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.)

Abuse can also happen when the abuser is fully aware that it's wrong and will have consequences

In the introduction there is a sentence "Domestic violence occurs when the abuser believes that abuse is an entitlement, acceptable, justified, or unlikely to be reported." That does not cover the whole picture, many people know it is wrong and will have consequences but they have a conduct disorder or cannot control themselves, e.g., due to drug abuse. I think "often occurs..." improves on that but there may be better solutions. Galant Khan (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes important to leave room for other possible reasons.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

No research implies that substance abuse causes domestic violence, only that it is a mediating factor. Research suggests that Borderline and PTSD may cause uncontrollable aggressive responses to perceived threat. Conduct disorder does not mean someone "cannot control themselves" and this is a ridiculous suggestion considering it frequently leads to clinical psychopathy once adulthood is reached. Jayx82 (talk) 10:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Does the article lend undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason for domestic violence?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As seen in a section above this one, one view is that the article lends undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason for domestic violence. This view argues that the prevalence of violence perpetrated by women is downplayed, and that quality sources support this. This view says that there should be more in the article about domestic violence against men and certain related debates. The other view is that the article reflects the general literature on this matter and is therefore WP:Due weight. 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. It also significantly highlights self-defense as the main, or one of the main, reasons that women engage in domestic violence/intimate partner violence. Quality sources support this. Not every debate should be be included or get as much weight.

So, for this RfC, the question is...does the article lend undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason for domestic violence? I'll alert WP:Women, WP:Men, WP:Sociology and WP:Med to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No. We follow the literature with WP:Due weight, and it overwhelmingly concerns women as domestic violence victims. Our articles are supposed to reflect how much weight the literature gives a topic. We shouldn't try to create false balance. The domestic violence literature is similar to the literature on sexism, in that both mainly focus on women. Similarly, the Sexism Wikipedia article mainly focuses on women as well. Per WP:Advocacy, Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy. It is not the place to right the great wrongs. Per the quality sources in the #Discussion section below, the literature is clear that domestic violence disproportionately affects women or that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women and that they suffer more severe consequences. It is clear that self-defense is the main, or one of the main, reasons that women engage in domestic violence/intimate partner violence. With regard to the self-defense aspect in the "Gender differences" section, I re-worded it (followup edit here) so that it doesn't begin by stating that women's use of intimate partner violence is usually not abusive and is instead self-protective, but rather begins by stating that it is the main or a primary motive for women's use of intimate partner violence (self-defense or other self-protection is mentioned). But however that self-defense aspect is worded, it doesn't make the article undue in its focus on women. More can be added to the article about men as victims. But not every debate gets an addition, and certainly not a significant addition, here. Not only do we have due weight to worry about, but WP:SIZE and WP:Summary style; it's why we have spin-off articles (such as the Domestic violence against men article) for further detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• No per Flyer22. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• No as per Flyer22 above. Jim1138 (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• no per Flyer22--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• No - The predominance of sources about domestic violence are about violence directed towards women. Regarding domestic violence committed by women, self-defense is commonly cited as a reason, although we should be careful not to suggest that this is the only reason. Kaldari (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Important to follow the literature per FlyerDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• No. we follow the literature, per others. No one is obliged to believe that this, or any other WP article accords with their own experience - it is simply what is reported by sources. Nothing in the above discussion or the article itself suggests a valid reason to think that this article is not neutrally reporting the balance of sources. Pincrete (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• No per Flyer22. Gandydancer (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, the article has some WEIGHT issues and coverage issues in discussion, and wording issues untrue to cites and a bit off from WP generally. The RFC is not asking a specific edit or area, and I both see actual issues and am disinclined to give a wide carte Blanche conclusion.

First, I think Flyer22 argument that there’s not enough room in the general article so men should be in the separate article is not valid as excluding one gender would fail NPOV and alter this article to a ‘violence against women’ article. So long as the article is claiming to be the overall article, excluding men by policy fails weight and is exhibiting a bias. Generally, I would suggest the ‘domestic violence’ look to push gender-specific items or differences to gendered articles for both would be desirable and better fit OFFTOPIC, but to propose a principle of excluding one gender is a POV preference and WEIGHT flawed.

