Talk:Domestic violence

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, so presumably there's some confounding factor here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwibird (talk • contribs) 08:03, 24 February 2009‎ (UTC)

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

Redirecting critics of the gender balance of this article.

This is an excellent page - it is important to focus on violence against women as this is the majority. I see Flyer22 Reborn reverted an edit of mine which aimed to add a bit of gender balance. I made my edit before I read the discussion on this issue in the Talk page.

I note this in the summary of the Talk page survey: "The literature on domestic violence/intimate partner violence focuses significantly more on women than it does on men and states that domestic violence disproportionately affects women or that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women and that they suffer more severe consequences.".

Can I suggest we add something to this effect as a preamble at the beginning of the article and direct those interested in DV against men to that page?

I am happy to draft something based on text from the discussion, but don't want to be immediately reverted! --The Equalogist (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are proposing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

It makes sense to do so, since this topic is about domestic violence done to women and not men. It also seems to be only about violence done by men. It is quite usual in Wikipedia to have a preamble that directs a reader to other pages (e.g. Raspberry), before wading through an article that may not contain the information they are looking for. I suggest the wording of This article focuses on domestic violence done to women by men. See separate pages for domestic Violence done to men, domestic violence done to women by women and Child abuse. The notice would presumably use one of the {{about}} tags that other pages use. Varybit (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Going by your comment, now I see what The Equalogist is trying to state. But this article is not solely about domestic violence against women, or solely about male perpetrators. It's mainly about those things because, as made clear in the aforementioned RfC, the literature on domestic violence is mainly about those things. Similar goes for the sexism literature mainly being about women, which is also why that article is so much more about women than it is about men. It's a WP:Due weight matter. The difference is that we don't have a Sexism against men article, unless one counts the Reverse sexism article. But just like we aren't going to have the Sexism article state "This article focuses on sexism against women. See Reverse sexism for sexism against men", I don't think the top of this article should state "This article focuses on domestic violence done to women by men. For domestic violence against men, see Domestic violence against men." And it certainly shouldn't point to those other articles. See WP:Hatnote. We can link to the Domestic violence against men article in the lead, like I just did. But that link is otherwise in the "Men" subsection of the "Gender differences" section. The other articles are also also in their respective sections, were we might use Template:Main article or Template:See also. And for a different case to further show what I mean, the topic of bodybuilding is mostly about men, but since the Bodybuilding article is not solely about men and we have a Female bodybuilding section in that article, we point readers to the Female bodybuilding article in that section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for going to lengths to explain Wikipedia standards and the justification for the sex bias in this topic. I have a few points to make, if you don't mind helping out a newbie. I'll leave aside the issue of WP:Due weight as what I have been trying to understand in this area has been happening to a male relative and I have found a dearth of information; but I obviously have not made a count of the articles on DV done to women to compare, which you presumably have done and could share with me sometime. You say " And it certainly shouldn't point to those other articles. See WP:Hatnote" I have looked at WP:Hatnote and don't see anything there to indicate that a Hatnote would not be beneficial or correct. As I read 4.4 it seems to say that a Hatnote _would_ be correct to use. I realise you want to say that this article does cover the other forms of domestic violence but your analogy with the female bodybuilding and the Bodybuilding article doesn't work, since that article has a section titled Female bodybuilding. There is no section on this article headed anything like "Domestic violence against men". Further, there is no statement anywhere in Bodybuilding that bodybuilding is "overwhelmingly about men" (on the contrary, the leading paragraphs treat the topic as though women are at least as involved) whereas this article has the value judgement as the start of the second paragraph, supported by one small, national-specific, citation (and another that doesn't seem to say it at all). As someone reading this article on behalf of a male, I assure you I immediately assumed that the article had little to help me understand the topic, whereas a Hatnote right at the top would have helped straight away. Similarly, there is no indication that domestic violence against my relative's children is discussed, whereas there is an article about it on Wikipedia so WP:Hatnote 4.2 and 4.4 seem to apply. On the matter of lesbian violence, I see there is a section in this article. What is extraordinary is that the text makes the claim that there is very little information on homosexual domestic violence, yet there is still a section with five long paragraphs on it, while a claim cannot be made in relation to domestic violence against men that there is so little evidence, yet it is hardly mentioned in this article. Accordingly, I amend my suggested Hatnote (as I now know it is called, thank you) to be This article focuses on domestic violence done to women by men, with a section on homosexual violence. See separate pages for domestic Violence done to men or Child abuse. Varybit (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Personal experience is a very poor guide to judge world wide balance for a contentious topic such as this. The world is a big place and bad stuff of every conceivable kind happens somewhere at some time. However, promoting the idea that domestic violence is just another thing that men and women do in comparable ways is absurd. That opinion is based on reliable sources and changes need to be similarly based on reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of your comments. I am not relying on personal experience other than my experience of coming to this page. That experience is as valid as yours, isn't it? I don't understand why you describe this as a 'contentious topic'. Is there someone denying that domestic violence exists? I am trying to help readers to get to relevant and accurate information: is that being contended? Your assertion of absurdity sounds very like you are basing a bias on personal experience. May I remind you that the world is a big place and is bigger than the obviously limited view of this subject that you hold. Is this what you mean by contentious: that you deny the vast amount of literature (yes, reliable sources) that show domestic violence against men to be anything but rare? If so, you are welcome to your view by why would you deny someone wanting to find out about domestic violence against men an 'easy' way to reach that information? That is all we are discussing, here: not your view of prevalence, nor mine. Why is easy access to information not something you want to promote on Wikipedia? Varybit (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Varybit, we don't do hatnotes like that. I'm not sure how to explain WP:Hatnote to you if you read it all and still don't understand. You stated, "As [you] read 4.4 it seems to say that a Hatnote _would_ be correct to use." Huh? This is not an "ambiguous term that redirects to an unambiguously named article" matter. And as for 4.2, no, this is not a "terms that can cause confusion with another topic" case either. And, yes, there is a "Domestic violence against men" section in the article. Why else do you think I stated that the Domestic violence against men link is listed as the main article in the "Men" subsection of the "Gender differences" section? Yes, that section is titled "Men" instead of "Domestic violence against men," but this is because, per MOS:HEAD, we are not to "redundantly refer back to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life), or to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." We are not going to state "domestic violence" in any of the headings in this article unless necessary. Readers will find the Domestic violence against men article just fine from the lead. The "Men" heading does not show up in the table of contents, but that is because this article currently uses Template:TOC limit. The "Same-sex relationships" section is not just about lesbians, obviously. And that section was there before the subarticles were created. It should summarize the key points of the spinoff articles and be trimmed. This is per WP:Summary style. The "Men" subsection can include a bit more about men, but it should remain a summary of what can be found in the Domestic violence against men article. But then again, other gender aspects are already covered in the initial portion of the "Gender differences" section. As for the rest... That the Bodybuilding article does not currently state that bodybuilding is overwhelmingly about men doesn't negate the obvious fact that the topic is overwhelmingly about men. Otherwise, there would be no "Female bodybuilding" section in the article while there is no "Male bodybuilding" section in the article because the topic mainly covers male bodybuilding/male bodybuilders. If the topic wasn't mainly about men, there would be no need for a separate article titled "Female bodybuilding." And it doesn't mean that the significantly gendered domestic violence article should not state that "globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women, and women tend to experience more severe forms of violence." That bit is not a value judgement; it is a fact, supported by numerous reliable sources, including the World Health Organization (WHO)...as shown in the above RfC. The first source in the lead states, "This is an issue that affects vast numbers of women throughout all nations of the world. [...] Although there are cases in which men are the victims of domestic violence, nevertheless 'the available research suggests that domestic violence is overwhelmingly directed by men against women [...]." The second source states, "Intimate partner violence and sexual violence, whether by partners, acquaintances or strangers, are common worldwide and disproportionately affect women, although are not exclusive to them" piece. Both, which focus on the global aspect in addition to non-global information, align with "globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women." And they can be replaced by other sources from the RfC. And as noted in that RfC, we are not going to have this article go with false balance. No Wikipedia article should. So similarly, at the Sexism article, false balance is a no-go. I don't know what else to state to you on the matter except for suggesting that you to ask about your hatnote ideas at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond to all this just now. And frankly, I am upset that anyone would want to deliberately obscure and hide information that helps a victim of violence. I have looked through the contents list just now and I don't know what you are looking at but the contents list I see has no listing of men as you say it does. Varybit (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

