Misplaced Pages

Talk:Domestic violence: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:35, 19 December 2007 edit88.108.100.139 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:38, 14 December 2024 edit undoBruhpedia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,095 edits →Changing the lead image: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{self-harm}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=Start|importance=Mid}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{facfailed}}
{{Warning|heading=WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES|1=
{{archives}}
This article is subject to ]; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of ''']''' (with exceptions for ] or ] violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at ].}}
{{Controversial}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=17:42, 4 November 2006
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Domestic violence/archive1
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=85665866
|currentstatus=FFAC
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=High }}
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Systems |importance=mid |field=Systems psychology }}
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Family and relationships}}
{{WikiProject Genealogy|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}}
{{WikiProject South Africa |importance=mid |PSP SA=yes}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}


{{Contentious topics/talk notice|gg}}
== "Identity Abuse" ==


{{User:MiszaBot/config
I removed this:
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
:Another way abusers gain power and control in a relationship is by leveraging social oppression based on the individual's identity. This can include racist, heterosexist, or xenophobic manipulation. For example, an abuser may threaten to publicly out her lesbian partner to her family if she leaves, or if a couple is composed of undocumented immigrants, the abuser may say convince his/her partner not to go to the police because they could be deported.
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 9
|minthreadsleft = 4
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Domestic violence/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Human trafficking and sexual exploitation) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Human trafficking and sexual exploitation","appear":{"revid":294918785,"parentid":294918651,"timestamp":"2009-06-07T05:08:23Z","replaced_anchors":{"Human trafficking and Sexual exploitation":"Human trafficking and sexual exploitation"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":544158461,"parentid":544019554,"timestamp":"2013-03-14T18:30:23Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
}}


== Including numbers of male victimisation ==
Any new contribution needs to cite reliable, verifiable sources. Please feel free to source this section and return it to the article. Thanks.--] 23:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


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


Personally I believe that the most recent revision was sufficiently framed as it gives the context that women experience violence of higher severity, but I'm happy to help with adding more context. {{Ping|Generalrelative}} could you please explain your reasoning for the most recent revision? I mostly don't understand the ] part as the ] is quite reliable being a government organisation.
The article contains a link to which includes http://www.womenslaw.org/safety.htm Following is an edited version of that page intended to add some humour to a serious issue. ] 03:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


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


:'''Note:''' Since I believe this is slipping into a behavioral issue (see the ] warning above), and have not had success engaging with Panamitsu on their talk page, I've brought the matter to ] I'd prefer to let others weigh in on matters of content now if they find it necessary, and let speak for itself. ] (]) 01:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
* Know things that your abuser can use as a weapon. He may use sharp or heavy objects, like a hammer or an ice pick, to hurt you.
::You aren't being cooperative here. I'm asking for an explanation on why you think it's ] when it's a perfectly reliable source. I've also asked you why you think including that women experience more severe forms of violence next to it isn't sufficient context. Please ] to my questions. As said, I agree with the first reversion that it creates a false balance, but you aren't cooperating with me to prevent it. —<span style="font-family:Poppins">]</span> ] 01:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
* Figure out "safe places" in your home - places where there aren't weapons. If it looks like your abuser is about to hurt you, try to get to a safe place.
:::The ] issue is not a question of reliability of the source, but rather a situation where inclusion gives a disproportionate emphasis to a minor aspect of the topic. What you added and Generalrelative reverted still (even with the qualifier about severity) would have implied a type of symmetry between male abuse of women and female abuse of men, and that's ]. ] (]) 13:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
* Don't run to where the children are. Your abuser may hurt them too.
::::@NightHeron So do you think that it's possible to prevent a false balance, or is it unsolvable? —<span style="font-family:Poppins">]</span> ] 21:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
* If there's no way to escape violence, make yourself a small target. Dive into a corner and curl up into a ball.
:::::I think it's definitely ''possible'' to prevent a false balance. If both studies include men and women, the obvious thing to do would be to give the numbers for both sexes for each study so each comparison is apples-to-apples. If they don't, at least include the full definition each time to avoid ].
* If you need help in a public place, yell "FIRE". People respond more quickly to someone yelling "fire" than to any other cry for help.
:::::The issue with your edit is not using the CDC statistics (which I agree we should include somewhere), it's using the CDC statistics next to different statistics that were gathered using a much narrower definition. ] (]) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
* Teach your children how to get help.
::::::I understand now! Thank you very much! I had a hard time understanding and I've finally got it, thank you, it means a lot. —<span style="font-family:Poppins">]</span> ] 00:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
* Practice how to get out of your house safely. Practice with your children as well.
:If we're going to cite the CDC numbers, we should go with "About 41% of women and 26% of men" from . ] (] / ]) 15:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
* Try not to wear scarves or long jewelry. Your abuser could use these things to strangle you.
::] That's a much better figure —<span style="font-family:Poppins">]</span> ] 21:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
::Agreed, and if we need to include this near the other study, we should also include the proportion of men experiencing DV from it as well if we can. (I haven't looked at it in detail yet and don't know if it includes that number.) That way each comparison is apples-to-apples. ] (]) 23:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I think it does because it says {{tqi|About 41% of women and 26% of men experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported an intimate partner violence-related impact during their lifetime.}}
:::It also says that {{tqi|About 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men report having experienced severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime}} which we can use to take account in differing severities. —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 09:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
:I've just noticed that the article does mention these numbers, just buried inside the same-sex section.
:{{tqi|This same report states that 26% of gay men, 37% of bisexual men, and 29% of heterosexual men have experienced domestic violence in their lifetime.}} —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">]</span> ] 22:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)


== Wording of Religion opening line == == Domestic violence of physical abuse ==


Domestic violence is the act ] (]) 02:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I have a problem with the wording of this phrase: "Human civilisations and religions produce teachings conducive to living honourably and harmoniously." The way it's written, it implies that religious teachings ACTUALLY ARE CONDUCIVE to living honorably & harmoniously. Obviously, that's not true at all -- some Christian teachings can be primitive and divisive and have been used as justification for the oppression of women, gays, etc. It's been referenced several times in this page -- that according to the Bible, women are to be submissive and subservient to men. I believe the phrase should read, "Many human civilizations and religions have produced teachings exhorting people to live honorably and harmoniously". This acknowledges the fact that, at their core, religious ''should'' and ''do'' condemn abuse, while at the same time it does not claim that religions have been the beacons of spirituality and peace that they certainly have not been. -] 20:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


== More information needed for different forms of domestic violence based on relationships between perpetrators and the victim ==
:Well said. I agree. Go for it. ] 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Apart from child abuse committed by parents, there is little information about domestic violence in family relationships other than intimate/spousal relationships (e.g. ], ] by family members, etc). For example, honorary killings and dowry-related violence in South Asia are well-known examples of domestic violence committed as collective acts by the extended family, but these two topics are only briefly mentioned in the whole article and no more description of the relationship between perpetrators and the victim exists. There is a separate article for intimate partner violence. What is the purpose of this article if we don't add information about domestic violence under these settings?
::As i understand the Bible and the Quran, women are to be submissive to men while men are subservient to woman ..... kind of reminds of of the old prayer "God please protect me from your followers." ] 22:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


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


The part about minors abusing parents in this article also has its own problems with citations. The first citation that defines the term is under ''adoption and permanent placement'' settings, yet the text does not say anything about that. The last citation is about the effects of child abuse by parents on children. I understand that whoever added that wants to say that being a child abuse victim is a risk factor for violent behaviour during adolescence, but isn't a source more relevant to the topic better? Also, all but that irrelevant citation use sources from the UK, so we have a UK-centric bias now, not just a Eurocentric view. ] (]) 05:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I reverted the recent additions by anon. Those additions were "A significant amount of scholarly and academic research exists which indicates that males are victims of female-perpetrated domestic violence with equal frequency as female victimization, and sometimes greater frequency. See ." and "However, there is a large amount of academic research that consistently indicates that men are victimized by physical violence just as often as women (see ). These studies frequently rely on self-reports from both female and male batterers." How do we know that the amount is "significant"? The claim that there is gender equality in regards to domestic violence is disputed. While we are allowed to cite reliable sources that hold that POV, and reliable sources that dispute it, we cannot state these claims as facts because that would be taking sides against neutrality in a dispute.


== Partner Abuse State of Knowledge data about gendered violence ==
I find it problematic that basically the exact same thing is repeated twice with a link to a website. It seems like anon is using[REDACTED] as a platform to promote a website. Furthermore, a search engine does not support these claims. All new content must have citations. The content that was removed by anon was supported by the CDC factsheet. It is true that "Few incidents are reported to police, and data is limited." yet this information was removed.-] 01:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


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

As far as i know domestic violence is caused by trauma / ptsd.

This could be trauma in childhood or adult trauma such as war or even the trauma of having one's home invaded by the armed forces (police) and being liberated from one's abusive relationship at gunpoint in the name of woman's rights.

Could someone please modify the causes section to include (and adequately reference) trauma / ptsd as a cause of domestic violence and wiki-link to the ptsd article. ] 07:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

:DV can be caused by a past history of trauma...and it can be caused by many other factors; poor anger management skills, negative socilization, etc. etc. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 13:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

::if you could point me to some authoritative references i will summarise these to the best of my ability under the causes section. also could typing in bold font cause domestic violence? ] 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:::Best source is the DSM-IV-R. Otherwise, any good text will do...such as the DSM-IV casebooks or Bergin & Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 13:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
:::: a letter in todays ] says irresponsible promotion of alcohol may have something to do with domestic violence as well ] (AKA 202.0.106.130) 04:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The focus on domestic violence being caused by trauma sounds right to people but is impossible to back up. It sounds very similar to the myth that abused women were all abused by their parents and are seeking a familiar situation in their spouses. While it is true that there are many cases where an abuser was also abused in the past this does not explain all the cases where abusive behavior is not preceded by abuse. It also leaves out alcohol abuse and sociopathy as potential causes. What we might find is closer to the truth is that domestic abuse is a pattern of behavior that is a common strategic response (though pathological) to many different situations. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Rationale for including the religion sections ==

This is a pretty terrible article for a variety of reasons, and I don't see how these sections are helping at all. They're basically a selection of quotes without any readily apparent implications as to the given religion's teachings on domestic violence. At 103 kb, this article doesn't need the bloating. ] 02:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. Why don't you go ahead and delete it, or at least see what other editors think. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 13:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

::we should probably take a vote on this. or discuss further and then take a vote.] 06:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This is taken from my peer review a few topics up:
*"Cultural and Religious Teachings" the intro to this section is poor, and I don't see how it relates to DV.
*"Christianity" this section only consists of bible quotes. We should have encyclopedic commentary explaining I guess Christianity's view on DV. The second two quotes seem off topic, and the first one should be cut shorter.
*"Hinduism" again, we should contextualize the quotes, and explain in more detail the Hindu view.
*"Islam" this section is much better than the previous two. However, since there is a spinout article dealing with this topic, perhaps we could make the section more concise. And it looks like it needs some formatting help as well.

