Jump to content

Talk:Domestic violence: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot (v1.6.1) (Feminist)
Jayx80 (talk | contribs)
201 edits
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 173: Line 173:


[[User:Jayx80|Jayx80]], I've warned you about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domestic_violence&diff=815165102&oldid=814841012 this] type of editing more than once. And I did so [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape&oldid=814124651#Statistics extensively] at [[Talk:Rape]]. And yet you are still doing it. '''Do not add in words/terms that are not supported by the sources'''. How difficult is that for you to do? At this, point, I have no doubt that I will eventually be reporting you at [[WP:ANI]]. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domestic_violence&diff=815222275&oldid=815167738 reverted] your latest add-ins, including that lone study (followup note [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domestic_violence&diff=815222499&oldid=815222275 here]). To [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miscarriage&diff=815170752&oldid=815168528 quote] [[User:Doc James|Doc James]] (at the [[Miscarriage]] article, where you also tried to add the study), "Please use secondary sources." [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 14:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
[[User:Jayx80|Jayx80]], I've warned you about [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domestic_violence&diff=815165102&oldid=814841012 this] type of editing more than once. And I did so [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rape&oldid=814124651#Statistics extensively] at [[Talk:Rape]]. And yet you are still doing it. '''Do not add in words/terms that are not supported by the sources'''. How difficult is that for you to do? At this, point, I have no doubt that I will eventually be reporting you at [[WP:ANI]]. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domestic_violence&diff=815222275&oldid=815167738 reverted] your latest add-ins, including that lone study (followup note [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Domestic_violence&diff=815222499&oldid=815222275 here]). To [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miscarriage&diff=815170752&oldid=815168528 quote] [[User:Doc James|Doc James]] (at the [[Miscarriage]] article, where you also tried to add the study), "Please use secondary sources." [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 14:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. I am just going to refrain from editing until I have taken plenty of time to make sure I thoroughly understand Wikipedia's rules/guidelines. I thought I had a good understanding of them but I guess not.

May I just ask you if an edit is appropriate before I make one next time?
[[User:Jayx80|Jayx80]] ([[User talk:Jayx80|talk]]) 19:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
== External links modified ==

Revision as of 19:03, 29 December 2017

Template:Vital article

Former featured article candidateDomestic violence is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 4, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted

Template:Men's rights article probation (portions)


Factor: education-difference between spouses

I read an abstract once of a study saying women with higher education married to men with lower education than them had higher risk of being abused. Does anyone happen to have the citation of this? (I know the reverse seems to be the case in Bangladesh[1], so presumably there's some confounding factor here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwibird (talk • contribs) 08:03, 24 February 2009‎ (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I found it. Martin (2007)[2] , cites Johnson (2003)[3] as saying that "women with higher education were at greater risk of being physically and sexually assaulted by their partners", although other studies have also shown that unemployed women are at higher risk of marital rape, not sure how to interpret all this. (Martin 2007 seems to be a very good review.)

References

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The review also found that IPV mediated the satisfaction of the relationship for women but not for men

"The review also found that IPV mediated the satisfaction of the relationship for women but not for men".. What does this statement mean?

If it is suggesting that a study undertaken by specialists in dealing with male perpetrators of domestic violence reports no change in the male perpetrator's satisfaction of their relationship, then maybe it makes some sense, somehow.. maybe abusive males neither happy nor unhappy about being abusive..