The section on men is right there as a subsection of the "Gender differences" section...like I stated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Flyer, it was you who brought in the parallel with the Bodybuilding article. Now I have pointed out the differences and why the parallel supports my views, it is you who are trying to discredit the parallel, or attempting to pretend that there is a parallel even when a child can see differences. The Bodybuilding article makes it clear in the opening paragraphs that both men and women are involved, but this topic goes out of its way to minimise male victims, citing only minor sources. The Bodybuilding article has a clear link in the contents to a section specifically about female bodybuilding, where this article on domestic violence does not, even if it does have some content buried deep within it. Your diversion about whether any such visible content listing would have the words "domestic violence" in it, is just a straw argument: it was you who brought in the parallel of a page on Bodybuilding that has a section titled "Female bodybuilding" (which I note you have not bothered to correct). You assert that in the bodybuilding page "the topic of bodybuilding is mostly about men", that it is "obvious fact that the topic is overwhelmingly about men" but this is your own assumption and is not supported by any text on the page - see WP:OR. I am happy to help fix this topic so that it is as equally unbiased on gender as the Bodybuilding page: a page you brought up as a model. If this article is to stay with its current unjustified level of sexism (I have been doing some reading lately and have seen a lot of scientific literature that disputes the bias in political sources) then the least that could be done is to provide an early and easy way for a reader to get to information on violence against men. Varybit (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Your arguments (such as "minimise male victims, citing only minor sources") are flawed for reasons I've already gone over. You keep acting like there is no section on domestic violence against men, when there is and I just pointed you to it. I was already clear with you about why it's titled "Men" instead of "Domestic violence against men." I was already clear with you that the Domestic violence against men link is right there at the top of that section. It is also now in the lead for everyone to see. So having it in a hatnote is completely unnecessary. Having it in the hatnote would also treat this article like it is the Domestic violence against women article; it's not, no matter how much you or anyone else asserts that it is for the simple fact that it covers women far more than it covers men because the literature is like that. Another example is the Rape article (which I thought about mentioning earlier, but refrained from mentioning because we really don't need any more male editors at these articles complaining about supposed unfair coverage of men). The rape literature is mostly about women; the Rape article mainly concerns women. But the Rape article is not solely about women. Because the rape literature is so much about women, there is no need for a "Rape of women" article. Instead, a Rape of males article exists, as to better address that topic and to not have the Rape article give undue weight to men. In the Rape article article, the lead notes that "worldwide, rape is primarily committed by males." It also links to the Rape of males article. We do not have a hatnote at the top of that article stating that it's mostly about women, and to look to the Rape of males article for content about men. Nor should we. For this discussion, I was clear that the "Men" section does not show up in the table of contents because of Template:TOC limit. The same goes for other sections in the article. We do not need to remove Template:TOC limit just for that "Men" section to show up. Template:TOC limit is used to keep the table of contents from being cluttered. I think Doc James added Template:TOC limit to this article. Anyone with common sense who wants to look for gender differences material will click on the "Gender differences" section, which will then lead them to the "Women" and "Men" subsections. I don't know what you mean by "which [you] note [I] have not bothered to correct" with regard to the Bodybuilding article having a section titled "Female bodybuilding." That section should be there. You also misuse WP:OR. Like that policy states, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Me stating here on this talk page that it's an obvious fact that the topic of bodybuilding is mostly about men or that the Bodybuilding article is mostly about men is not WP:OR. Neither is it an assumption. Anyone with two eyes (or just one eye) can see that the Bodybuilding article discusses male bodybuilders significantly more than it discusses female bodybuilders, and why that is. Hint: It's because the literature is that way. Anyone who does not know that the bodybuilding literature mainly covers men certainly has Google to find that out for themselves. We are not going to falsely balance the Bodybuilding article with content about women. Instead, a Female bodybuilding article exists. We are not going to falsely balance the Sexism article with content about men/reverse sexism. Instead, the Reverse sexism article exists. We are not going to falsely balance the Rape article with content about men. Instead, the Rape of males article exists. We are not going to falsely balance the Domestic violence article with content about men. Instead, we have the Domestic violence against men article. Given your "equally unbiased on gender" and "unjustified level of sexism" statements, it's understandable why Johnuniq stated "However, promoting the idea that domestic violence is just another thing that men and women do in comparable ways is absurd." It was clear what you were leading up to. The community has already declined the type of "fix" you are suggesting. And the sources I listed there in that RfC are far from just "political sources." But if you want to defy the community and have this matter go to WP:Discretionary sanctions and/or WP:ANI, so be it. If you are going to be a problem and are letting me know that early on, I can go ahead and deal with that now, contacting certain administrators, WP:Med, and so on. To make it easier on yourself, you could also ask about your hatnote proposal at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote and see how many editors agree with you. Or you could, you know, drop this. And what that community discussion concerns, what the literature states about the gender aspects, and you now arguing what you are arguing about "political sources," is exactly why Johnuniq stated that the topic of domestic violence is a contentious topic. It obviously is a contentious topic (something that is also clear from the Domestic violence against men article). Template:Controversial would not exist at the top of this talk page it weren't a contentious topic. We wouldn't consistently need sanctions at this article if it weren't a contentious topic.