While there is a connection between religion belief and certain specific religious practicies, and domestic violence (or some form of gendered descrimination), I feel that our current section is weak. It would not hurt my feelings if we removed the content for the time being (but it would be better if someone could actually write encyclopedic content dealing with religion and domestic violence).-] 06:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:OK. What I will do is delete it and move it here for someone to work on. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup>
::Better. <font color="Green">]</font><sup>]</sup> 14:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
===Deleted Religion Section Needing work===

==Cultural and Religious Teachings==
Human civilisations and religions, if they are to survive, must produce teachings conducive to living honourably and harmoniously. Christianity, Hinduism and Islam have produced teachings exhorting motivations and conduct consistent with the good health of individuals and communities. A few examples are given below:

===Christianity===
The ] describes ] characterized by romantic and passionate ]. This requires wives to honour and obey their husbands and husbands to serve and protect their wives:

:"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything. For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her ........... A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one. So again I say, each man must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." {{bibleverse||Ephesians|5:21-25|51}}, {{bibleverse-nb||Ephesians|5:31-33|51}}

:"Wives must accept the authority of your husbands...........In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered. Finally, all of you should be of one mind. Sympathize with each other. Love each other as brothers and sisters. Be tenderhearted, and keep a humble attitude. " {{bibleverse||1Peter|3:1|51}}, {{bibleverse-nb||1Peter|3:7-8|51}}

:"Older women must train the younger women to love their husbands and their children, to live wisely and be pure, to care for their homes, to do good, and to be submissive to their husbands." {{bibleverse||Titus|2:4-5|51}}

{{See also|Eye_for_an_eye}}
{{See also|Turn_the_other_cheek}}

===Hinduism===
A key teaching of ] ] is ]. ] requires acceptance of all that is ] and ] while honouring ]:

"Eternal family traditions and codes of moral conduct are destroyed with the
destruction of the family. And immorality prevails in the family due to the
destruction of family traditions. The women of the family become corrupted. The
everlasting qualities of social order are ruined by striving to slay our relatives
because of greed for the pleasures of the kingdom."


] ‘bring together’ the complements or poles so as to realise their identity through the tantric method of ]. Thus the physical union of man and woman is sublimated into the creative union of ]-].

"She must surrender to her husband...........surrender means one has to
become confident. The devotee reasons: Krsna will protect me and help me
perform devotional service. This is called confidence."


{{Section-stub}}
{{See also|Tantra}}
{{See also|Sati (practice)}}
{{See also|Dowry death}}
{{See also|Bride burning}}

===Islam===

For the sake of running a smooth family system, Islam has put the major responsibility of earning over the man and made man one step dominant over his wife in the house, which should not be confused with ]. Sheikh Muhammad Kamal Mustafa, ] of the mosque of the city of Fuengirola, Costa del Sol, ], in his book ''The Woman in Islam'' writes, of the status of violence against wives on the part of husbands in Islamic ] law, stating that it is permissible in some instances.

"The virtuous women is devoted, careful (in their husbands') absence, as God has cared for them. But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bed-chambers and beat them."

Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, head of the ], has advocated "non-painful" beating of wives: "it is permissible for to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts. In no case should he resort to using a stick or any other instrument that might cause pain and injury."

The wife-beating must never be in exaggerated, blind anger, in order to avoid serious harm ." He adds, "It is forbidden to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs," using a "rod that must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are caused." Similarly, " must not be hard." But at any point, if wife thinks that she is being abused, she can ask court of law for divorce on the basis of maltreatment.

Dr. Muhammad Al-Hajj, lecturer on Islamic faith at the ] (Amman) states:
:Hard beatings are those that leave marks on the body or on the face. Thus, beating on the face is prohibited, because the face is a combination of the features of beauty, as it is said. It is forbidden to beat the face, it is forbidden to administer blows that leave fractures or wounds; this is what our sages have said in their books.

Mustafa noted in his book that the aim of the beating was to cause the woman to feel some emotional pain, without humiliating her or harming her physically. According to him, physical blows must be the last resort to which a husband turns in punishing his wife, and is, according to the ] (Chapter 4, Verse 34), the husband's third step when the wife is rebellious: First, he must reprimand her, without anger. Next, he must distance her from the conjugal bed. Only if these two methods fail should the husband turn to beating. Also, understanding of this verse must be in the context of the rest of the Quran, which instructs that a man holds his wife (and all women) in reverance.

"The hypocrites, both men and women, proceed one from another. They enjoin the wrong, and they forbid the right, and they withhold their hands. They forget Allah, so He hath forgotten them."

While some Muslims interpret the Qur'an to allow the beating of wives, many other Muslims interpret Chapter 4, Verse 34 to say "leave" the wife, not beat her.

"So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them."

{{See also|Rania al-Baz}}
{{See also|Rights_and_obligations_of_spouses_in_Islam}}

===Accepted behavior===
In many rural areas in developing countries, beating is considered accepted behavior for a man, in order to "teach" his wife to be obedient. In many parts of Latin America, while wife beating is frowned upon, it is considered more or less acceptable for a husband to administer a beating to an unfaithful or disrespectful wife. Men who suspect their wives of adultery have often "executed" their wives by decapitation. An example of such a region is Iran, in which it is perfectly legal for a man to kill his wife if he finds her cheating. "''Women are treated as second- class citizens and violence against women is the official policy of the Tehran’s fundamentalist regime. Therefore, Tehran’s regime should be referred to the United Nations Security Council not only for its nuclear weapons program but also for its gross violations of human rights and inflicting systemic violence against women.''"

The ]an government promoted a Domestic Violence Bill in 2006, after many years of campaigning by groups of women. The bill has been controversial, because it defines repeated insults, ridiculing or name-calling, and demonstrations of obsessive possessiveness and jealousy of a partner as domestic violence: critics have said that this definition is excessively vague. <ref name="SundayMail">See, e.g., letter from "Murume chaiye" (] for 'real man') in the ''Sunday Mail'', ], ].</ref> The Bill also includes unreasonable denial of conjugal rights as constituting domestic violence.

One Zimbabwean MP, Timothy Mubhawu (], Tafara-Mabvuku) made a strong attack on the "diabolic" Bill in Parliament, insisting that it was against God's principles for men and women to be equal. <ref name="Newzimbabwe">Violet Gonda, "", newzimbabwe.com, ], ].</ref> As a result he was suspended from membership of the MDC. <ref name="ZWNews">"", ZWNews.com, ], ].</ref>

:In my opinion, a quote simply saying that a wife should obey or submit to her husband is not relevant to the topic of domestic violence. If the religion doesn't have any scriptural quotes about domestic violence, then perhaps we could simply say "This religion has no scriptural quotes mentioning domestic violence". If it has quotes about violence in general (i.e. violence between two people, not specifying whether they're in the same household or not) then I would consider those relevant because I would assume they would apply in the domestic situation as well as in other situations. If there are few or no relevant scriptural quotes, there may be announcements by leaders or commentators of the religion. For example, at least one newspaper has had columns with religious experts responding to questions about their religion. In the Christian and Hindu sections above, I see nothing addressing the subject of domestic violence and I think that material should be deleted (or moved to a page about conjugal relationships or something), with apologies to whoever went to the trouble of writing it. --] 11:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

::A question: Are you suggesting that quotes are relevant to "domestic violence" only if they refer to "physical violence"? Because the discussion of "domestic violence" used in this article "Psychological/emotional abuse can include, but is not limited to, .... controlling what the victim can and cannot do". I believe, and I mean this quite seriously, that the submission of a wife to her husband (or partner to partner for any sex) in the context of organized religion is ''a priori'' abuse/domestic violence, since the submission is necessarily in part coerced by the power of religious prescription, e.g., "Thou shalt." When we look at domestic violence checklists, we see items such as "Do you feel obligated to be sexual with your partner?" , religious strictures for submission in fact create the obligation so described.
::Unfortunately, I need to make this point more bluntly. If an abuser says something like "You must have sex with me, or I will torture you by burning your skin.", nobody would deny that threat constitutes domestic violence. I see little reason to read the situation differently when the threat is the eternal punishment of damnation.
::The common theme when looking at domestic violence in practice is not the physical violence that does almost always end up as DV's endpoint, but the pattern of coerced control the abuser creates, all too often with the assistance of the stick of religious teachings of submission.--] 16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, if the ''partner'' says "do this or else", then I guess that's domestic violence. But if the religious leader says ''obey your husband'', I wouldn't call that domestic violence. The order, and any threat, is coming from the scripture or the religious leader or whatever, not from the partner. If the scripture says "Threaten your wife until she obeys", then I would consider that to be relevant to domestic violence. Of course, someone might ''use'' a scripture that says "obey your husband" as part of a threat during domestic violence. But to me, that scripture says nothing about domestic violence; it's just more likely to be (mis)used in that way than other parts of the scripture, which could also no doubt be twisted into threats. If "obey your husband" is somehow relevant to domestic violence, perhaps this article, if it mentions such quotes, needs to explain the connection, e.g. "The scripture says nothing about domestic violence, but it does say 'obey your husband', which some men might use as a threat during domestic violence." or something like that. --] 00:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


::::Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'm afraid I'm not convinced, however. In saying "Obey your husband", instead of say "Obey your husband unless he's trying to maim you." scripture does in fact contribute directly to the causes of domestic violence, not by its influence on the perp, but on its influence of the abused. While there are more subtle ways in which religiously-derived gender-norms propagate the destructive idea that women should not feel empowered to protect themselves, this quote nails the point to the wall--forget how the words read to the husband, what the words say to the wife is "If you are being abused and are a married woman, you have to take it or face eternal suffering." And that acquiescnce is part of the big picture of DV as well. I see survivors of domestic violence return to their abusers all too many times, the incident that haunts me to this day is the woman who returned with her teeth in a bag. There are many, many reasons that survivors return to relationships in which they are being abused, but this "obey" prescription seems to me to be a significant cause.

Still, perhaps my point is too subtle for the article. I have some reservations about the quotes section in general--in particular because the views of different religious people even within the same denomination vary so widely it'd almost take an article per major religion to start to tackle the question of how those religions relate to the idea of domestic violence&mdash;and if those articles were to be started, it'd probably be best that they actually try and lay out the various points of view found within the cultures surrounding those religions, a few quick quotes here and there likely really do nothing to add to informing the reader.