Second, the article currently does give UNDUE prominence to both physical violence over other forms of domestic violence, and particularly to the “self-defense” bit. Both are given immediately in the second paragraph. The self-defense in particular is not a major or explored part of the article, it is a single line in a long Demographis section subsection Gender differences, so WP:LEAD would not even have it in the lead at all, let alone as the pre-eminent item of the whole article. The amount and prominence of physical violence here seems out of proportion to the cites used, so there is some unfaithfulness to them or inappropriate cite selection there. Looking more generally, I note that higher and more numerous images are given to men-on-women. The Social views image of Littleton butter in particular seems questionable to have and odd in somehow having that instead of more common images of women with rolling pins or frying pans of comic strips right up to Tangled. I could also suggest the image in Demographics of woman broom-beating a man belongs better at the earlier historical section, it is inappropriately placed and diminished by the later placement. In general, it seems the lead is generally not following the article, and the article has scattered recurrences of items inappropriate to their section topics.

Third, I will take issue with the wording at the lead, the Demographics section lead, and the Demographics / Men coverage. The phrasing of lead ‘use in self-defense’ as a Wikivoiced fact is not what the cited Swan study says and is inappropriately strong and broad for a non-provable motivation with varying studies and possible international variations. It is a phrasing not appropriate to less than judicial findings. It is also not a match to the cite. The Swan study casts female violence in the context of a previously violent relationship (among many statements) and not as a determination or being immediate self defense, so this line is just not WP:V by the cite shown. The phrasing similar to this in Demographics / Gender Differences lead is a MUCH lesser “self defense or other self protection (such as emotional health)”, followed later in the paragraph by a line of ‘self defense or retaliation’ and a line saying another study that it is mainly NOT self defense. (This paragraph is just not deserving of LEAD mention, and the lead is not giving valid summary of it. Frankly, the paragraph seems a jumble of isolated bits — e.g. not motivations of men also, nor stating comparisons of difference.) Finally, the section after the substantial 8 paragraphs in Gender Differences / Women of Gender Differences / Men being just 5 lines seems a superficial and inadequate amount, and a striking example of the article’s flaws for the RFC topic. Markbassett (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Mark, I agree with some of your incidental comments about the formatting and organization, and I understand that you are just saying that you can't agree that the article is perfect, but I have to be blunt (though I will try to be civil about it) that I think the main vein of your argument is in complete disconnect with the sourcing and the main policy language you cite there (WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT). On basically every single exemplar you provide which implicates weight in particular, I profoundly disagree with your analysis. Let me give you an example. You say:

"The phrasing of lead ‘use in self-defense’ as a Wikivoiced fact is not what the cited Swan study says and is inappropriately strong and broad for a non-provable motivation with varying studies and possible international variations. It is a phrasing not appropriate to less than judicial findings. It is also not a match to the cite."

Putting aside the pretty clear digression into WP:Original research/WP:SYNTHESIS in the middle there for the moment, here's what the abstract of that piece literally says on the topic:

"The major points of this review are as follows: . . . (d) women’s physical violence is more likely than men’s violence to be motivated by self-defense and fear, whereas men’s physical violence is more likely than women’s to be driven by control motives;".