I don't see what is left for me to discuss with you on the hatnote matter. You can ask elsewhere. We can start an RfC on it. But, other than some RfC, I'm done discussing it with you. By the way, your use of "Flyer," like you are familiar with me, further speaks to my feeling that you are not new here, although you are arguing like a newbie. And, yes, no one calls me "Flyer" without being familiar with me and/or first substantially interacting with me on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, if my use of 'Flyer' has left you feeling upset, I apologise. I had assumed that it was a resonable shorthand form of what I assumed was a name that evolved in some way from the original. I meant no familiarity with you. I am upset that you assume some familiarty with me, or at least with what is going on in my mind. I assure you that you have no clarity of what is in my mind and your assumptions about whatever I might be 'leading up to', and your attitutude based on what I have not said is not appreciated. I note that despite your assertion that "The community has already declined the type of "fix" you are suggesting," you point to a reference where it has not done any such thing. Since you say you are done discussing this with me, I look forward to your absence from the dicussion. Varybit (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

What I assume is that you are not as new to editing this site as you are presenting yourself to be or seem to be presenting yourself to be. Same goes for Musicwaves below. And I assume that due to a number of years editing this site and knowing what newbies typically do and typically do not do (and that includes how quickly they pick up on things, such as signing their username; a newbie signing their username on their first post ever to this site, like you did, is highly unusual, for example). I assume it because of the many socks and other non-newbies I have identified at this site. If you state that you are completely new or that the reason you don't appear to be completely new is because you have edited as an IP or have edited other wikis, I am under no obligation to believe you. As for "'despite [my] assertion that 'The community has already declined the type of 'fix' you are suggesting,' [I] point[ed] to a reference where it has not done any such thing."... It has. You are the one who pretty much threatened to "fix" up this article in a way that will falsely balance it. You stated, "I am happy to help fix this topic so that it is as equally unbiased on gender as the Bodybuilding page." So we know that you consider the Domestic violence article unbalanced. You also stated, "If this article is to stay with its current unjustified level of sexism (I have been doing some reading lately and have seen a lot of scientific literature that disputes the bias in political sources)." So we know that, like a few male editors who visit the Sexism article and consider it sexist because the article is mainly about women, you consider the Domestic violence article to be sexist because it is mainly about women and you believe that sources you've come across dispute what you consider to be bias or false narratives with regard to male and female IPV. Read what those editors stated in that RfC, if you haven't already; they, except for one, clearly do not share your view of this article. A number of sources I presented there are high-quality. There are always counter sources for any topic (well, just about anyway). But quality sources, which generally means WP:MEDRS-compliant sources in the case of this article, matter more. WP:NPOV, which is about giving most of our weight to what the preponderance of reliable sources state, matters more. Its WP:Due weight section is clear about that. That section is also clear that undue weight can be given in a number of ways. The closer of the RfC stated, "Overwhelming consensus is no [with respect to the argument that the article lends undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason for domestic violence], due to the article simply following the high quality sources that are more focused on women as victims, in accordance with WP:NPOV." Per WP:Consensus, RfCs are one of the ways this community works/forms consensus. Those editors who participated in that RfC are the community and the community thus far disagrees with you on balancing this article. If by "community," you think all of Wikipedia must weigh in, that's not how this site works. Even with WP:Requests for adminship, not all of Wikipedia weighs in. The hatnote matter is a different subject, and I've also addressed you on that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do not pad out this talk page with extraneous material such as the table of contents which I removed. We can see the ToC on the article. If someone said a particular word was mentioned in the ToC and you can't find it, ask them which item it was in. This talk page is for actionable proposals regarding improving the article. General complaints are off-topic. What change would you recommend, based on what reliable sources? Johnuniq (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Please do not presume for yourself what is extraneous material. I posted what my browser showed, since someone seemed to imply that what they saw was different. Now you have made people's reading harder since they will need to look up the history of this page just to see what was there. Do not do that again please. If you were following this comment issue instead of just butting in - indeed, if you simply bothered to read my reply to your previous post - it would be clear to you that the change proposed is a hatnote to help people find relevant articles on the subject of domestic violence. This article focuses on domestic violence done to women by men, with a section on homosexual violence. See separate pages for domestic Violence done to men or Child abuse. Please explain why this needs "reliable sources", without deleting any more of my postings. Please do not ask me to repeat things just because you can't be bothered to read a response. Varybit (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of discussion over something quite simple. I simply proposed that we add a sentence near the beginning of the topic explaining why the page mostly covers Dv against women and giving the DV against men page link. The reason is to prevent the sort of long discussion last year about this subject and to avoid the accusation that the current page is biased.

One concern is what has been called 'decision by exhaustion'. This often happens in physical meetings where one or more participants keep the discussion going for so long that others either leave the meeting or give up in exhaustion. Good meeting chairing prevents this by giving participants guidelines - such as not repeating themselves or what others have said, sticking to agreed times etc. Can we just draft something, post it and move on? The Equalogist (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I've answered above. I stand by what I stated above regarding your proposal. If you are talking bout adding a hatnote, I was clear on that. If you are talking about a sentence in the lead, we still should not add a WP:Self reference sentence in the lead stating that this article mostly covers women and why. The lead stating "Globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women, and women tend to experience more severe forms of violence." is more than clear that this topic will cover women significantly more than men. And we can always add a FAQ at the top of the talk page, but I doubt that will help. What you call confusion is not confusion. There are always going to be male editors, in particular men's rights editors, insisting that we cover domestic violence/intimate partner violence in a way that gives false balance to men and makes women seem as violent as men are. This happens in the Domestic violence against men article as well. Similarly, there are always going to be male editors, especially men's rights editors, insisting that we give false balance to men with regard to sexism in the Sexism article or that we don't acknowledge that sexism is predominantly directed toward girls and women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I have a couple of comments to make about this article (Domestic violence). Firstly, it seems to me to be too rambling and too long and would benefit from an overhaul in terms of its layout, definitions etc. Secondly, having read the comments by various editors on this talk page, the view that "victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women" is not what official government data shows - men are at least a significant minority.Musicwaves (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the article being too rambling or needing what you describe. As for "not what official government data shows," a few editors arguing from your perspective have argued this. But what official government data? The United States' official government data? Either way, government data does not speak to the global aspect. The literature is clear that, globally, victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women. That is a fact. A fact supported by the World Health Organization (WHO). And even going by your "at least a significant minority" assertion, women are still the majority of victims. It's not an "equal" issue or close to an "equal" issue...no matter what government data indicates. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