Anyway, I appreciate anyone who can keep an even tone in disagreements about subjects as "hard" as this one. My sincere thanks. --] 00:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

:Your point is well made. OK, maybe "obey your husband" does say something about domestic violence -- maybe it says "don't try to protect yourself from domestic violence (e.g. by running away)." --] 01:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

:After further thought: "obey your husband" could be interpreted in two ways: (1) "Always obey your husband, even while he's physically attacking you", which would say something about how to respond to domestic violence; or (2) "Generally obey your husband," (but with common sense saying not to apply this when he's being violent), which says nothing about domestic violence. By quoting the passage here without comment, perhaps we're implying that (1) is obviously the way it's to be interpreted. Therefore quoting it here without comment could indirectly promote domestic violence. --] 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

:: Oh, absolutely, and of course there's a range of variations between the two as well. I think this points out a more general problem with the quotes section at all, it really oversimplifies the depth and range of beliefs contained within the various religions there--maybe the whole section should go? (Just thinking out loud here.) --] 07:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Should there be a section on so called 'honour killings' in the light of the recent murder of a 17yr old girl witnessed by 1000 men, including security guards who did nothing to stop the murder as they thought the girl had behaved in an "immoral" way? The murder was carried out by male members of her family. Is this domestic violence? (] 21:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

=="Leaving an abusive relationship" problems==
"Most" might seem obvious, but this statement needs a reference. The use of the word "fail" is laden with judgement and seems to be a blame-word. I don't believe this section adds any useful information, only speculation. If the "reasons" for staying in an IPV relationship could be cited, maybe that would add value. ] 03:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
==Unreferenced statements==
There are a number of unreferenced statements in this article that should either recieve a relevant citation or be removed if no references can be provided. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 12:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
:Still no citations or references added. I do think the unreferenced statements should now be removed and the POV section either edited or deleted. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
::I agree. I will do that, unless there are objections...or proper reliable sources cited. <font color="Green">]</font><sup>]</sup> 18:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

== Domestic violence in popular culture ==

This seems to be clearly biased feminist propoganda. The author seems to suggest that the male-dominated media condones domestic violence, which is frankly ludicrous. The author also claims that sexual relations are usually shown as power struggles, which is not the case in most soaps/dramas (the most frequent showing of relationships on television)

Maybe someone else can write a decent entry who is free from idealogical baggage (for example, this author clearly believing in the continual oppression of women in every part of society, a common feminist theme) Also, an entry that mentions the clearly negative portrayal domestic violence receives in the media (think little moe in Eastenders) would be appropriate. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

There are so many unreferences statements throughout this entry, which are far from neutral. I have added some reliable statistics with referenced sources (****)

It seems referenced additions are removed without comment, while unreferenced entries, some of which are far from neutral, and reveal a mysoginist bias one would hope has no place in an encyclopedia, remain. I am not familiar with how to use talk pages, which is why my contributions may appear in the wrong place. I would, however, appreciate an explanation of why entries which are so obviously grinding a personal axe are not removed. Perhaps a response could be posted on my talk page. - Andrew? (] 20:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

==Deleted Section==
I deleted a section that has been without a citation since March. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

== Domestic Violence Gives a Sense of Power ==

God never intended for domestic violence to take place. Reason: Some people blame God for why they were in the relationship to begin with. The truth, the wake-up call, the eye-opener is that the first signs of abuse are always recognizable: Isolation, Jealousy, even verbal abuse.
~~Jshephard

===FAO Andrew===

How is what I said innaccurate, more men are assaulted by their wives and girlfriends statistics slate because more men live with women that men,--] 17:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

:Do you have a source to back that up? Your logic is flawed because it assume that all things are equal (i.e. men and women assault at the same rate). However, Tjaden & Thoennes found: ''Information from the survey shows that violence against men is also predominantly male violence: Most (70.1 percent) men who were raped since age 18 were raped by a male, while 35.8 percent were raped by a female. Similarly, most (85.8 percent) men who were physically assaulted since age 18 were physically assaulted by a man, while only 14.2 percent were physically assaulted by a woman. Finally, nearly two-thirds (64.6 percent) of the men who were stalked since age 18 were stalked by a male, while 38.4 percent were stalked by a female (see exhibit 29).'' Hope this explains my changes, also, keep in mind that if we quote our sources, we are not allowed to edit the quoted areas because then we are changing the words of our source. Thanks.-] 15:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

::Reliable and verifiable sources are critical, especially in situations such as this where there is dispute. ] 16:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


== Internal and External references added to violence versus men section feel free to add more ==

I've added several internal and external references to the violence versus men sections.
They have been included as hypertext links for ease of use. Feel free to add more.

Here's the revised version :

Violence against men

(Note : Internal and External references for this section are hypertext linked, feel free to expand on them)

As in all forms of domestic violence, violence against men can take a physical form, or can
take the form of psychological, economic or social domestic violence. Many people ignore
or minimize the importance of ], even though (1)it may be far more common,
(2)it may induce more severe ], and (3) it can have longer lasting effects on the victims'
lives and well being.

Self-reinforcing sexist ] and ] expectations of men being strong, aggressive and in control,
and women being passive and defenseless victims perpetrates the cycle of domestic violence against
men, induces under-reporting and ], and minimizes proper law and enforcement in this area.


===Physical violence against men===

Physical violence against men is the term known for physical violence that is committed against men by the man's intimate partner.

Very little is known about the actual number of men who are in a domestic relationship in which they are abused or treated violently by their partners. Few incidents are reported to police, and data is limited. <ref name="ipvfs">"", Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 22 September, 2006.</ref> Dr. Richard J. Gelles contends that while "men's rights groups and some scholars" believe that "battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention" and that "there are as many male victims of violence as female", he states that such beliefs are "a significant distortion of well-grounded research data." <ref>http://thesafetyzone.org/everyone/gelles.html</ref> In addition, researchers Tjaden and Thoennes found that "men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners
(although this may represent differences in willingness to report being victimized, or differences in attitudes and awareness
about resources available to male victims of physical domestic violence between these two cohorts). Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant." <ref>http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/181867.txt</ref>

The available data indicate that:
:
*3.2 million men experience "minor" abuse (such as "pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting") per year.<ref name="ipvfs" />
*In the United States, approximately 800,000 men per year (3.2%) are raped or physically assaulted by their partner.<ref name="ipvfs" />
*At least 371,000 men are stalked annually.<ref name="ipvfs" />
*3% of nonfatal violence against men stems from domestic violence.<ref name="ipvfs" />
*In 2002, men comprised 24% of domestic violence homicide victims.<ref name="ipvfs" />
*Over 20 years, the instances of homicide from domestic violence against men decreased by approximately 67%.<ref name="ipvfs" />
*Approximately 22% of men have experienced physical, sexual, or psychological intimate partner violence during their life.<ref name="ipvfs" />

There are many reasons why there isn't more information about domestic abuse and physical violence against men. A major reason is the reluctance of men to report incidents to the police, unless there are substantial injuries. This is partially
due to stigma, and sexual stereotypes, and may also be due to unsupportive gender-biased attitudes by professionals and
researchers in the area of domestic violence. Data indicate that although mutual violent behavior is quite common in intimate relationships, men are seriously harmed less frequently than women.<p>

:Stated like someone whose never been a man in an abusive relationship with a woman. I notice that one of the things not mentioned at any point in this article is that the "research groups" who dispute the male-victim abuse numbers tend to be pro-feminist, agenda-driven organizations who have something to lose if men suddenly turn into something other than a pack of abusers. Funny how that worked out, what? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

===Psychological, Economic and Social violence against men===

Psychological, economic and social violence against men is very common,
can be severe and relentless, and is often minimized or ignored. Unfortunately,
it is often even more overtly minimized or dismissed by professionals
who work in the area of preventing and treating domestic violence.]

Rather than see themselves as advocates of '''victims''' - whoever they may be -
many professionals in this area unfortunately see themselves as gender advocates.
Only when professionals are gender-neutral and avoid sexist ] can
they be a constructive force in helping men recover from victimization, as opposed
to implicitly ] - thinking that they must have done something
to deserve it, or ].


====] as domestic violence against men====
Men suffer considerable emotional, psychological, economic and social harm from
]. Paternity fraud is considered to be quite common (from 10
to 15 % of children - based on studies from blood banks and other genetic data).
Paternity fraud is one of the more common forms of domestic violence against men.

Unfortunately, in many countries, the law offers no protection to the male victim
of this form of domestic violence. This rewards and encourages the victimizers leaving
men largely defenseless. The coercive power of the state is used to continually perpetrate
the ongoing victimization of the male spouse - even after the relationship has ended.

Unfortunately, the law assumes that the male spouse is automatically
responsible for any children that are born during the marriage.
This represents one of the common sexist traditions embedded in law
in this area that dates back to times when women were powerless under the law,
when adultery was a seriously punishable crime, and before the invention of safe
and effective ].



====Forced paternity as domestic violence against men====
Consent to have sex with someone does not constitute consent to have a child with her
or him. Forcing someone to have a child against her or his will, or without her or
his consent constitutes domestic violence. Forced paternity is one of the more common
forms of domestic violence against men.

Unfortunately, in many countries, the law assumes that consent to have sex equals
consent to reproduce - at least if you are male. This represents one of the common
sexist traditions embedded in law in this area that dates back to times when women were
powerless under the law, and before the invention of safe and effective ],
and ].

====Fraudulent claims of domestic violence as a form of domestic violence====
Fraudulently claiming that a partner has engaged in domestic violence is - in itself -
a form of domestic violence. It is a particularly cruel form of domestic violence
because the coercive power of the state is coopted to continue the abuse and prevent
escape.
A person fraudulently accused of domestic violence suffers strong psychological
and emotional trauma. Often her or his career is destroyed. He or she is widely
stigmatized and rejected by friends, acquaintances, employers, colleagues, neighbours,
and even strangers. Often this stigma can occur even with the mere unproven accusation
of domestic violence. It can destroy a victim psychologically,economically, socially,
and physically.

Furthermore, fraudulent accusations of domestic violence can be used to remove
custody of children. Since '''many people would rather suffer severe physical injury'''
'''or even lose a limb rather than lose their children''', it is clear that this form
of non-physical domestic violence can cause more ] than many if not
most cases of physical violence.

It is difficult to assess the frequency of fraudulent claims of domestic violence.
Hopefully, it is a fairly rare - albeit severe - form of domestic violence, however,
data is not readily available. Some consider the idea that a woman could lie about
such a subject to be inconceivable, but there are many well documented historical
and recent examples of other false accusations including rape. (See : and ).

To assume that only men lie or abuse is an unrealistic ] position.
Probably, both men and women are victims of this form of domestic violence. However,
given that men are statistically much more likely to be accused of domestic violence
than women, it is also likely that men are more commonly victims of fraudulent claims
of domestic violence. Motivations for this form of domestic violence are the same as f
or any other (See sections below), although legal transfer of child custody may provide
added incentive.

== Attempt to minimize violence versus men and silence dissenting information ==

I undid the removal of the material on non-physical domestic violence against men. It is
an important area that should not be silenced by individuals with a strong POV.
Non-physical violence is well recognized as an important sub-type of domestic violence.

