Talk:Battered woman syndrome

Title

A question to pose:

Would it be better to make the primary title of the Article "Battered Person Syndrome" with "Battered Woman Syndrome" redirecting into it, given that the ICD views that as a valid way to refer to it, and while the vast majority of reported cases are of women, as the page notes under the more neutral term it has been occasionally used by men in the legal defense sense?

Linguistically "Battered Woman Syndrome" and "Battered Husband Syndrome" could both be seen to be subsets of "Battered Person Syndrome", it just seems marginally better to encapsulate it? And is a subtle nod to the issue of Domestic violence against men.

I'm not an expert in the area, it's just something that stood out to me, so if there is a good reason to not change, it'd be nice to know. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

To throw in a little bit of policy MOS:GNL would seem to apply. It may not be he/she's in this case but it is in a similar vein to how spaceflight discussion should avoid "manned" and "unmaned"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.86.46 (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:Due weight the sources are about the subject as titled. We have discussed this previously in detail here. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I know a discussion of some weird distinction between the legal defense and medical condition and the phrasing came up before, Likewise a decision to merge this and battered person syndrome passed. That said some of those discussions and archives are long, I had to skim read them slightly and may have missed a few points.

I'm not disputing the legal defense and medical condition are synonymous by any means, and I agree there should only be one article, which seemed to have been very key points to those previous discussions. The terminology aspect being largely secondary (and used as a 'justification' for separating the topics)

My point though is that at least some (from a quick look, it seems like most?) of the most authoritative up-to-date sources seem to support both phrasings? Notably the ICD. I'm not entirely sure how it would be giving undue weight to any 'point' to use a more gender-neutral phrasing as the title, mentioning the common recognized synonymous terms in the lead, there is also a slight WP:HARM argument in that it acknowledges this could be a thing for someone of any gender. This side of the matter doesn't look to be as much explored.

Especially, given the DSM-5 doesn't mention it, the ICD-9/ICD-10 are rather authoritative figures and if they are giving equal weighting to the phrases it seems reasonable to say both are very valid?

On a less related note, is it worth updating the ICD-9 link to an ICD-10 one? Perhaps directly to icd.who.int where its listed as T74.1? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)