In all of this page, let alone this particular discussion, you are the only person who argues about whether domestic violence is an "equal" issue. Nobody has suggested it is but you keep writing as though people have. Varybit (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. There is continual gender symmetry debate at this talk page and the Domestic violence against men talk page. And the gender symmetry debate concerns the notion that women commit IPV at equal rates or relatively equal rates to men. We can see that at Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 6#Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included? and elsewhere in the archives. And we can see it somewhat above in the Discussion section of the RfC, and somewhat above in the "Self-defense edits" discussion. It almost always comes down to the gender symmetry debate any time there is a dispute at this article. And it is the gender symmetry aspect that leads a few to act like we should have this article give equal weight (false balance) to men as victims. The most recent RfC above was indeed partly about equal weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's wait for an actionable proposal to improve the article, with references. There is no consensus to add a men's rights movement banner on the article so if that is the proposal, an RfC is needed. The discretionary sanctions notice at Talk:Men's rights movement is relevant. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh? What? I got the first sentence, which doesn't relate to this discussion, but then you lost me. Varybit (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyer, Could you clarify - is it the literature which has supremacy or the data/studies/evidence?Musicwaves (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. The literature is the data/studies/evidence. If you are implying that cherry-picking has taken place, as in the literature only seems this way because of the sources I've listed, Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources over primary sources. The secondary and tertiary sources analyze and report on the literature. They are not individual sources reporting on what one study has stated. This is why WP:SCHOLARSHIP states what it states about not favoring primary sources (which is what government data reports are) to present general information on a topic. I listed secondary and tertiary sources in the aforementioned RfC. And the WHO is an international source. So, again, the literature is clear that, globally, victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women. There is no reliable source stating that victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly men worldwide or that domestic violence disproportionately affects men. I'm not even sure that I've seen reliable sources stating that men are a significant minority of domestic violence victims; by this, I mean sources using the exact words "significant minority." Given the data for certain studies, "significant minority" is clear...although not stated. But those studies are usually significantly limited. For example, they are regulated to a certain area or group (such as college kids; sources on IPV most commonly find situational couple violence being committed nearly equally by both genders when it comes to younger couples, such as college students). I'm not stating that many men aren't domestic violence victims. Of course they are. But the statement that "victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women worldwide" or that "domestic violence disproportionately affects women" is a fact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyer, I agree that there are no studies which state that men are the overwhelming victims of DV, I am not suggesting that. I agree that DV disproportionately affects women - but not overwhelmingly. My greatest problem is with the word "fact" that women are the overwhelming victims of DV. I can't see how you can state it as a "fact". We are fortunate in having quite a number of studies on DV, but many of those studies show that men are a significant minority & I believe that it is the case that men are in the same position as women were in the 1960s in that society had not caught up with studies. Wikipedia is a huge part of that process and as such it is incumbent on editors to correctly reflect reality in studies.Musicwaves (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

"Fact" is something I'm stating on this talk page. That word is not in the article. It doesn't need to be in the article when we state "Globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women, and women tend to experience more severe forms of violence." I don't understand you disputing this fact. Yes, fact. Domestic violence in Pakistan and most other parts of the world clearly show that women are the overwhelming victims. You really think that men have it as bad as women do in Pakistan? Read that Wikipedia article. The secondary and tertiary sources, which also include literature reviews and authoritative bodies like the WHO, are clear that women are the overwhelming victims of domestic violence/IPV. The WHO doesn't need to catch up; it's there. We follow what the literature states, not your interpretations of the literature. I'm not arguing this with you further. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Flyer. What percentage would you say was 'overwhelming'? Please then give the sources which shows this percentage.The Equalogist (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Please give it a rest. It is up to the proposer to justify their change rather than requiring other editors to fully document reasons for the status quo. What is the proposed wording and what evidence is there to support it? Re the idea that domestic violence is in some sense equivalent for women and men, see WP:REDFLAG—extreme ideas need extreme evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyer, Could I just say that I am not arguing with you. Also, I completely agree that any Islamic country practising Sharia Law is going to have draconian ideas and punishments against women eg., "A woman's word is worth half of a man's". This paper by Martin Fiebert is an annotated bibliography covering 155 scholarly investigations; 126 empirical studies and 29 reviews, and shows that men are at least a significant minority of DV victims - some of the studies show that women are more likely than men to be physically aggressive to their intimate partner. The total sample is in excess of 116,000. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225703379_References_Examining_Assaults_by_Women_on_Their_Spouses_or_Male_Partners_An_Annotated_Bibliography Musicwaves (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

We clearly have different ideas of what arguing means; dictionaries agree with me on what arguing means, though. As for the rest, I see that your source cites a lot of Archer. Like I've already recently noted on this talk page, material based on Archer's research and similar is flawed because those rates are usually based on the United States and often on college samples. Those samples are flawed in part because sources on IPV most commonly find situational couple violence being committed nearly equally by both genders when it comes to younger couples, such as college students. But even in those "younger couple" cases, the IPV is gender asymmetrical for a number of reasons. Like Hamby stated in 2009, "In the Archer meta-analysis on IPV (2000), the majority of studies were based on college student samples. Although samples that include older adults also find gender parity in reported IPV rates (e.g., Straus & Gelles, 1990), most forms of misbehavior are more common among the young, and so it is important to see how IPV compares to other youth behavior." You can see that, in the "Adolescents and young adults" section of the article, we begin by stating, "The literature indicates that rates are similar for the number of girls and boys in heterosexual relationships who report experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV), or that girls in heterosexual relationships are more likely than their male counterparts to report perpetrating IPV." Of course, the section goes on to explain more. As for Straus, Straus's research is flawed for reasons noted at the Conflict tactics scale article.