Rather than delete or attempt to silence this material, expand on it, or present opposing
information.
:Hi. I was the person who removed it, because you failed to provide sources. I am not trying to silence anything, but given that these are your first and only edits to Misplaced Pages, it kind of seems like you have an axe to grind here. Misplaced Pages is not for promoting your own personal agenda.
:With that said, I'm not going to remove your edits again, because I'd like to hear other editors' views on this. But the sources you have now provided appear to be a blog and a "reader mail" section on CNN, neither of which are reliable in any sense of the word. No offense.
:Also, when you start a new section on a Talk page, please add it to the end of the page, not the beginning. Thank you! --] 11:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not my first or only edit to Misplaced Pages. I also do not have any axe to grind.
I am editing anonymously, because I do not wish to be subject to personal attacks, or
suffer from ongoing stigma for providing information on an important area that many
people with very strong POVs would prefer to have silenced. Thank you for not deleting
the entry, since this will allow more people to add to it and improve it.

:I agree with Ashenai's initial removal, and feel the edit should be reverted again. Misplaced Pages has a number of guidelines on including information, and I feel these edits fail them all. Information has to not only be attributed and verifiable, the sources we use have to meet a specific standard as well. We also have a neutral point-of-view policy, that says the we need to present information neutrally, substantiate and attribute specific opinions, and not give undue weight to minority views. The fact of the matter is, domestic violence against men is not given the same amount of weight as domestic violence against women in the media, in the legal system, and in scholarly publications. Misplaced Pages is not the place to try and fix some injustice of society. We can only report what our sources say, giving due weight to majority and minority views. Unfortunately, the changes gives undue weight to domestic violence against men, they are unsourced or sourced from poor, unreliable sources, and they present original research. Also, unrelated, there appears to be a word wrap issue in your edits. Are you copy and pasting from a word processor or something similar? While the term "non-physical violence" may be an oxymoron, things like paternity fraud and forced custody are not violent by any definition of the term. This seems like a whole slew of men's rights issues thrown together in one place. Please consider editing the ] and ] articles instead. (actually, I just checked, and you copy and pasted the same thing here as you did there. This is redundant. There is no reason for any article to contain the exact same content as another article (unless they are a short summary of a more detailed article per our content forking/summary guidelines). -] 14:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

::I have decided to revert the edits. The sections on "forced paternity", "paternity fraud" are simply not "domestic violence" by any definition of the term. These sections were full of emotive, editorializing, unencyclopedic language like "a particularly cruel form of domestic violence", "unfortunately", "the coercive power of the state is used to continually perpetrate the ongoing victimization", etc. Reading through the additions, I was more and more convinced that this was simply original research. The tone was not encyclopedic, but instead emotional and argumentative. The sections were not neutral. There were considerable sourcing problems.-] 14:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Please do remember to sign in with the four "~". I agree with Andrew c here. The material should only be added if there are references or sources to support the statements. See Misplaced Pages policy regarding the ] of material. <font color="Green">]</font><sup>]</sup> 15:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Coming over from the ] I would like to fourth the comments made above, in that the additions were not verifiable from reliable sources, and in addition were phrased in a POV fashion. I believe that Andrew c's deletions of the material from both articles was appropriate. ] 16:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added sections from impartial referenced reliable sources, as this article appears to be being used irresponsibly. Domestic violence is a worldwide abuse of human rights, and deserves a serious, impartial entry.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:08:03, 17 May 2007|&#32;08:03, 17 May 2007|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

==Reinstating sections : neutrality of editors questioned on this issue ==

Unfortunately, some editors of this page seem to have very unusual and inconsistent POVs regarding domestic violence. For example, one editor remarks :
" the term "non-physical violence" may be an oxymoron ". Clearly this editor has not read much about the current definition of domestic violence.

I would recommend that (s)he start by reading the opening part of the article - to wit :

"Domestic violence (sometimes referred to as domestic abuse) occurs when a family member, partner or ex-partner attempts to physically or psychologically dominate or harm the other."

Non-physical violence against men like Paternity Fraud, Forced Paternity and fraudulent allegations of domestic violence very clearly fall under this definition.

It would appear that the editors are attempting to enforce a form of ] or ] on this page. Rather than allow for improvement on the section, they immediately remove it. This is inappropriate.

Non-physical domestic violence is an important and widely recognized sub-type of domestic violence, and non-physical domestic violence against men is both common and harmful and needs to be included in any balanced discussion of the subject.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:03:56, 18 May 2007|&#32;03:56, 18 May 2007|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:First of all, please sign all talk page comments by typing four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). Next, please do not edit by re-instating controversial content during a content dispute; it is considered edit warring. As you will note above, 4 different editors agreed with removing the content while none besides yourself supported including it. Please try to address our concerns and work towards a consensus version on talk that everyone can agree to before reverting back to a version that multiple editors felt was inappropriate for wikipedia. I understand that having your contribution removed can feel like a personal blow, but please don't look down. Misplaced Pages has specific guidelines on what content should be included, how things should be sourced, and how things should be written. We aren't trying to censor views, but instead write an encyclopedia article. This has nothing to do with political correctness. Do you have any verifiable, reliable source that claims "paternity fraud" is domestic violence? I did a google search of the top ten webpages that come up when you type "domestic violence", then I did sitewide searches of each of these ten sites for the phrase "paternity fraud", with no results. So then I search the terms together and found , , a handful of unrelated articles that happened to have the terms in them, , . Wait a second, I just noticed that all 3 'hits' are by the same men's right activist "Harry Crouch". Weird. The point being, I have found no reliable sources that state these things you want to include are actually classified as "domestic violence" by either experts in the field or by the law. You have also not provided reliable sources to back up these claims, and your posts have considerable tone and neutrality issues. As demonstrated above, you do not have consensus supporting your changes, so please consider talking things out and figuring out a compromise that we can all agree upon before reverting back to the problematic edits. Thanks.-] 14:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Andrew,
Is this how[REDACTED] decides if something is true or not? Four of you discuss whether you agree with the author or not, and that's it? If you need proof of what has been written for wiki, I'd be happy to supply it. I've just noticed several mistakes in the domestic violence section, and have already found one link to incorrect statistics.
Teri] 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

==Feminist fraud and fearmongering==
Content added:
:Feminist whistleblowers like ], ] and others have asserted that Establishment feminists in the U.S, have lied, made fraudulent claims, and indulged in misandric fearmongering about (male-perpetrated) domestic violence. For instance, in a chapter of ''Who Stole Feminism'' entitled ''Noble Lies'', Hoffer Sommers shows how feminist women's groups were responsible for spreading the stigmatizing untruth that men commit more domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday than on any other day of the year. She also shows how feminist advocates mis-state, mis-interpret and manipulate domestic violence statistics to wildly exaggerate overall levels of male domestic violence, to grossly overstate serious forms of battery by men against women and to discredit credible studies that contradict feminist political-advocacy positions. Hoff-Sommers suggests that Establishment feminists use shocking falsehoods about domestic violence to create credulous fear of men among women, to further misandric feminist political ideologies, and to gain adherents to the feminist cause.<ref> Hoff-Sommers, C. "Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women", Touchstone, 1994, p 188-208.</ref>


I added the above section on establishment feminist fraud and fearmongering about domestic violence in mass media above the 'WHO' and 'Allegations' section because this is reverse sexist political, social, and legal fraud that influences false allegations on an individual basis. Therefore, it belongs above sex-specific content from feminists like that in WHO section because it speaks to the whole credibility of the movement. Clearly this section speaks to one of the most pressing aspects of domestic violence which is also noted in the sexist WHO section: "the task of documenting the magnitude of violence against women and producing reliable, comparative data to guide policy and monitor implementation has been exceedingly difficult". Therefore, this section on widespread feminist fraud and fearmongering and is needed to contextualize the feminist section that follows.

There are also ideological arguments made about what 'equity' or 'individualist' feminists and misandry researchers see as 'gender' feminist ideologies vis a vis domestic violence. These need to be shown somehow because anti-'patriarchial' political ideologies have no place in non-sexist articles unless we show misandric feminist ideologies for what they are: ugly, inane, and meanspirited reverse-sexist power plays. However, I will leave ideology to other editors for now.

There are also similar fraud and blatant bias accusations from Nathanson and Young in ''Spreading Misandry'' and ''Legalizing Misandry'' which could buttress this section as well.

In any case, I ask gender-feminist advocacy editors who are find this content disagreeble to consider Hoff-Sommers: "Sound public policy cannot be made without credible and trustworthy information. In promulgating sensational untruths, the gender feminists systematically diminish public trust". I welcome comments and suggestions on the section but I ask that upset editors respond with reasonable ideas rather than mere with mere meanspirited
mob reactions.] 02:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:I do not believe that your contribution to the article is appropriate for the topic "domestic violence". I believe we are giving undue weight to a non-notable view. Also the manner in which you presented the info is also not neutral. It takes sides, and states opinions as if they were truths. It does not allow "establishment feminism" to define itself in its own terms, but instead repeats what may or may not be a strawman picture of "feminism" as if it were the truth, and then presents the criticisms as if they were the truth. I think introducing the minority views critical of feminism into this article is not appropriate due to undue weight concerns, and borderline off topic. Please reconsider how you could introduce your content more neutrally, and present it in a manner that relates more to the topic "domestic violence" (or consider another article for it to go.)-] 02:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::Before you make notability a concern here, I ask that you read the chapter ''Noble Lies'' for yourself. It is an entire chapter directly dealing with feminist domestic violence frauds and nothing else. There are many notable views noted there from major newspapers, to credible domestic violence researchers, and many others. ] devotes a whole chapter to the topic and Hoff Sommers is certainly a notable critic of status quo feminism. Please note that EVERY sentence in this section relates DIRECTLY to domestic violence. Notability and relevance are certainly obvious here. Please be fair about NPOV especially since this article already contains status quo feminist POV that is unbalanced by any other POV's. Please use NPOV standards to include all POV's pro and con in this article.

::NO one gets to define themselves soley in their own terms unless they are Stalin, Hitler, or Mao. Hoff Sommers uses 'Establishment' and 'gender' feminist to denote feminists who follow the status quo ideologies within feminism. I attribute this term to Hoff Sommers but I will be glad to consider any reasonable terms you offer that make the same points. As for how establishment feminism defines itself that is public record as Hoff Sommers shows in Noble Lies using a Gloria Steinhem quote in the introduction. I will be glad to show some of these self-defining statements in the article but I was worried about brevity. What more can I do here to address your concerns? Again I ask that you check the source here before you react too strongly. There is no strawman here...Steinhem states the 'anti-patriarchal' status quo feminist position quite clearly.