However, from what I gather, that's not what they mean. If they actually studied, and took seriously, cases where female perpetrators abuse male victims, and actually concluded "this does not mediate their satisfaction of their relationship" then I have even more disgust for the researchers who work in this field. The self identified feminists who conducted this study, publishing it in the journal run by more self identifying feminists, tells the men of the world "You don't feel pain like we do, or.. AT ALL. You won't even care when women do it, as we have discovered it cannot be a problem in any of your relationships. Relationship satisfaction is guaranteed, regardless of whether you suffer at the hands (and mouth) of an abusive woman.".. is this really what it means? If so, how do these people get paid to write this totally biased drivel? Perhaps they could look outside their specialism, and actually include cases where there IS clearly a female perpetrator before reporting on the effects of it.. if their first instinct wasn't to try to hide this abuse? Ask ANYONE affected by IPV, and then tell them "but we did a review, and your sex doesn't mind about this", anyone can see that is clearly partisan stat fudging (and abuse hiding), by the myriad of ways available in this kind of research. This would be the equivalent of Mens Rights activists (at the height of any western "patriarchy", with vast areas of research funding going into mens studies, gender studies courses all run by men, plus an industry of powerful men's only support groups and lobbies).. doing a study on suicide, finding (unsurprisingly) that men commit suicide more often, and then reporting "having suicidal thoughts was found to mediate life satisfaction for men, but not for women", and then going on to justify even more underfunding, and victim blaming for women with suicidal thoughts. Every single man I have known, affected by IPV, has had his LIFE destroyed by it, and the long forgotten about "relationship satisfaction" at -10, along with struggling to even talk about it whatsoever, especially to a feminist researcher looking for every opportunity to excuse his partners behaviour to him. Perhaps they just want to tell themselves that their husband/partner still loves them? How is this not career suicide? Can't they see what they look like to people in the real world outside their echo chamber? At every glance, feminist slanted researchers are toxic, in attempting to solve one problem, they create (and hide) another while working to unhide the issues they see women face, full of contradictions "men and women are the same.. except where we say they're not", and attempting to "smash patriarchy" by creating the ideological opposite. Maybe this is "original research".. but go and ask a man that has been abused by a partner, or ask a friend of a friend if you know he won't say because he likely won't talk about it, how it affected his "relationship satisfaction".

I suggest removing this as it is biased, by definition. They have not sufficiently researched males that have suffered IPV if their "relationship satisfaction" is unaffected.

If this is not the meaning, and it was the first meaning I suggested, then that meaning instead should be explained e.g. "Men suffering IPV have not had their relationship satisfaction studied".. (and guess what they would report..)188.29.164.247 (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coercive control the main tenet of domestic abuse

I tweaked the definition to accurately reflect what DV scholars define as battering. IPV is a broad term that can include battering and Common Couple Violence (IPV without the presence of control).

From Johnson, a primary DV scholar: "We would agree that "domestic violence" or "battering" as it is generally understood by professionals and by the public is primarily a problem of heterosexual male control of women partners. Nonetheless, battering does happen in gay male couples and in lesbian couples, and some heterosexual women do physically assault their male partners and there are forms of partner violence that are quite different from the systematic violence that we call battering." - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00948.x/full

Johnson makes the distinction between domestic violence and IPV clear. 

Jayx80 (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I rolled it back because you did not add sources to the changes. It is not enough to add it here on talk, they need to be added to te article. Additionally, legally there is no distinction and the lede may need revision to reflect that there are different working definitions in different academic disciplines. Also, I see you are a new editor so please review WP:MINOR, you have marked as minor some edits which are not minor. Seraphim System (talk) 11:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for explaining. Jayx80 (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayx80, I reverted you here (followup note here) because we should not be basing the definition on one or few authors' definitions (meaning when their definition is not the general definition), the lead paragraph is already big enough and does not need to be bloated further, and because domestic violence is not always about control. Sometimes it is purely about anger, frustration or self-defense. As for Johnson making a distinction between domestic violence and IPV, many others sources do not. The vast majority of the domestic violence literature treats domestic violence and intimate partner violence (IPV) as one and the same, which is why we note in the "Etymology and definitions" section that the terms are often used synonymously, and is why this article is mostly about IPV, and is why there have been talks of merging the Domestic violence and Intimate partner violence articles. For previous discussions on the matter, see Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 5#Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title) and this section. The term domestic violence certainly does not refer solely to violence among romantic couples, or specifically romantic heterosexual couples, and I don't think Johnson was stating so by noting that domestic violence is "primarily a problem of heterosexual male control of women partners." The rest of his comment clarifies that. And we should not be stating that "Johnson makes the distinction between domestic violence and IPV clear." unless he explicitly states so. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit (followup note here), I removed "battering" from the lead, which is what I'd been considering doing for sometime, since it's commonly associated with "wife battering" and "wife beating," which are outdated terms, as noted in the "Etymology and definitions" section. Battering also does not redirect here. So there is no "it redirects here" argument for it in terms of WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 Reborn The problem is that not all violence is abuse, and when professionals or scholars talk about domestic violence, they mean battering, which Coercive Control is the primary feature. See Gelles, Bancroft, etc. Random violence within an intimate relationship is not abuse unless there is control. This is not disputed by any violence scholar. And the public is already terribly misinformed as to what constitutes abuse.