Since you took objection to me stating "arguing this," I will state now that I'm done discussing this with you -- any of it. You can come back here with whatever. But as this talk page shows, I've recently and thoroughly been over this with Sewblon. So if you want to know what my rebuttals would likely have been, you can just read all of that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyer, in my eyes, we are discussing this - hope that continues, arguing, normally is counterproductive. I have been looking at more of the studies on DV and I note that Fiebert updated his original Annotated Bibliography and as of 2013 it includes 343 scholarly investigations (270 empirical studies and 73 reviews) demonstrating that women are as physically aggressive as men (or more) in their relationships with their spouses or opposite-sex partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 440,850 people. So that is quite a size! I note that the WHO use the word "overwhelming", but effectively, their studies into IPV have been male on female DV. At any rate, given Fiebert's annotation, do you not question your belief that DV is "overwhelmingly" male on female? Archer is part of the Annotation, but a small part, as stated there are a total of 270 empirical studies and 73 reviews - such a large sample is very difficult to disregard. I have read both Mark Bassett and Sewblon's discussions with you and Sewblon's is about a different matter, although I do note that Sewblon makes some very pertinent points. Musicwaves (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Actual last reply to you so that others reading your "13:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)" comment do not go by the way you are presenting the literature: No, I don't question the fact that DV/IPV is overwhelmingly male on female; I've already been over why. Again, gender symmetry, a topic is that is very much disputed by many scholars, is the idea that men and women commit IPV at equal or near-equal rates (and, in some contexts, that men are just as much the victims as the women are). I clearly discussed gender symmetry above with Sewblon, and it's mentioned there that I also extensively discussed it with him at Talk:Intimate partner violence. An aspect of gender symmetry is obviously the idea that women are as physically aggressive as men are. As the literature has made clear over and over again, a significant proportion or most of the gender symmetry literature is only finding equal rates when it comes to younger couples (adolescents and college students), or when the women are committing IPV in self-defense or for other self-protection, and in the case of minor violence via situational altercation, which is often "a self-defense or for other self-protection" matter for women. You are stating "women are as physically aggressive as men (or more) in their relationships with their spouses or opposite-sex partners" without context, which is what the conflict tactics scale and Straus have been criticized for. You are reporting on the annotated bibliography without reading any of the research it's presenting. And if you do read any of research, it will no doubt be flawed research like Archer's to support your viewpoint. Notice that I stated "like Archer's," meaning similar to his. That the "equal rates" matter is so often a minor altercation matter and women often commit IPV in self-defense or for other self-protection, and that women suffer more (physically and emotionally) from IPV, is why so many dispute the notion of gender symmetry. It's not like we don't report on the "equal rates" aspect. I've already pointed to our text on adolescents. And in the Intimate partner violence article, we relay the following: Although men and women commit equivalent rates of unreported minor violence via situational altercation, more severe perpetration and domestic battery tends to be committed by men. This is based on newer CTS methodology as opposed to older versions that did not take into account the contexts in which violence takes place. A 2008 systematic review published in journal of Violence and Victims found that despite less serious altercation or violence being equal among both genders, more serious and violent abuse was perpetrated by men. It was also found that women's use of physical violence was more likely motivated by self-defense or fear whereas men's use of violence was motivated by control. A 2010 systematic review published in the journal of Trauma Violence Abuse found that the common motives for female on male IPV were anger, a need for attention, or as a response to their partner's violence. A 2011 review published in the journal of Aggression and Violent behavior found differences in the methods of abuse employed by men and women, suggesting that men were more likely to "beat up, choke or strangle" their partners, whereas women were more likely to "throw something at their partner, slap, kick, bite, punch, or hit with an object".

The reason that I don't want to keep discussing with you is because not only are you commenting on things I've already thoroughly addressed others on, you are debating me on your belief that women are not the significant majority of domestic violence/intimate partner violence victims even though the literature is very clear that they are -- states it explicitly. Yes, that is an argument by you. My discussion with you is an argument. I do not want to read your suspicion that the literature simply hasn't caught up or that authoritative sources like the WHO are not sufficient or sufficient enough on the statement about just how affected women are/to what degree women are affected. The WHO is very clear that men just are not globally found to be victims to the same degree or near to the same degree as women are; that's why they focus on women. I don't want to read your comments that are mainly or solely based on the United States research vs. the WHO commenting on the global aspect of domestic violence/intimate partner violence with regard to women. Your annotated bibliography reference states nothing about men being the significant majority or the significant minority of domestic violence/intimate partner violence victims or almost as equal to women are as victims. And as for the "as physically aggressive" aspect, I obviously just went over that as well. I know that I stated that I'm done replying to you twice now (three times when including this latest reply), but you can count this reply as the actual last reply since I don't see what else you can state that I need to address. If you misread and/or misrepresent the literature in this section, or cite some primary source commentary, or some review that is countered by other reviews and likely the literature in general, or something about self-defense when I've already argued that enough in a section above, I'm just going to ignore it. I'm just going to ignore anything else you state in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyer, I have read much of your discourse with Sewblon & I am not stating that men are more often victims of Domestic Violence than women - I'm not even suggesting that men & women are symmetrical as perpetrators, however, there are simply too many studies showing that men are significantly often the victims of female DV perpetrators and that is not being recognised in the WP:Domestic Violence page. I note that you have admitted to Sewblon that for minor assaults, there is gender symmetry. The article does not state this and it should.Musicwaves (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the proposed wording and what evidence is there to support it? Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello John, Thanks for your response and succinct question & I apologise in advance for the long answer. I have read a lot on Domestic Violence over this past while & it seems that things don’t seem to add up. Most people when faced with an information dilemma head to Wikipedia for an honest answer. I simply don’t think that they are getting an honest answer on the Domestic Violence article. It is confusing because studies seem to prove conflicting views of the gender balance of DV and I’m not certain how that has come about. Fiebert has an annotation of bibliographical studies covering decades and various countries which includes almost half a million subjects, 343 scholarly investigations (270 empirical studies and 73 reviews) - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12119-013-9194-1 which state that there is close to gender symmetry in DV while many studies cited in this Wikipedia article state that men are an almost insignificant proportion of victims. There are many people who believe that violence against another is human and not gendered. Others point to bi-directional violence and believe it to be common - Certainly, Erin Pizzey, who opened the first domestic violence refuge for women in the world claims that to be her experience. My concern is that there is known to be an intergenerational influence of DV (https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/17596599200900012) and if some children are learning to be violent to future partners, it really doesn’t matter which parent is being violent. It is incumbent on us all to attenuate DV to the very best of our ability & Wikipedia is one of the most important starting points.

So, in my view, the second paragraph in the Domestic Violence article should be replaced – my proposal is to replace the existing second paragraph in the article below with my proposed paragraph under it. The wording may need to be “tidied up” a little, but it is the gist of what I think is reality.

Globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women, and women tend to experience more severe forms of violence.[1][2] They are also likelier than men to use intimate partner violence in self-defense.[3] In some countries, domestic violence is often seen as justified, particularly in cases of actual or suspected infidelity on the part of the woman, and is legally permitted. Research has established that there exists a direct and significant correlation between a country's level of gender equality and rates of domestic violence, where countries with less gender equality experience higher rates of domestic violence.[4] Domestic violence is among the most underreported crimes worldwide for both men and women.[5][6] Due to social stigmas regarding male victimization, men who are victims of domestic violence face an increased likelihood of being overlooked by healthcare providers.[7][8][9][10]

Domestic violence can be bi-directional, where both partners are violent towards each other or uni-directional where one partner is the perpetrator and the other a victim. Despite many hundreds of studies, debate continues on whether women, in uni-directional domestic violence, are much more likely, than men, to be victims or whether domestic violence is closer to gender symmetrical (www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assaults_bib343_201307.doc). This bi-directional or uni-directional violence between partners can also occur in same sex relationships. However, women tend to experience more severe forms of violence than men.[1][2] Women are also likelier than men to use intimate partner violence in self-defence.[3] In some countries, domestic violence by men is often seen as justified, particularly in cases of actual or suspected infidelity on the part of the woman, and is legally permitted. Research has established that there exists a direct and significant correlation between a country's level of gender equality and rates of domestic violence, where countries with less gender equality experience higher rates of domestic violence.[4] Domestic violence is among the most underreported crimes worldwide for both men and women.[5][6] Due to social stigmas regarding male victimization, men who are victims of domestic violence face an increased likelihood of being overlooked by healthcare providers. Musicwaves (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Note to everyone: The article is clear that there is "gender symmetry" in the case of minor partner violence. It quite clearly states, "A 2011 review by researcher Chan Ko Ling from the University of Hong Kong found that perpetration of minor partner violence was equal for both men and women but more severe partner violence was far likelier to be perpetrated by men. [...] A 2013 review examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence. The authors found that when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first, partner abuse is relatively even." And, of course, there is also what the "Adolescents and young adults" section states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