::Minority views are always important especially when they contradict Establishment lies, fraud and falsehood. That is what our entire Western world is founded upon. Wiki's NPOV policy welcomes minority views. I clearly stated that Hoff-Sommers was a feminist whistleblower so there was no misunderstanding here. What is your real concern here?

::As for undue weight, when a mass movement resorts to lies, fraud, and fearmongering in the mass media ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE that is indeed important enough to be included in the article along side a host of other less weighty topics. What are your criteria for 'weight' in this article? Are you going to use a single standard for all content here?
::I will be glad to listen to SPECIFIC suggestions you have about tone or NPOV and I welcome you to add sourced POVs that oppose these POV's but to try to censor this content out of hand is exactly what Hoff-Sommers accuses 'gender' feminists of doing in Who Stole Feminism(Noble Lies). That is an ugly totalitarian tactic. I ask that you work with me to address your concerns rather than indulging in censorship of contradictory POV's. I will be glad to address any side-taking or 'truth-statement' issues with you as long as you use a single standard to assess the whole article. I also ask that you pull in other sources so that we can see what the other side(S) say about feminist fraud and fearmongering vis a vis domestic violence.] 03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is in part the choice of language. You are not providing information from a neutral point of view. You are advocating. You are not an umpire or commentator, but a participant in the scrimmage. Assuming the work described to be legitimate, one could have said something along the lines of "Criticism exists of the reporting of domestic violence situations, and it has been alleged by so-and-so that some data has been manipulated for political reasons ..." This is not what you are doing, however. When one uses certain words -- "fraud" outside a certain strictly law-related context -- "fearmongering" -- one should expect red flags to be raised. These words are freighted with a judgmental load inappropriate to a Misplaced Pages article. Quite frankly, when these things are encountered by a new or casual Misplaced Pages user, they cannot fail to raise doubts in the reader's mind about the neutrality and value of all Misplaced Pages content. There really is a way that this kind of content could be properly presented; but this just isn't it. Please note, this is not an article on "feminist fraud and fearmongering." It's an article on domestic violence; so other contributors should feel under no obligation to "pull in other sources so that we can see what the other side(S) say about feminist fraud and fearmongering vis a vis domestic violence." ] 13:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

:Ok I am fine with looking at the language as long as we don't try to whitewash a serious issue that affects how domestic violence is percieved and shown in the mass media. Hoff Sommers accuses mainstream feminists of lies, falsehood, and fraud vis a vis domestic violence reporting (and she also has a chapter on feminist rape fearmongering which is echoed in Media Studies prof Laura Kipnis' ''The Female Thing'' (2006)). These are Hoff Sommers words and I am accurately reflecting her content so I insist that we use language that accurately reflects the source shown here. However, I am quite willing to look at loaded language that is not central to the issue because I understand your concerns. I also am fine with pulling content that is not directly related to these issues such as the statment about feminists reasons for perpetrating such shocking falsehoods. As for other editors being under some sort of obligation that is your take on my suggestion but not my intent. I just offered Andrew a fairminded opening to pull in sources that show feminists are honest, plausible and unbiased vis a vis domestic violence reporting...and that's all. Hoff Sommers makes some accusations that are hard for many 'feminista' feminists to hear because they discredit the integrity of the whole mainstream movement. However, facts are facts so I ask that we use facts here rather than mainstream (or side stream!) mob rule. All editors can take issue with the facts Hoff Sommers presents using credible opposing facts. To depend on mainstream popularity contests in an encyclopedia is similar to the stupid and dangerous shoutouts we see our lieing politicians do day after day. Lets use credible content to build this article. I welcome your feedback especially since it is so specific and constructive. The changes you made or suggested I make to my content take us toward a better article. I am still concerned about the whitewashing of serious charges but I will try to incorporate the language you suggested as I continue to work with you all on the section. Thanks for being specific, constructive and civil here.
] 03:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a number of changes to cleanup this section, to address the issues above and to tighten the language to properly reflect the issue and source. However I imagine there might be a number of issues so I will address a few I can think of now. Please feel free to bring any additional concerns you have to my attention.

* There are quite a few of authors who have weighed in on feminist falsehoods...many offer just passing comments on feminist lies, falsehoods and fearmongering vis a vis rape or domestic violence but some like Hoff-Sommers have done in depth investigative work. I could pack this whole section with authors and I could bring in the ideological aspect of 'anti-patriachical' fearmongering but I chose to try to stick to the concrete issues here. If needed, I will expand this section to reflect the ideological superstitions that mainstream feminists use to show ALL men as dangerous domestic violence monsters.

*I used 'mainstream' rather than Establishment to reflect the majority of US feminists who take an ideological 'anti-patriarchal' gender-ginning political approach to feminism. Hoff Sommers uses Establishment or 'gender' feminist to denote these feminists as opposed to say 'equity' feminists (Hoff Sommers), 'individualist' feminists (McElroy) or whatever. Whatever name we use, a distinction must be made between majority feminists who spread domestic violence lies as part of an ideological agenda and other minority feminists who fight that very agenda and who often expose mainstream feminist lies about domestic violence (and many other issues as well).

*I focused the language to accurately reflect the deliberate forms of fraud (non-legal definition) that these feminists use to misrepresent domestic violence. For instance, where someone else used 'rumor' and Hoff Sommers used 'lie', or 'untruth', I used 'falsehood'. I insist that we use language equal to the assertions at hand despite the needs some political partisans might have to tone this language down. Otherwise, we risk falsehood in OUR reporting of the sources' content. To take issue with 'loaded' language is fine but to soften strong and accurate language is pejorative whitewashing. ] 04:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

==POV check: questionable statistics==

The content below contains many of the very kinds of false or misleading feminist political statistics that ] takes issue with in 'Who Stole Feminism (Noble Lies) as shown in the discussion above. Who has checked this content for outright lies, for fraud, and for reverse-sexist fearmongering? No statistics are credible unless they come from some sort of NPOV sources. Gender feminists are far from NPOV purveyors of statistics as they are always trying to make "the personal political" rather than merely reporting the facts. Where are credible summaries that take a non-partisan view of this very complex topic? Some of this content is merely false, misleading and shocking feminist political propaganda which has no place here. I added a POV tag to the article to reflect these realities.] 04:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Content in question:

''and same-sex violence tends to be less available.
At least one in three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime. ''

''In 1993 the World Bank reported that women aged between 15 and 44 "lose more Discounted Health Years of Life to rape and domestic violence than to breast cancer, cervical cancer, obstucted labour, heart disease, AIDS, respitory infections, motor vehicle accidents, or war. ''

''Recent attention to domestic violence began in the women's movement as concern about wives being beaten by their husbands, and has remained a major focus of modern feminism, particularly in terms of "violence against women". <ref> *] http://ssrn.com/abstract=959534 "Romance is Dead"] 2007. </ref> ''

''Popular emphasis has tended to be on women as the victims of domestic violence although with the rise of the ], and particularly ], there is now some advocacy for men as victims, although the statistics concerning the number of male victims given by them are strongly contested by many groups active in research on or working in the field of domestic violence and "violence against men".''

''Estimates are that only about a third of cases of domestic violence are actually reported in the US and UK. In other places with less attention and less support, reported cases would be still lower. ''

''Half the women who die from homicides are killed by their current or former husbands or partners. In the UK this is two women each week. In South Africa, a woman is killed by a husband or partner every six hours. ''

''Domestic violence occurs in all cultures; people of all races, ethnicities, religions, and classes can be perpetrators of domestic violence. Domestic violence is perpetrated by, and on, both men and women, and occurs in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. ''

''Awareness and documentation of domestic violence differs from country to country. According to the ], domestic violence is a serious, preventable public health problem affecting more than 32 million Americans, or more than 10% of the U.S. population (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). ''

''Domestic violence has many forms, including physical violence, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, intimidation, economic deprivation or threats of violence. There are a number of dimensions:
*mode - physical, psychological, sexual and/or social
*frequency - on/off, occasional, chronic
*severity – in terms of both psychological or physical harm and the need for treatment – transitory or permanent injury – mild, moderate, severe up to homicide.''

''The means used to measure domestic violence strongly influence the results found. For example, studies of reported domestic violence and extrapolations of those studies show women preponderantly as victims and men to be more violent, whereas the ] based ], tends to show men and women equally violent.''

''Since the majority of studies investigate male-on-female domestic violence, information on female-on-male and same-sex violence tends to be less available.''

:The statistics in question were just recently added to the lead. I feel that the lead is already pretty long and having seemingly random statistics thrown in breaks up the flow. So I have removed them because myself and 128.111.95.47 had issues with them. However, that doesn't mean that they can't be re-introduced later. We just need to discuss how they should be presented (or if they should at all). I disagree with 128.111.95.47 that we should remove content just because one writer has strong opinions on the matter. -] 14:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

::I agree with Andrew c. Furthermore, this article if rife with POV statements (or at least statements that need verifiable sources to support the statement...all views should be represented, but each view needs a verifiable source to support statements and especially to support cited statistics.) <font color="Green">]</font><sup>]</sup> 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If United Nations statistics are described as 'false feminist political statistics' or 'sexist fearmongering' and removed, can I ask how this article will ever achieve a neutrality free from anger or bias? It's emphasis on violence towards men, and representation of the women's rights movement as a conspiracy is really disturbing, and light years from neutral. I am at a loss to know how to improve it. Andrew - help? (````)

:It is a tough situation. I agree that 128.111.95.47's comments above are not a mainstream view. I also agree that there are still major issues with this article (see my ]). However, I do not believe the way to fix the article is to simply blank section or add statistics to the lead. We need to consider the final product. Having one or two sentences which present statistics thrown into the lead is problematic. We need the lead to be a concise introduction to the topic, and brief summary of the article. See ] for more details about lead sections. Also, improving, rewording, sourcing text is better than deleting large portions. I'm sorry that the revert of your edits has been discouraging, Fivestars. I believe that you are editing in good faith, and that you can contribute to this article. For the lead, consider what a lead should be according to our guidelines, and how it will read to our audience. Perhaps a solution would be creating a section on "prevalence of domestic violence" or maybe even a "statistics" section. I agree that the UN and government agencies are reliable sources, and that we shouldn't cater to criticism from minority views. Please feel free to take this all into consideration and try to improve the article some more (and I apologize now for my past reverts. It's normally better to improve and change new content, but its easier to just remove it. Content that violates policies (isn't neutral, isn't sourced, etc) is another issue.) -] 21:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all editors above for your thoughtful consideration of these reporting issues. In Who Stole Feminism (Noble Lies) Hoff Sommers refers to 2 sociologists who have been researching domestic violence for 25 years and who are considered the most credible researchers on the topic in the U.S. She mentions that they refuse to use feminist political ideologies as a foundation for their research which sometimes causes them to be at odds with the 'feminista'- feminist party line propaganda about domestic violence (please see Patia's ''Professing Feminism'', ], Hoff-Sommers, Phyllis Chessler or ] for feminist forms of 'fascism' or 'Stalinism' that destroy NPOV). To me, researchers LIKE these socialogists who summarize domestic violence from a non-ideological, non-politicized, non-misandric, non-reverse sexist POV would be the best source for credible data for this article. Could we find and agree on credible sources before we waste time debating statistics? (Please note that the UN has been hijacked in many ways by feminist ideologues and worldwide Women's movement political propagandists so I am loathe to trust UN statistics without a careful check of the sources) ] 03:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:If there is a question about a study or an approach to an issue, then the "Misplaced Pages way" is to have both/all views represented. If statements and statistics meet the Wikipeida standard of being ], then the material can be included. If other material disputes that statement or stats, then that material, with verifiable sources can be used. Some article have separate sections to present each approach in a NPOV manner. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 13:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

::When we are trying to show statistics on complex issues the very complexity of the task can make NPOV coverage very difficult in short articles like this one. For instance, the press often tried to take a balanced but idiotic 50-50 pro/con position on the SCIENTIFIC (science is no popularity contest!) truth or falsehood of Global Warming until some scientists did a study that showed that about 98% of all scientific studies on the topic showed that global warming was a reality and blamed mankind for global warming. We need some sort of similar NPOV studies (or at least reputable researchers with no political or ideological agendas) here to be able to report credible statistics in a realistic way.