I would say that's a pretty one-to-one attribution for the statement for "They are also likelier than men to use intimate partner violence in self-defense.", so your objection falls flat for me, especially as it does mix a huge dose of the afore-mentioned personal interpretation where you've entered into idiosyncratic extrapolations about what individual sources "really mean" (as with Swan) rather than simply summarizing their most straightforward over-arching descriptions of their findings in something as close to their own words as we can manage while following both WP:CONCISE and WP:COPYVIO, which is the very essence of WP:NPOV. On this encyclopedia we don't decide for ourselves what language in the sources misses the mark, just because they stated matters in a way we find "inappropriately strong" or "only fit for judicial proceedings". Again, that's straight up WP:OR. Our role is to as faithfully summarize the sources as we may without interjecting our own subjecting filter. Meaning no offense, but given the very strong degree to which your fellow editors here are facing the opposite direction, you might consider that the POV may not be so much with the consensus view here. I certainly don't think you are trying to POV push by any means; your arguments demonstrate a genuine concern with the neutrality of the article and proper policy analysis, as matter of editorial principles. But I do think you may be employing some significant selection bias, colored by some personal theories. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise start by going up to the Swan lead “(a) Women’s violence usually occurs in the context of violence against them” (context of mutually violent), or the leading pg 2 of factual statistics. Then look at the RFC question as asking whether going down to part (d) page 13 and skipping everything else other than IPV is properly conveying Swans work. That the line already felt the need to adjust some wording is perhaps indicative that selection of it and lead prominence are also iffy. Then look at the RFC question as stated, and whether the article topic being shrunk to pursue the one aspect of physical violence is making the coverage have topical gaps. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, I never stated "that there’s not enough room in the general article so men should be in the separate article." Nor did I mean to imply that. I'm stating that the topic overwhelmingly concerns women, just like a number of other topics, and we should not be giving false balance to seem neutral ("neutral" in common discourse terms rather than in Wikipedia terms). As for "UNDUE prominence" to physical violence over other forms of domestic violence, the article has a Forms section that has Physical, Sexual, Emotional, and Economic subsections. For the topics that have their own Wikipedia articles, we employ WP:Summary style for them in this article, and then also mention the aspects for any other parts of the article they should be mentioned in. The literature on domestic violence does focus a lot more on physical and sexual domestic violence than it does on something like passive-aggressive acts of domestic abuse. Verbal abuse, which is an aspect of emotional abuse, gets attention, but not as much attention as physical and sexual domestic violence. We can only follow the literature with due weight. I'm not stating that the article doesn't need work. I'm just disagreeing with the view that it lends undue weight to women as victims. As for mentioning self-defense in the lead, it's there because it is one reason that people, especially women, commit domestic violence and its noted lower in the article. Yes, we could add more to the article on the self-defense aspect, but, like one of the reviews I cited below states, there is "difficulty in defining and measuring self-defense and retaliation." All we need is a summary in the article on the self-defense matter and to the mention the self-defense aspect for any other spot in the article that it should be mentioned in. As for the rest, Snow Rise addressed that; so I won't add on to what he stated on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn you spoke of including men followed by “But”. In any case, part of the problem seems that it goes gendered at all and frames it as a trade off is arguing towards making it a woman’s article and a physical violence article, and not covering all the titles topic Domestic Violence. The WEIGHT issues beyond that topic failing seem largely those of prominence - the specific line of concern in the lead is part of it, but since the RFC asked about the whole article, I looked for that more generally and found more to question. If for example one dropped that line entirely out of the lead, does lead not better present the overall article? Should the men’s image not better belong to historical? Is the butter comic not seem less common than Andy Capp or Jiggs&Maggie wife with rolling pin? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, my "but" is there validly. It is true that "not every debate gets an addition, and certainly not a significant addition, here." It's true that "not only do we have due weight to worry about, but WP:SIZE and WP:Summary style," and that we have spin-off articles for a reason. The rape literature mainly concerns women as well. The reason we have a Rape of males article is because the literature on rape mainly covers girls/women and it would be undue to have all of that rape of males material in the Rape article. I've stated this before on Wikipedia, but similar goes for the Bodybuilding article. The literature on bodybuilding mainly concerns men, which is why the Bodybuilding article is mainly about men and a Female bodybuilding article exists to extensively cover women. The Bodybuilding article should not be formatted in a way that makes it seem as though the literature on bodybuilding concerns women as much as it concerns men. I don't understand your "part of the problem seems that it goes gendered" argument. As the Gender differences section in the article makes clear, domestic violence is significantly gendered. We are supposed to cover that, including the fact that women are overwhelmingly the victims. We are not going to "balance" the article in a way that makes it seem like men as victims of domestic violence are on the same level as women as victims of domestic violence. I disagree with your "properly conveying Swans work" argument. I disagree with your "frames [the article] as a trade off is arguing towards making it a woman’s article and a physical violence article, arguments" position. I've noted why, including the fact that physical violence is not the only thing the article covers. As to not further repeat myself, I'm just going to state that I disagree with your views on this (except for the view that the article needs improvement). On a side note: WP:Pings only work with a new signature, but, since this article is on my watchlist, I don't need to be pinged to this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Flyer — again sounds like you are saying there is not enough room so exclude some parts of the topic. That just is not desirable. The general article should cover all types if it is to claim to be the general overall Domestic Violence. Both going gendered or covering just some kinds also seems unnecessary - for example, One could can do a table with all stats in it which would show all kinds and not just some kind; or one could talk kinds without going into gendered Differences at all. In any case, to the RFC question, Yes the article is giving a weight to women as victims and to the self-defense mention which exceeds that of the cite. That mismatch in prominence seems clear, and I have offered a few possible edits that would reduce the concern. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