Scholars still use the term battering to refer to domestic abuse. I think this still needs to be kept. Batterer Intervention Programs still use such terms. Jayx80 (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayx80, what you cite as a problem is not a problem. The fact of the matter is...."domestic violence" and "domestic abuse" are synonyms. I can provide a number of reliable sources showing (explicitly stating) this to be the case. What reliable sources do you have explicitly stating that domestic violence is not domestic abuse? Notice that I stated "explicitly," meaning not subject to your interpretation. You stated that "when professionals or scholars talk about domestic violence, they mean battering." The literature shows otherwise. We have a sourced "Etymology and definitions" section that states otherwise. "Battering" (which, again, is an outdated term) is one form of domestic violence, as the sourced section states. We give more weight to what the literature generally states, not to what one or a few scholars state. Yes, when professionals or scholars talk about domestic violence, they are most commonly talking about intimate partner violence; the same goes for domestic abuse (one of its synonyms). I noted this above -- that the domestic violence/domestic abuse literature is mostly about intimate partner violence, which is why there was talk of merging the Intimate partner violence article with this one. Also take the time to read some of the Violence article and some of its sources. "Violence" is a broad term that most certainly includes abuse. Furthermore, to many, all violence is abuse, but not all abuse is violence.
And, remember, there is no need to ping me to this talk page since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm licensed and work in this field. Professionals still use the term 'battering' to refer to the abuse featuring fear and Coercive Control. That is the most lethal and the one demanding the most immediate attention. The clinical definition of abuse requires a pattern of control or fear. Violence is not automatically abuse. Plenty of mental illnesses/substances can increase a person's potential to be reactively violent when triggered due to the amygdala dysregulation of emotions. PTSD and BPD are two. Only those who do not understand victimology or the effects of battering think otherwise, and they are in the minority of professionals. The past 30+ years of research shows us that a main part of Battered Persons Syndrome (ie being a battered victim) includes using violence to resist Coercive Control/fight back against an abuser. Have you read the battering literature? It says this. "Emotional abuse is any nonphysical behavior or attitude that is designed to control, subdue, punish, or isolate another person through the use of humiliation or fear (Engel, 2002)." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3876290/ Victims frequently use violence to resist their batterers abuse. There is no such thing as "mutual abuse". Victims are not also abusers when they use violence. Abuse is one-way. It's referred to as 'mutual combat' or 'mutual IPV' etc when two partners use violence but there is no clear battered victim/batterer dynamic involved. "...mutual battering is dismissed by a majority of research as a myth." - 

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0886260504268762

The Dept of Justice defines domestic abuse in such a way: "a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner." - https://www.justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violence