::The wiki way maybe impossible when there are so many competing POV's with associated and often opposing statistics so we may have to try the scientific way with these statistics to be fair to all POV's. The wiki way allows a majority group to claim 2+2=5 and to get away with it. Clearly NPOV and verifiability are Necessary but not Sufficient conditions when we are trying to report FACTS reputably. I ask that we use reputable sources/institutions who survey the statistics rather than use ANY stats from agenda-driven ideologues on any side of the issue.

::As for statements (like say those in the Allegation section), as I said before I, for one, welcome statements from other points of view as long as they are fact based and non-pejorative. For instance to label Hoff Sommers an enemy of feminism or an 'anti-feminist' are false and misleading totalitarian tactics to avoid dealing with the issues she raises. Those tactics have no place here but anyone can and should counter her credible cases with other credible cases if available.

::In general statements about domestic violence statistics all I ask is that we check for political or ideological biases that cause reverse sexism, misandry or other biases that destroy the objectivity of the science. What we are trying to show are the facts about domestic violence here. NO group's political or ideological interests should be allowed to distort or damage the credibility of the statistics we present as facts and that includes Men's rights groups too. ] 18:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

:::So long as a verifiable source can be cited to support a claim tht a statistic or study has a bias. Remember, in Wiki we cannot do or include original research ] <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 18:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

== Sections on everything except "violence towards women" ==

Come on guys: this article is so far out of neutral or fair weighting it's pathetic. I look through the table of contents and there's not only no real mention there of violence towards women: there's a big section towards men (arguably based on statistics a much smaller and lower victim impact e.g. number of deaths of female from partner). There's also a chunk on feminist lies, but nothing on a section regarding violence towards women..
This needs to be rectified in a big way..

Some stats (again, not what this article is for directly, but given the current structure it's nowhere near correct weighting based on the real world). From how I read it (as a male) I feel like domestic shelters must be full of beaten husbands persecuted by their evil feminist wives.. Which I'm sorry to say doesn't match the statistics:
From:
<blockquote> <blockquote>
From 2010 to 2012, scholars of domestic violence from the U.S., Canada and the U.K. assembled The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge, a research database covering 1700 peer-reviewed studies, the largest of its kind. One of their findings is that 57.9% of IPV reported was bi-directional, 13.8% was unidirectional male to female and 28.3% was unidirectional female to male.<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150419110147/http://www.springerpub.com/media/springer-journals/FindingsAt-a-Glance.pdf|date=April 19, 2015}}, Sponsored by the Journal Partner Abuse, John Hamel, LCSW, Editor-in-Chief, www.springerpub.com/pa, November 2012</ref>
National

* 23% of all assaults recorded by the police are domestic abuse assaults (British Crime Survey 2000)<br/>
* Many studies have found that 1 woman in 4, at some stage in her life, experiences domestic abuse (the most recent shows a figure of 45% - British Crime Survey 2004)<br/>
* On average, 42% of female murder victims are killed by current or former partners (Criminal Statistics 2001) In the UK, an average of 2 women die per week due to domestic abuse (Home Office)<br/>
* Police reports, of those who call for help, breakdown as follows:<br/>
o 81% female victims attacked by male perpetrators<br/>
o 8% male victims attacked by female perpetrators<br/>
o 7% male victims attacked by male perpetrators<br/>
o 4% female victims attacked by female perpetrators<br/>
</blockquote> </blockquote>
My edit got reverted with the reason "''misleading way of presenting the study, since it doesn't address different degrees of violence between genders; it would be more informative, for example, to know the percent breakdown of men vs women murdered by their spouse/partner''", I don't see how is this related to the topic and why this should be a valid reason to revert the edit instead of integrating it. ] (]) 14:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
, (79% of attackers male, 25% of victims male)
:The reason why the wording of your edit is very misleading is that it suggests an equivalence between women-on-men violence and men-on-women violence (or even that there's more of the former), whereas in reality the men-on-women violent incidents tend to be much more serious. ] (]) 14:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
::The goal of the research was precisely to dismantle the false belief that domestic violence perpetrated by men is a more serious issue than that perpetrated by women. If you have data that can complement what the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge says to make it more clear we can integrate them into my edit. If you think the data I cited is false or misleading I ask you to explain why citing the sources. ] (]) 14:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
:::From the US National Institutes of Health


:::"According to the CDC, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men will experience physical violence by their intimate partner at some point during their lifetimes. About 1 in 3 women and nearly 1 in 6 men experience some form of sexual violence during their lifetimes. Intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking are high, with intimate partner violence occurring in over 10 million people each year.
So why does this article appear to have been written like the 79 or 81% should have been male victim attacked by female perpetrators..?
Now I'm all for recognising that there are male victims, but not at the expense of the majority female victims as there are limits to which "recognition" becomes "gross distortion". Can we insert a section on women to bring this article back from the brink. People's thoughts on what needs to be in that section.] 23:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


:::"One in 6 women and 1 in 19 men have experienced stalking during their lifetimes. The majority are stalked by someone they know. An intimate partner stalks about 6 in 10 female victims and 4 in 10 male victims.
== Adding a link under 'Articles' ==


:::"At least 5 million acts of domestic violence occur annually to women aged 18 years and older, with over 3 million involving men. While most events are minor, for example grabbing, shoving, pushing, slapping, and hitting, serious and sometimes fatal injuries do occur. Approximately 1.5 million intimate partner female rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated annually, and approximately 800,000 male assaults occur. About 1 in 5 women have experienced completed or attempted rape at some point in their lives. About 1% to 2% of men have experienced completed or attempted rape."
I work for the America's Most Wanted Safety Center, a new branch of America's Most Wanted getting away from the capturing of criminals, and branching out to all aspects of safety. I feel a link to our post about what parents should do to protect their teens against dating a violent partner would be appropriate and mutually beneficial. The link is http://www.amw.com/safety/?p=83 please consider it. Jrosenfe 13:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


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


:I am not Fab1can. While murder is certainly one aspect, there are plenty others like poisoning. Each of which would "favour" one party more than another. Having a simple unbiased "frequency" seems most apt. Don't you agree? ] (]) 19:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm here to solicit more opinions at ]. This article has been a to ] since late February (and before that, it was a redirect as well). The current article is simply a single sentence and a list of links. The single sentence is a questionable definition (why does violence against men have to be perpetrated by women?) and isn't supported by the source, which is about domestic violence. This article has no useful content, and the ] and ] articles are sufficient to serve the same purpose.


::No, because it equates a slap on the face with a bullet from a gun. ] (]) 00:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I believe part of the reason why some users want to create this article is because there is a ] article. However, we shouldn't necessarily cite "other crap" that exists on[REDACTED] for precedent. I also believe that the term "Violence against women" is much more notable than the term "violence against men". There is a UN resolution titled ''Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women'', the WHO has a fact sheet on "Violence against women", the US DoJ has an "Office on Violence against women". Can the same be said about "violence against men"? I guess the logic is that "men and women should be equal so if there is an article about women, there has to be a corresponding article about men". I believe this logic is faulty when this would cause us to give undue weight to a minority view.
:::So, you're against the very idea of crime rates:
:::https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country
:::No one states that they are equal, ever. People know this. ] (]) 09:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Are you going to mark https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate for deletion for being stupid according to you? Because others find it handy and useful. ] (]) 09:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)


::::All I'm saying is something very simple. Suppose, hypothetically, that the HOA of an apartment complex reported that "this month we had a very high incidence of domestic violence: 2 reports of men-on-women DV and 4 reports of women-on-men DV," to which people reacted with surprise that the women were twice as violent as the men. Suppose also that in the 4 women-on-men incidents she insulted him and slapped his face, and he was so angry at her that he reported it to the police as an assault; and suppose that the 2 men-on-women incidents were murders. Wouldn't you agree that people had been badly misled by the statistics? ] (]) 09:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
So, I would like to restore the redirect, but would appreciate more input. Thanks for your consideration.-] 17:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::> Wouldn't you agree that people had been badly misled by the statistics?
:::::We should add a warning/clarification, because I know and agree with you that some fraction of people people will misinterpret it. Would you agree then? ] (]) 16:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry, no. The point is that the statistic is meaningless unless you know how either figure splits among different levels of violence, ranging from a slap on the face to murder, with many possibilities in between. There's no reason to think that the proportions will be the same in men-on-women violance as in women-on-men violence. If we have to put in an explanation to the readers of why the statistic is meaningless, then why have it (see )? ] (]) 17:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::> If we have to put in an explanation to the readers of why the statistic is meaningless
:::::::No! It is very far from meaningless! It might be meaningless to you, but not to others. The issue you have is that the source does not give you enough information, but more detailed sources exist. ] (]) 17:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Are you going to say something or are you going to block this forever? ] (]) 17:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Good - you say "{{tq|but more detailed sources exist}}". As I already said, a reliable source that gave detailed stats about partner violence disaggregated according to level of violence would be meaningful, because it could not be so easily misunderstood and misused. If you've found such sources, we could resolve this issue. ] (]) 09:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::An objective "level of violence" does not exist afaik.e.g. how much more violent is a punch compared to a kick? Multiple people believe that an aggregated summary is beneficial to their understanding.
:::::::::If you want to we can add the FBI numbers next to it because they are extraordinarily contradictory IF you ignore reporting bias and sexism.
:::::::::If I quote the source about which we're talking:
:::::::::"Data gather from a variety of other sources stand in stark contradiction to this assertion; lead some to argue that crime surveys because of their context are likely to significantly underestimate the overal rate of domestic violence assault while excessively minimizing the rates of assaults that are perpetrated by women compared to men."
:::::::::Thus the type of source you wish for can sadly not be accurately used for disaggregation. ] (]) 19:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


== Changing the lead image ==
:I suggest keeping the page. Look at this article (albeit, it's a huge mess in dire need of cleanup). But, there is a section on violence against men. Why don't we copy material (which has references) from here to there. There's plenty more to say. I'm not sure about whether to call it "Domestic violence against men" or just "Violence against men". I'm leaning towards "Violence against men" - seems to be the preferred term in scholarly literature. --] <small>(])</small> 19:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


It seems to me that we should change the lead image, as a purple ribbon doesn't actually convey any information about the subject matter, explicitly or otherwise.
::The current article is one sentence and a bunch of links. It serves no purpose. I feel a redirect can easily guide a user who searches for that term to an article with similar content. Maybe one day we can write a decent, sourced, neutral article on the topic, and I understand that you have interest in doing that, but since that hasn't happened, would you support the redirect until someone can write a more substantial article? (I also have my doubts on how substantial an article on that topic would be, noting article ''Although violence against men by women and between same-sex partners are important issues, presently there are too few original research articles with this focus to warrant a systematic review of these topics.'' On pubmed, the term "violence against women" gets 948 hits, while "violence against men" gets 0.) I did find a good German study on this topic about a pilot study of 266 men. However, I believe the topic is too scattered and broad for us to have a cohesive encyclopedia article on the topic. Regardless of my opinion on that, I think a redirect would be superior to the current article for now.