(1) This is not a 'notice' but just another piece of commentary. (2) To say that 'The article is clear that there is "gender symmetry"' [my emphasis] in any aspect when any mention of symmetry appears about thirty paragraphs below the opinion that "Globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women" is nonsense. The article remains incorrectly gender biased. Varybit (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Do stop your "opinion" and "incorrectly gender biased" nonsense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

___

References

Improving linking of similar topics

I haven't been working in this area, but just happened upon it when I wanted to add something to a related article. When I was searching for the right one, I found that the multiplicity of overlapping article names a tad confusing, especially with few links between them. I added a couple of See Alsos between DV and Violence against women, which were removed under the "generally don't add links which appear in the body of the article" rule (at the time, I didn't have time to read both articles fully). Fair enough but it still seems to me that there could be more help to guide people to further and/or more specific reading when they land on one article first... Domestic violence, Violence against women, Violence against men, Violence against women in [various countries], Violence against [other groups], Domestic violence in [various countries] and others.

I do realise the need for separate articles, and know that categories group some of them, but the casual reader of Wikipedia often only looks for articles by heading and doesn't use categories. So... I was wondering if anyone else thinks it useful to supply hatnotes at the beginning of a few of these to help guide the reader to other articles of interest? Or, as an alternative, regard this as a case where that See also "generally" rule may qualify as exceptions? In particular, the topics of domestic violence and violence against women are often referred to almost interchangeably in common parlance, and funding from governments and other measures and organisations are often aimed at combating both. Just a passing thought - in the interests of providing more explicit guidance for the casual user. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I've been over hatnotes and linking in the #Redirecting critics of the gender balance of this article. section above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely agree to the point about having reasonable and responsible pointers. The current mess on Wikipedia is unnecessarily confusing to the newcomer (as I was a few weeks back). So much so that I have actually ended up paying little attention to what Wikipedia says, in preference to other sites which don't take such a biased gendered/political stance. I absolutely think that a hatnote on this article (and probably on other articles on DA/DV) would help readers and it is daft that one person here seems to be controlling the page as though it belongs to them. Varybit (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I haven't been working in this area and just don't have the time to get involved at the moment, so will be removing the discussion from my user page. I still think that extra See Alsos are particularly useful in the case of large articles, regardless of links within the article. I'm sure I'm not the only one who sometimes looks at the lead, skims the TOC and then has a look at the See Also list to see if there's something more appropriate, a sub-category, or related to what I am looking for. Sometimes I just want to include a bit of info or article about a person or organisation that I have come across or created, and want to add to another article where it may also be useful - I don't necessarily want or need to read and absorb every word of that article. Hence easily located links are useful (in hatnotes and/or See also section) - and I don't see the harm. The rule is only a general one, and there are exceptions where usefulness outweighs rigid adherence to a rule. And we do have to keep the newcomers or casual readers in mind. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposal by Musicwaves

Following is Musicwaves' proposal from above. The table shows the current second paragraph of the lead and the proposed new text.

Current

Proposal

Globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women, and women tend to experience more severe forms of violence. They are also likelier than men to use intimate partner violence in self-defense. In some countries, domestic violence is often seen as justified, particularly in cases of actual or suspected infidelity on the part of the woman, and is legally permitted. Research has established that there exists a direct and significant correlation between a country's level of gender equality and rates of domestic violence, where countries with less gender equality experience higher rates of domestic violence. Domestic violence is among the most underreported crimes worldwide for both men and women. Due to social stigmas regarding male victimization, men who are victims of domestic violence face an increased likelihood of being overlooked by healthcare providers.

Despite many hundreds of studies, debate continues on whether women are much more likely than men, to be victims of domestic violence or whether domestic violence is closer to gender symmetrical. However, women tend to experience more severe forms of violence than men. Women are also likelier than men to use intimate partner violence in self-defence. In some countries, domestic violence by men is often seen as justified, particularly in cases of actual or suspected infidelity on the part of the woman, and is legally permitted. Research has established that there exists a direct and significant correlation between a country's level of gender equality and rates of domestic violence, where countries with less gender equality experience higher rates of domestic violence. Domestic violence is among the most underreported crimes worldwide for both men and women. Due to social stigmas regarding male victimization, men who are victims of domestic violence face an increased likelihood of being overlooked by healthcare providers.

References

Per WP:LEAD such a change is not satisfactory since the lead has to be a summary of what is in the article. However, that is a technical issue. I have not yet looked at the new csulb.edu reference which appears to be a Microsoft document—is it published somewhere other than as a personal opinion? Johnuniq (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello John, I hope this is OK, [ https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dcac/54bf80668b0266694e7514c8145c669c3a2e.pdf?_ga=2.265962119.986327977.1555679684-652266393.1555679684] Musicwaves (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC) If not here, [2] Musicwaves (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• No to the proposal, per the most recent RfC and per what I've argued you on in the #Redirecting critics of the gender balance of this article. section above. And a few suspicious accounts cannot overturn that RfC consensus. We are not going to remove "globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women" from the lead. We are not going to add the WP:Undue gender symmetry material to the lead, especially without the minor partner violence context. You propose adding something about much debate regarding whether or not women "in uni-directional domestic violence are much more likely than men to be victims." Um, no, the literature (and I do mean the vast majority of it and the high-quality end of it) is very clear that women are much more likely to be victims (and that includes those first two sources for the version on the left). And this is even more so the case when it comes to one-way violence. We are not going to add WP:Synthesis like "this bi-directional or uni-directional violence between partners can also occur in same sex relationships." I'm not going to keep pointing you to that RfC, where I listed quality and high-quality sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

And you can keep debating (yes, you are debating) this as much as you want to, but Wikipedia has rules. And using quality and high-quality sources on a topic like this and following the literature with WP:Due weight (which means giving most of our weight to the majority view or majority aspect) are a couple of the rules. The annotated bibliography you pointed to does not come close to trumping the sources I pointed to in the RfC or challenging the due weight that states that "globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women," "Although there are cases in which men are the victims of domestic violence, nevertheless 'the available research suggests that domestic violence is overwhelmingly directed by men against women [...]" and "Intimate male partners are most often the main perpetrators of violence against women, a form of violence known as intimate partner violence [...] Intimate partner violence and sexual violence, whether by partners, acquaintances or strangers, are common worldwide and disproportionately affect women, although are not exclusive to them." Don't expect me to keep discussing/debating this with you. I will ignore you. And if you become a problem, I will report you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyer, Thanks for your input. I had hoped that you may have had a look at Fiebert's annotation and re-thought your views regarding the balance of perpetrators in Domestic Violence. I note that you have said that in minor domestic violence there is gender symmetry but in more violent cases, women suffer most. I cannot disagree with that. The point which I make is that domestic violence appears to be intergenerational and if children witness DV from their parents, the "learned behaviour" carries on througn generations. As such, Wikipedia has a duty to reflect this in its neutral description of Domestic Violence. I would ask you to look at Fiebert's wide ranging annotation of many studies and find a way to reflect this in the Wikipedia article. Musicwaves (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

