compelling reasons can be provided not to. Seems a pretty logical and straight forward inclusion to me given its coverage in the family violence sources.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Timothyjosephwood, as I (and others) have noted, any thorough examination of the sources in the article, and examination of the literature on domestic violence, shows that the literature on domestic violence is mostly about intimate partner violence. In light of that, other aspects of domestic violence, including family violence, are given decent weight in the article. If more family violence material is needed in the article, we will add it when appropriate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