It's a symbol, rather than a representation. A Misplaced Pages reader is accessing articles to learn about the subject matter. The image should tell them something about the subject matter. ] introduces the concept of lead images as follows: "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." This is not a representative image and does not give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.
::Next, I strongly object to an article "domestic violence against men" because we do not have a "domestic violence against women" article (I'm not basing this on notions of gender equality, but on wikipedia's undue weight guidelines). DV against women is more prevalent in reported incidents, gets much more media and research attention, and is thusly more notable than DV against men, such that if we were to create an article "DV against men", we would be giving undue weight to the minority. The way I see content forking is we write an article on a topic until that article gets too big. Then we decide where might be some logical places to divide the article up. For this article, child abuse is a notable enough subtopic that it clearly is a good place to fork out content. I'm not sure if we need to split up the article based on gender (and if we do, we should give the more notable topic, not the less notable topic, an article if not both). There was once a ] article, but I proposed a merge with this article which was completed back in November. -] 20:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


It's just an image of a ribbon that some people have decided to adopt as a symbol of solidarity for domestic abuse victims, though at least as many have used it to stand with the victims of pancreatic cancer, and still more have used to raise awareness of Alzheimer's. The article for ] lists eleven causes this shade of purple is used to raise awareness of, and another seven that use various other shades of purple. As such, I don't think it is a "natural and appropriate representation of the topic," and it does not "illustrate the topic specifically", which is the core requirement in ].
:::Okay, I see now where the section came from. A redirect to ] would be okay. --] <small>(])</small> 20:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


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

I'm not pleased with how the article is presently, with so many cleanup tags and problems. The article is an important one, since like most Misplaced Pages articles, it returns highly in Google searches. That being the case, I have intentions of getting this cleaned up and at least up to ] status, if not someday a ]. Not easy, and not going to be quick. But, I have started gathering material in my ], some of which can be worked into this article. What's in my sandbox is largely biased (at least the statistics) towards U.S.-based sources, so that's something that needs to be rectified. A more global perspective is needed, including talking about how domestic violence is viewed in different cultures. I'll also look through everything currently in the article, try to find sources and make sure everything fits together appropriately. --] <small>(])</small> 19:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

==Reference formatting==
Would anyone object to converting references such as "Johnson (1995, 2006b)" into standard ] citations? It would help make the references consistent throughout the article. --] <small>(])</small> 20:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

==Domestic violence during pregnancy==
I'm okay with merging this into this article. --] <small>(])</small> 20:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


== "Newcomer Questions" ==
I made a mistake in footnote 36. It's now spelled properly but still not clickable. Please, correct this for me. Please, help me encourage NPOV. I seem to have read contributions here, which cannot necessarily be concluded from their source pages, even some cases where the source refutes the conclusion. I also see many accusations of misandry and misogyny that may also be unsubstantiated. This troubles me. What I see clearly is both more reported incidences & more murders of domestic partners perpetuated by men on women. I would like to find research on 'domestic partner'-induced suicide and homosexual, intersexed, and other less globally publically common partnerships.
] 18:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:Fixed. You had "http:/" instead of "http://".-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 20:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
::for the fix. ] 22:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Studies now show that what is claimed here, is not true:

"These theories that women are as violent as men have been dubbed "Gender Symmetry" theories and have been examined by Dr. Michael Kimmel of the State University of New York at Stony Brook, who found little or no support for them. "

I suggest:

"In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases."

Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941

] 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

:Whoah! I'm not saying that women or men are more violent. I think violence against women is detestable, widespread, and even state-sponsorred in several parts of the world. This is a problem that needs to be tackled. I similarly despise violence against men. There is some research out there about w->m but being so poorly noted, I think a lot of it is published by sources that are clearly misogynistic or mysandristic. Even sources that have minimal bias are often distorted before being presented elsewhere. Please, also note that I said ''reported'' incidences... and that I believe archives of reported violence strongly back me up here. There seems to be a great lack of reporting for both m->w violence and w->m violence. I believe that w->m violence is probably more underreported. This means, like I said, I made no claim as to which type is more prevalent and even feel current research is so ambiguous, I should not definitely conclude either way. I do want to see more articles for both arguments as well as reports about sexual minorities as well as ''partner-induced'' emotional & physical harm and suicide, which might actually be murder or similar to murder. As it stands, on the specific count of reported m->w v. w->m murder, which I believe is pretty accurate and far less underrported, I still believe archives back me up that m->w murder is more prevalent and that women that were murdered were quite likely murdered by their former/ potential/ contemporary partners. You may be quite right &mdash I haven't read your source yet. From what I have seen directly from people involved in the specific case of nonreciprocally violent relationships, men ''are'' more often the victims. I have however read quite a few reports and seen many incidents to back up that most relationships with violence ''are'' reciprocal. That's why I think it's the weighting of the violence that is so important and I still believe that archives show that as far as serious physical violence goes, m->w is more reported. Once again, the issue of gross underreporting rears its ugly head. In essence, I believe that w->m violence is possibly more prevalent but our insufficient reports bear that m->w yields more physically-caused serious or critical health stati as well as deaths, that the jury is still out on emotionally caused damage, and we need to ensure as much as possible that all serious violence is reported &mdash physical or emotional. I hope I've cleared up my views and reasons and that what I claimed is true and verifiable. --] 06:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know why "Domestic Disturbance" redirects here? I came to Misplaced Pages to try and research what a Domestic Disturbance is, how it differs from other civil disturbances, whether or not it constitutes an actual crime, stuff like that. I'm just interested in finding out the literal and legal meaning of the noun "Domestic Disturbance," as used by police. I'm not researching the social issues that lead to the events that lead to someone calling the police and reporting a Domestic Disturbance. That would be like "Tornado" re-directing to "Cold fronts," or "Suffocation" re-directing to "Plastic Bags." The very act of re-directing implies cause-and-effect, which is editorializing. But more to the point, Misplaced Pages doesn't contain the simple factual information I was trying to look up. I'm guessing there used to be an article on Domestic Disturbances, but it got deleted. Why? I just want to know what a Domestic Disturbance is.
--] 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
==The Mens Violence area of Misplaced Pages is a white-wash==
Some "ideas" in that area are written by the Domestic Violence Industry, using weasal words.
Men suffer equally with women as far as DV is concerned, most authorities never hold statistics of guys that get beaten up by thier wives/partners, mainly because, Men don't matter anymore, it's all WOMEN.] 05:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

===You are right, and we are going to fix it. Numerous academic studies have shown that the violence rates for women and men are nearly EQUAL. Both kinds of violence are wrong, and this radically feminist POV article needs to be reworked. ] 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

There is only one member that seems to have a problem with anyone adding anything 'He doesn't like' and that is Andrew c. I've seen over the course of some weeks now, this Wikipedian reverting any edits that a) he doesn't agree to - and b) anyone adding anything about Male victims of female-perpatrated domestic violence and violence against men. I cannot understand (this member being male) why he would act in this way. He seems to be the main culperate for the Radically Feminist POV in this article. Maybe we can work with him to build an article that isn't so Bias? --] 11:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for ]. If you have a problem with me, or any of my edits, you are welcome to contact me personally on my talk page, but please don't ] me here. Article talk pages are for discussing article content and improvements. Feel free to raise your concerns with the article and make proposals here.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 13:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

== WorldWide view not! ==

I think this article is too American centric in that it takes an unequivocal stance against domestic violence. In most of the rest of the world, especially in Latin America, what is called "domestic violence" is not considered wrong at all. It is only wrong when women dont know their place in society really. I shall be starting a wiki project and editor's study group to make change to the article thank you. ] 14:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

== Women as violent in lead (or problems with latest edits by anon) ==

We have a whole section which discusses the issue of whether women or men are as violent. There are two sides to the issue, yet the latest edits states one side's findings as facts, while ignoring the other side completely (this violates NPOV). I also think it is problematic that we are including information in the lead that isn't even found in the "Men or women as violent" section. Also, there are some major errors in the edits, which I will now go through.
*''but empirical studies consistently show that women are more violent than men in domestic relationships''
:This simply isn't true. According to Michael Kimmel "Despite perhaps several thousand studies that report the preponderance of domestic violence to be perpetuated by males against females, there are also nearly 100 empirical studies or reports that suggest that rates of domestic violence are equivalent (see, for example, Archer, 2000, and Fiebert, 1997.)" I take issue with the way this edit is phrased because it suggests that the 100 or so studies on one side are more important than the several thousand on the other side.
*''Some feminists suggest that it is sexist to deny that women are more violent than men.''
:This is very misleading because it takes one study and weasels that into "some feminists. On top of that, the study was looking at aggression, not violence. Equating the two is inappropriate, and the paper didn't deal with domestic violence so associating it with domestic violence is original research.
*''Nearly a hundred scholarly articles, with an aggregate sample size of over 40,000, agree that in domestic relationships, women are more violent than men.''
:This by itself is original research. The way we present it further down in the "Men or women as violent" section is much more neutral. ''Martin S. Fiebert of the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach, provides an analysis of 195 scholarly investigations: 152 empirical studies and 43 analyses, which he believes demonstrate women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men.'' The way the recent edit made it seem was that Fiebert's findings were The Truth, and we don't even attribute his analysis to the claims.