"Appeal to neutrality," you say? You either still do not know how WP:Neutrality works or you are ignoring how it works. How many more times must I tell you that WP:Due weight, which is what WP:Neutrality is about, means giving most of our weight to the majority view or majority aspect? How many times must I note to you that the gender symmetry view is the significant minority view and that "material based on Archer's research and similar is flawed because those rates are usually based on the United States and often on college samples. Those samples are flawed in part because sources on IPV most commonly find situational couple violence being committed nearly equally by both genders when it comes to younger couples, such as college students. But even in those 'younger couple' cases, the IPV is gender asymmetrical for a number of reasons"? I've been clear about why gender symmetry is disputed. Like this 2014 "Domestic Abuse, Homicide and Gender: Strategies for Policy and Practice" source, from Springer, starting on page 30, which I pointed to in the aforementioned RfC, states, "What we know is that female and male use of violence and abuse is different, cannot be easily compared, and has different repercussions and outcomes. The biggest problem, universally acknowledged and evidenced based, is that women are the group who are most often the victims of serious, long term, life challenging domestic abuse (Hester 2013a, Stark 2013, 2007, Websdale 1999). [...] When we look at the problem nationally, internationally and globally it is overwhelmingly women who are the predominant group suffering homicide, violence, and life altering control. Even if it were the case, which it is not, that men were suffering equal seriousness of abuse at the hands of women, and dying in similar numbers, it would not reduce the problem of violence against women. It would still be the problem it currently is. [...] It is also our experience that the arguments which assert that women are the predominant victims are often automatically labelled as coming from a particular feminist perspective. [...] Feminist arguments are often considered biased, political and anti-men, which is, of course, inaccurate. This has an effect of reducing the status of the argument. [...] There is simply no global epidemic of female violence against men. [...] arguments which seek to undermine the fact that women are predominantly the victims."

It is not just a matter of "there is gender symmetry in minor partner violence, but in more violent cases, women suffer most." It's the case that gender symmetry is disputed in all forms. Even in the case of minor partner violence, it's disputed because of the "many or most girls and women are hitting in self-defense, for other self-protection, or out of fear" aspect of the research and because it's only that some research has found "gender symmetry." It is not as consistent a finding as "domestic violence/IPV is overwhelmingly directed by men against women." And I reiterate that this finding is a global finding. Stop trying to combat the global finding with research that mainly pertains to the United States or one or more other countries. And, again, "gender symmetry" is found significantly more among adolescents and young adults than among older adults.

I'm tired of repeating myself. Just like with the other section, I'm not responding to you again in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyer, The first point that I would make is that Fiebert has annotated bibliographies of 343 scholarly investigations involving almost half a million subjects - they were not all from the US and not all of college students and not all Archer or Strauss - such a huge study simply cannot be overlooked. And coincidentally, just a few days ago, on 15 April 2019 in the journal, Partner Abuse, Authors Alexandra Lysova (SFU), Donald Dutton (UBC) and Emeka Dim (University of Saskatchewan) report conclusions, based on the 2014 Canadian General Social Survey,that states

   Both male and female victims reported severe forms of domestic violence at alarming rates.
   Gender was not a factor in whether an individual suffered long-term mental health effects of domestic violence, including experiencing PTSD-related symptoms.
   The victim’s gender profile was only a relevant factor at the most extreme end of physical violence.

The title is - “Prevalence and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence in Canada as Measured by the National Victimization Survey: Focus on Male Victims”

The points which I have made 'Despite many hundreds of studies, debate continues on whether women, in uni-directional domestic violence, are much more likely, than men, to be victims or whether domestic violence is closer to gender symmetrical.' I do not state it as a fact that there in gender symmetry, merely that there are many studies which state that there is symmetry and that this issue continues to be debated. I do accept that women suffer more extreme violence, so the issue regarding minor violence is actually covered. The bi-directional issue is perhaps a separate issue from uni-directional DV, but it should be mentioned in the WP:Lead due to its importance, however, I would not get hung up about that specific issue. I have to disagree with you on 'the available research suggests that domestic violence is overwhelmingly directed by men against women' - there is simply too much research indicating symmetry - although I am NOT saying that there is symmetry, I am saying that differing studies are inexplicably stating widely varying results and that it is a matter of debate - and I don't speak about just one study or one geographical area etc., I mean many respected studies. Nor am I disagreeing with your point that women are the recipients of serious domestic violence. However, you mention deaths at the hands of intimate parters and for example in the UK between 2010 and 2015, there were an average of 86.4 women pa killed by their partners but also an average of 19.6 men pa killed by their partners, so again, it is simply wrong to use the term 'overwhelming', especially since death is at the extreme end of domestic violence and I have already stated that women suffer more at the extreme end. Musicwaves (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the wording of the proposed second paragraph to remove references to bi-directional & uni-directional domestic violence, but have retained the thrust of the main change, which is, that despite many studies into domestic violence, there is disagreement between scholars about the proportion of perpretator/victim genders. I reiterate that the studies advocating symmetry are substantial & this should be reflected in the WP:LEAD. Having read the Domestic violence article again thoroughly, the case for gender approaching symmetry is already made further down in the article. I am perfectly open to other wording as long as the debate between differing studies is acknowledged Musicwaves (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Musicwaves, per the RfC and what I stated above, do not make this edit (where you even removed "women tend to experience more severe forms of violence") or anything like it again. You cannot force your faulty version in the lead simply because I and others stopped engaging with you. I stopped engaging with you for valid reasons -- WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT reasons. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Flyer, Do you think there is a possibility of you and I agreeing on some words which reflect the debate on the gender division of perpetrators?--Musicwaves (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

No, and I've already been over why. What aren't you understanding about the RfC consensus? That RfC consensus also concerns the lead. We state "Globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women, and women tend to experience more severe forms of violence." in the lead because it should be there and is WP:Due weight. What you added, especially in the way that you added it and based on your reading of the annotated bibliography, does not belong there. Your view that women are not the overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims does not trump the literature being explicitly clear that they are. Your annotated bibliography does not trump that. I am not going to start another RfC on the due weight pertaining to the lead and article as a whole being clear that women are the overwhelming majority of domestic violence victims. Your WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior is disruptive and worth reporting at WP:ANI if it continues. Per WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT (read it), move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The text "In some countries, domestic violence by men is often seen as justified, particularly in cases of actual or suspected infidelity on the part of the woman, and is legally permitted." Do you have any references for that? I do recall seeing an article somewhere that women in the USA are more likely than men to consider it OK to use (mild?) DV but even that would not support "some countries..." Varybit (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The RfC already settled this question and debating it over again does not seem to be a productive use of our time. El_C 10:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC) ___

References

Under-reporting

People will report domestic abuse and not follow up on the charge or drop the charges and go back with the abuser and never report future abuse.