All the national Batterer Intervention Programs distinguish between battering and other forms of IPV. They are based on the research. The abusers in these programs are referred to as batterers. The term "battering" is still very much relevant. - https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/domviolence/treatment/intervention/ Jayx80 (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayx80, it matters not that you are licensed to work in this field. Read WP:Activism; your edits continue to resemble activist editing. Wikipedia has rules and you will follow them. For the last time: We follow the literature with WP:Due weight. Read that policy since it is clear that you do not understand it. It means that we go by the general literature, not by one or a few scholars' terms or definitions. You stated, "Professionals absolutely still use the term 'battering' to refer to the abuse featuring fear and Coercive Control." But nowhere did I state that no professional uses the term battering anymore. I stated that the term battering is outdated, and it is, as noted by this 2014 "Women, Crime and Criminal Justice: A Global Enquiry" source, from Routledge, page 80, which states, "Finally, 'battering' and 'wife abuse' are now relatively outdated terms but still in use in certain contexts around the world." You using one or two old sources from the 90s or 2000s to make claims that even the sources themselves do not state does not stop that fact. My issue with your latest edits is that you are trying to distinguish "domestic violence" and "domestic abuse"...even though they are synonyms, and you seem to be trying to state that "domestic violence" only refers to males beating up on their wives (despite even the "We would agree" Johnson source above not stating that). The literature shows that this is not true. Regardless of any assertion that violence is not automatically abuse, nowhere does the literature distinguish between "domestic violence" and "domestic abuse." You asked, "Have [I] read the battering literature?" This implies that the battering literature is separate from the "domestic violence" and "domestic abuse" literature. It is not. It is all the same thing, with different terms and some scholars using some of the terms for specific aspects. I know this because I am thoroughly educated on the battering/domestic violence/domestic abuse/intimate partner violence literature.
Yes, many sources, especially older sources, define "domestic violence" solely to mean intimate partner violence and are mainly talking about males' violence against women, but even a number of those sources note "domestic abuse" as a synonym. For example, this 2007 "Legal Medicine E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 551, states, "Synonyms for domestic violence include partner violence, relationship violence, dating violence, teen dating violence, intimate partner abuse, spouse abuse, domestic abuse, wife abuse, wife beating, and battering." And, as I noted above, over the years, domestic violence and domestic abuse have expanded to include any family violence. For example, this 2007 "Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence" source, from Routledge, page 549, states, "Domestic violence is an altercation of sufficient severity or harm to require police response where the parties are legally recognized and the allegation is that a crime has been committed or is being committed or that an order of protection has been violated. The most common types of domestic violence include child abuse, intimate partner abuse, and elder abuse." And that was 2007. Various newer sources are also clear that child abuse, intimate partner abuse, and elder abuse are domestic violence. Also notice I am keeping Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources in mind by citing the sources I do? Primary sources are not ideal. Secondary and tertiary sources are better because they review the primary sources or literature as a whole and report on them/it. They are not simply going by one scholar's viewpoint.
Your most recent edits were inappropriate not only because of your first quote having neglected use of WP:In-text attribution, but also because of your WP:Undue weight blockquote sourced to Johnson. That is why I reverted you with this edit and made this and this followup note. Per WP:Close paraphrasing, superficial modification of material from another source or quoting a source without the use of in-text attribution can also be a problem. It is partly why Diannaa left you a WP:Copyright message on your talk page in August. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer if I just refrained from using any of Johnsons terminology then in this article? Because I thought you had said to not use it in the lead. I saw it was used in other parts of the article so I figured it was acceptable to use. Jayx80 (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jayx80, regarding this, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments. It is bad practice to significantly change your comment after someone has replied to it. As for the lead, it is not just a lead matter. Try to understand what I've argued above and why. Understand why you were reverted on this at the Abusive power and control article by a different editor. It seems that the Wikipedia rules I keep informing you of are falling on deaf ears. Are you taking the time to read these policies and guidelines I am pointing you to? You even keep changing terms to terms the sources don't use and you keep adding in content that the existing sources in the article don't explicitly support. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding you altering your previous comment, you actually didn't change it much. So it's fine that you edited it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More problematic editing

Jayx80, I've warned you about this type of editing more than once. And I did so extensively at Talk:Rape. And yet you are still doing it. Do not add in words/terms that are not supported by the sources. How difficult is that for you to do? At this, point, I have no doubt that I will eventually be reporting you at WP:ANI. I reverted your latest add-ins, including that lone study (followup note here). To quote Doc James (at the Miscarriage article, where you also tried to add the study), "Please use secondary sources." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I am just going to refrain from editing until I have taken plenty of time to make sure I thoroughly understand Wikipedia's rules/guidelines. I thought I had a good understanding of them but I guess not.

May I just ask you if an edit is appropriate before I make one next time? Jayx80 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Domestic violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Domestic_violence&oldid=817650721"