The rest of the recent edits cherry pick data and sources to state controversial findings as facts. I think the manner in which we cite sums up my concerns. Look at the statements that citation 17 (in ) is used to support, then read the abstract of the study. It is also extremely misleading to focus on the self-reporting studies, but not mention the incidents reported to police, hospitals, and social service agencies which puts women as victims much more frequently. For all of these reasons, I am going to revert the latest edits. Please, let's start start a dialogue here on talk and work towards improving the article to account for all points of views, and make sure we are not giving undue weight to minority views.-]&nbsp;</sup>]] 01:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

== pic ==

that pic has no place on this page. it is possibly staged and even if it wasn't it is quite fucking disgusting! ] (]) 01:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

==Sections removed==
===Allegations of feminist misrepresentation===
This has been in the article for 6+ months, or up to a year. I really do not think this is encyclopedic and belongs in the article. If anyone has ideas on salvaging this, please say so. Otherwise, let's just leave this section out. --] <small>(])</small> 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

<blockquote>
{{POV-section|date=December 2007}}
Some authors critical of mainstream feminism in the U.S., such as ], ], ] and others have claimed that these feminists have misrepresented male-perpetrated domestic violence for pejorative political purposes. For instance, in a chapter of ''Who Stole Feminism'' entitled ''Noble Lies'', Hoff Sommers wrote that mainstream feminist women's groups were responsible for spreading the falsehood that men commit more domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday than on any other day of the year. She also alleged that feminist advocates mis-state, misinterpret, and otherwise manipulate domestic violence statistics to inflate overall levels of male-perpetrated domestic violence, to exaggerate dangerous domestic violence and to show that domestic violence is increasing despite evidence of its decline. <ref> Hoff-Sommers, C. "Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women", Touchstone, 1994, p 188-208.</ref>
</blockquote>

===Domestic violence in popular culture===
This section also needs to be reworked or perhaps not needed at all. This has been in the article for over a year, with tags. Really, I would like this article to become a ] and even a ] someday. This section won't cut it, and the list is not needed. Maybe something new on popular culture, or reworked, but section does not belong. If anyone has ideas, please say so. Otherwise, let's just leave this section out. --] <small>(])</small> 17:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

<blockquote>
{{POV-section|date=December 2007}}

===Abusive men in the news media ===
] and illustrations by ]. ]]

The news media finds it difficult to maintain neutrality in reporting or editorialising on violence.{{Fact|date=March 2007}}. Indeed, since many are "for profit" organizations, the selection of material to report and the prominence accorded to the coverage ] the readership's response and is intended to increase sales or advertising revenues rather than perform an altruistic social education function (see Scheufele: 1999 and 2000). The central organizing idea or narrative of story lines provides meaning to the events described and clusters ideas that guide the individuals as they process the information. Murnen (2002) points to the patriarchal structure of the management of commercial publishing, both fiction and non-fiction, television and cinema production, and the music, games, and advertising industries, all of which are reinforced by the continuing male dominance of political, economic, and legal resources. Men control the content and masculine ideology infuses the communication process, pandering to the relevant market niches and their prejudices to maximise sales revenues. Thus, themes of violent behavior are often portrayed in an uncritical style which reinforces stereotypes and may appear to condone the use of violence in certain specific situations. Sexual relationships are characteristically depicted in terms of the power disparities arising from physical strength: disparities that contribute to women's vulnerability to male authority (Dixon-Mueller: 1993). Social scientists now argue that aggression in the real world is socially learned behavior and results from cultural influences. For example, Reiss (1986) found that in rape-prone societies there was more endorsement of a "macho personality" (e.g. acceptance of physical aggression and of high risk-taking, casual attitudes toward sex) and more agreement with belief in the inferiority of females. Gerbner and Gross (1976) hypothesize that heavy viewers of media will begin to perceive the world as reflective of the worlds they view on television and in the media. Cultivation theory (see Gerbner et al: 1973) examines "the continual, dynamic, ongoing process of interaction among messages and contexts" and identifies the most recurrent, stable, and overarching patterns in media content. In repetitively viewing these recurrent patterns and images, the reader/viewer begins to accept the images as reality. Thus, media coverage frames the debate about the social acceptability of domestic violence in general and of the behavior of some individuals in particular, and may directly influence the real-world behavior in "ordinary" relationships.

===In film===
*''] & ]'' psychological abuse
*'']'' (1984)
*'']'' (1985)
*'']'' (1989)
*'']'' (1990) book and ]
*'']'' (1991) starring ]
*'']'' (1991), filmed as '']''
*'']'', story of Ike and Tina Turner
*'']'' (1993)
*'']'' (1993), novel and ]
*'']'' (1993)
*'']'' (1995)
*'']'' (1998)
*'']'' (1999)
*'']'' (2002)
*'']'' (2003)
*'']'' (2005)
*'']'' (2006)
*'']'' (2007)
*'']'' (2007)
</blockquote>

==Another section==
This is from the "Treatment and support" section. This material has been uncited for quite some time. There may be some things worth salvaging here, though. But, I think this should be taken out of the article for now, with that section re-done and anything here that can be salvaged, to be put back. --] <small>(])</small> 21:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

<blockquote>
Publicly available resources for dealing with domestic violence have tended to be almost exclusively geared towards supporting women and children who are in relationships with or who are leaving violent men, rather than for survivors of domestic violence ''per se''. This has been due to the purported numeric preponderance of female victims and the perception that domestic violence only affected women. Resources to help men who have been using violence take responsibility for and stop their use of violence, such as Men's Behaviour Change Programs or ] training, are available, though attendees are ordered to pay for their own course in order that they should remain accountable for their actions.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} <br/>

Men's organizations, such as ManKind in the UK, often see this approach as one-sided; as Report 191 by the British Home Office shows that men and women are equally culpable, they believe that there should be anger management courses for women also. They accuse organisations such as Women's Aid of bias in this respect saying that they spend millions of pounds on helping female victims of domestic violence and yet nothing on female perpetrators. These same men's organisations claim that before such help is given to female perpetrators, Women's Aid would have to admit that women are violent in the home. This they seem reluctant to do.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} (POV-check)<br/>

One of the challenges for lay observers, victims, perpetrators and treatment providers is demonstrated by the tendency to describe perpetrator treatment as men's "anger management" groups. <br/>

Comprehensive and accountable behaviour change programs are seen as far more appropriate and effective interventions in male violence in the home than anger management groups.{{Fact|date=February 2007}} <br/>

Inherent in anger management only approaches is the assumption that the violence is a result of a loss of control over one's anger. While there is little doubt that some domestic violence ''is'' about the loss of control, the choice of the target of that violence may be of greater significance. Anger management might be appropriate for the individual who lashes out indiscriminately when angry towards co-workers, supervisors or family. In most cases, however, the domestic violence perpetrator lashes out ''only'' at their intimate partner or relatively defenseless child, which suggests an element of choice or selection that, in turn, suggests a different or additional motivation beyond simple anger. Most experienced treatment providers have probably observed that for various reasons, many of which may be cultural, the perpetrator has a sense of entitlement, sometimes conscious, sometimes not, that leads directly to their choice of target.{{Fact|date=March 2007}}<br/>

Men's behaviour change programs, although differing throughout the world, tend to focus on the prevention of further violence within the family and the safety of women and children. Often they abide by various standards of practise that includes 'partner contact' where the participants female partner is contacted by the program and informed about the course, checked about her level of safety and support and offered support services for herself if she requires them. Many of these programs have both a male and female facilitator and follow a program designed to highlight the impact of his behaviour, examine the attitudes, values and behaviours that lead to his choice to use violence and aim to support and challenge the man to take responsibility for his use of violence.{{Fact|date=February 2007}}<br/>

</blockquote>

==Public opinion and perception==
I'm not sure this section is suitable for the article, and these references the best ones for public opinion. We might find other sources that are even more ] and worth including instead. And, to include mention of public opinion in the victimization section. --] <small>(])</small> 21:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

<blockquote>
A survey in July and August 2006 of 2500 adults, males and females, 18 years of age or older, in the continental United States produced finding as per below. This survey was conducted by ] and ] and funded by ] and ]

"When asked to define what actions comprise domestic violence and abuse, 2 in 5 Americans (40%) did not even mention hitting, slapping and punching. Over 90% of Americans failed to define repeated emotional, verbal, sexual abuse and controlling behaviors as patterns of domestic violence and abuse. The survey concluded: "When they can identify domestic abuse, Americans will act". <ref></ref>
</blockquote>


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


That the ribbon is an "internationally recognized symbol of solidarity with victims of domestic violence and a call to action to end this violence" is persuasive but not dispositive; in light of all the other issues presented I think the image should be moved down even if this is the case. And, again, a "call to action" runs contrary to ], so, while we can lead with an image constituting one if it provides visual information about the topic, the call to action cannot be coming from us as editors, and I'd be especially concerned if that was part of the case for it.
The link which is today reference 23 (cited multiple times in the article) as "Intimate partners violence factsheet" from Centres for disease control leads to a "page not found" at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm. Digging around the site, there's a factsheet "Understanding Intimate Partner Violence", 2006, at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/ipv_factsheet.pdf but I don't know whether it's the same document or not. Someone more familiar with the article, or the previous incarnation of the factsheet, might like to confirm whether it's the same doc and amend the ref, or do whatever else is needed. ] (]) 23:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


Again, this is an absurd, overpunctilious, legalistic point that's predicated on notions of objectivity rather than anything about the subject matter itself. (Domestic violence IS bad.) But I do think we should move the ribbon into the body, and replace it with a representation, but nothing too graphic or evocative as per ].
Do you know something, I won't even bother editing this article anymore - not is it just pro-feminist - but getting threats from Andrew C, makes me non willing to contribute to this article further, if this is how this person treats people trying to help then it's appalling i'm sorry. --] (]) 17:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
] (]) 18:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:38, 14 December 2024

The Wikimedia Foundation's Trust and Safety team maintains a list of crisis support resources.
If you see a threat of harm on Misplaced Pages, please follow these steps.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Domestic violence article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months 
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIESThis article is subject to discretionary sanctions; any editor who repeatedly or egregiously fails to adhere to applicable policies may be blocked, topic-banned, or otherwise restricted. Note also that editors on this article are subject to a limit of one revert per 24 hours (with exceptions for vandalism or BLP violations). Violation may result in blocks without further warning. Enforcement should be requested at WP:AE.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Former featured article candidateDomestic violence is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconPsychology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSociology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSystems: Systems psychology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the field of Systems psychology.
WikiProject iconFeminism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconFamily and relationships (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships
WikiProject iconGenealogy Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
[REDACTED] South Africa: PSP SA Mid‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Misplaced Pages Primary School project.
WikiProject iconDeath Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Domestic violence.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

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

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

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

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

Including numbers of male victimisation

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

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

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

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

Domestic violence of physical abuse

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

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

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

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

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

Partner Abuse State of Knowledge data about gendered violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing the lead image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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