Request for Comments on whether women are globally the overwhelming victims of domestic violence

In the second paragraph, it states that women are the overwhelming victims of domestic violence. Fiebert's 2014 updated annotation of bibliographies describes 343 scholarily investigations (270 empirical studies and 73 reviews) demonstrating that women are as physically agressive as men. The aggregate sample size exceeds 440,850 people. [ https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/dcac/54bf80668b0266694e7514c8145c669c3a2e.pdf?_ga=2.265962119.986327977.1555679684-652266393.1555679684] [3] Given such a huge study, should the term overwhelming be used? Musicwaves (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Close this RfC as WP:DIDN'THEARTHAT behavior by Musicwaves. We already went over this in an extensive RfC last year: See Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 8#Does the article lend undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason for domestic violence?. The quality sources are clear on this issue. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. To quote El_C from above: "The RfC already settled this question and debating it over again does not seem to be a productive use of our time." I don't see an article for Martin Fiebert and something more significant would be required to overturn reliable sources. A gf once threw an ornament at a wall (she was angry at her brother, not me!). That would count as "intimate partner violence" as I was in the room, but counting such events misses the point of what domestic violence is actually about. The Fiebert study is silent on what is counted, and how much injury was caused. Johnuniq (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Agreed. We can't be having the same debate every year. Some long lasting resolution is to be expected. El_C 10:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, and close this The closer of the last RfC noted that the consensus on this point was "overwhelming." Nothing has changed and there's no reason to revisit this now. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes and close. Fiebert's sources do not demonstrate that women are as physically agressive as men. As has been discussed before, most of Fiebert's sources are studies of U.S. college dating couples (since that's what researchers at U.S. colleges can most easily study). They do not represent sufficiently broad world-wide demographic samples to make such sweeping conclusions from. For that we have to rely on organizations that actual study domestic violence worldwide, such as the World Health Organization and UN. Kaldari (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Agree with closing this We have better sources that come to other conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, and agree with the people above about closing this. The argument here seems like WP:SYNTH - the question of whether women are as aggressive as men and the question of whether women are overwhelmingly likely to be the victims of domestic violence aren't connected in a way that let us, ourselves, make clear conclusions (ie. there are plenty of reasons women might be aggressive but still be overwhelmingly more likely to be the victims.) To dispute the current conclusion, which seems well-sourced, we'd need other sources contesting it directly, not inference and speculation using tangential statistics. --Aquillion (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Yes, and close this. This source doesn't address the statement, while others that do support the language. Also, this RFC was unnecessary and out of process. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• No. The use of imprecise terminology is rarely helpful. When the largest available secondary source is clear that women are at least as agressive as men, saying the opposite becomes not only imprecise but inaccurate. Some sources disagree with the almost half-million-case collation and there's no harm saying that there are some sources that disagree. Varybit (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended discussion

The sourcing is too all over the place to make an informed decision on this issue. I'd recommend that both sides of the dispute work together to list out all of the relevant sources and quote the relevant language. The McQuigg source uses the word "overwhelming," while the García-Moreno source uses the word "disproportionate." The Bartlett source is cited in the body for "overwhelming," but I don't know what it says. I'd also like to know if there are other sources that speak to this, as well as whether Fiebert contradicts these sources. It's not immediately apparent to me that the "physical aggressiveness" of women automatically translates into more male victims. R2 (bleep) 17:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that sourcing is unusually inconsistent and it becomes difficult to both understand and reflect the inconsistencies. I do not believe that there are more male victims, only that there is doubt that women are the overwhelming victimsMusicwaves (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The word 'overwhelming' implies that all other victims of domestic abuse are largely irrelevant. It implies something like 95%. The evidence does not support this. We know that the overwhelming majority of support for victims of DV goes to women (more than 95%). Are some people defending the use of the word here to protect this imbalance of support? The Equalogist (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The literature very much supports "overwhelmingly," as was made clear just last year. And that literature has not changed. There is no inconsistency on the fact that women are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence/intimate partner violence on a global scale. No WP:MEDRS-compliant sources state that men are globally overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence/intimate partner violence or that, globally, men and women are equally the victims of domestic violence/intimate partner violence or are close to being equally the victims of domestic violence/intimate partner violence on a global scale. I addressed Musicwaves's flawed reasoning above on this talk page, including in the #Proposal by Musicwaves section, and I am tempted to address Musicwaves's WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behavior at WP:ANI.

I will alert WP:Med to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

global stats from the WHO can be found here. 1 in 3 women globally are victims of IPV, and 38% of all women murdered, are at the hands of their intimate partner. Ian Furst (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

That's about 35,000 women per year (or something on the order of 1 in 800 women). These are pretty straightforward statistics: almost all of these cases involve a woman being directly murdered by a single identified male (e.g., not killing herself, not being shot by police responding to a noise complaint, etc.).

Comparable numbers for men may be harder to come by, both because there seems to be less interest in those numbers by the government agencies that compile these numbers, but also because there's greater complexity in the experiences. Here are just two examples of that complexity: In the case of murder–suicide, do you count his suicide as a domestic violence event? What about when the old boyfriend kills the new boyfriend? "She" didn't kill "him" in either of these examples, and these are not uncommon. About 800 murder–suicides each year in the US are related to domestic violence; this is about half of all domestic violence fatality incidents. It wouldn't be enough to say "_____ thousand men die in connection with domestic violence each year"; you'd have to spell out that x% were killed by their female partners (a fraction of which is legally adjudicated as self-defense), y% were killed by other men, and z% killed themselves (either as part of a murder–suicide or in response to a domestic violence event). Or you would say "____ thousand men were killed directly by their female partners" followed by an explanation that a huge number of suicides and an unknown number of murders by romantic rivals and angry father-in-laws are not included. And there might be other significant categories, too; these are just the ones I found in an hour. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that just quoting the figures for how many women are victims only helps in raising the emotions, not in resolving the debate. (Added to which the 1 in 3 figure turns out to be a phantom if you dig into the data; however, I won't argue such a case here because Wikipedia only cares that someone said it, not how true it is, and there is little doubt that the WHO should be a credible source.) Further to the deaths WhatamIdoing mentions, I would add direct suicides, since most battered men have no support or help and listing domestic abuse as a reason for suicide is fairly common. Indirect deaths - such as those of men who have made themselves homeless to escape abuse and therefore become ill and die - is a hard thing to measure but if anyone were to really make the statistical effort that has been made with women, they would certainly be added in.