This response was meant for your initial latest reply before you changed it, but it fits as a response to your changes as well (and I also threw in a response to your "going gendered" argument): Markbassett, WP:SIZE when assessed alongside WP:Due is a reason to exclude some material. Even WP:SIZE on its own is a reason to exclude some level of detail in the main article. And I have repeatedly cited WP:Due. I don't see it as "favoring any aspect" by following the WP:Due policy; I see it as a rule allowing us to be as objective as we can be on a topic like this. It is absolutely desirable that an article not include everything about a topic or everything in extensive detail. Why do you think WP:Due exists? Why do you think WP:SIZE exists? Even with what WP:Due states, do you think all aspects about a topic should get "equal weight" in an article? Everything about a topic should be in the article? In an extreme case, do you also feel that way about Round Earth vs. Flat Earth? In the Earth article, should we give as much weight to the Flat Earth theory as we do to the fact that the Earth is round? Of course not. It is similar regarding non-extreme examples. WP:VALID states, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." Your "going gendered" argument makes no sense, considering that the literature is what "goes gendered" on this topic (as it should if it is report on this topic accurately) and because we follow the literature. As for this article covering all types of domestic violence, I already pointed to the Forms section. Outside of that section, the different forms are mentioned where they need to be mentioned in the article. What type do you think is missing from this article? Verbal abuse, even though it is an aspect of emotional abuse? It is easy enough to give Verbal abuse its own section in the article. Any possible material missing from this article, when it should be in this article, does not change the fact that this article does not lend undue weight to women as victims. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn you must mean WP:LENGTH , because WP:SIZE talks about how much WP has. But LENGTH says to WP:SPINOFF the LARGER bits, not to exclude the smaller bits. Regardless, what you are suggesting would no longer be the article covering the overall topic ‘Domestic Violence’, it would only be the ‘Domestic violence (physical violence on women)’ subsection. It would be like titling an article ‘Biology’ but only covering mammals because more is written on them, or an article on the States but not listing Rhode Island because it’s small, or only having recent events because more is written on that. The overall article has an obligation to cover ALL DV, all the kinds there are. It has no equivalent need to compare them or focus on narrative for just IPV (female) when it can do things like a statistical table showing data for ALL kinds of DV and never have to make a trade off. Making that kind of selection is part of the UNDUE issue. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Your "you must mean WP:LENGTH" argument is odd; WP:SIZE and WP:LENGTH redirect to the same page and there is no WP:LENGTH section at that page. Your arguments on this topic do not align with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, and are weak. I've already addressed them, including your "you're excluding" argument. You keep going on about WP:SIZE, when I clearly stated "WP:SIZE when assessed alongside WP:Due" and have pointed to our WP:Due policy and some of what it states. Your assertion that the article is only about physical violence is not true. If it is mostly about physical violence, then that is because the literature is. I won't be repeating myself to you on any of this again, at least not in this RfC. I asked you what kind of domestic violence is missing from the article, and you have not cited one kind that is missing. Per the WP:VALID subsection of WP:Due weight, we should cover "all significant viewpoints"/aspects on this topic; we are not obligated to cover all aspects on this topic. As for your biology argument, we already do that with anatomy articles. There isn't as much research on the vagina with regard to non-human animals as there is with regard to humans; so the Vagina article is indeed mostly about humans. In fact, WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy shows that we commonly create an "Other animals" section in our anatomy articles and we only create a spin-off article specifically about non-human animals if necessary. The Penis article is currently mostly about non-human animals, while we have a Human penis article for humans. But that is bound to change since most readers who go to the Penis article are looking for material on the human penis. So, in the near future (as discussed before), we will likely have the Penis article be mainly about humans and create a spin-off article specifically for the non-human penis. "Other animals" stuff can also be seen with disease articles like cancer. The Cancer article is mostly about humans with one section about non-human animals. But again, the Domestic violence article is not only about women or only about physical violence; so your "only cover" arguments are not sound in this case. As far as "mostly cover," I and others have already cited WP:Due. It's clear that your views on it are out of step with the general community's views on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, so after all that my input is same and mitigations same … yes there is some UNDUE issues on women as victims and particularly the self defense, do something about the problem spots

• 1) I do not agree with excluding kinds of DV, the general DV article should identify and describe all kinds, and if there is a LENGTH issue then the larger (not smaller) gets spun off;
• 2) Yes there are UNDUE issues, particularly of the argued "self-defense" prominence and rewording when it is not even enough to be LEAD. And also a few general places where more encyclopedic choices would make favoring either unnecessary (a table showing stats for all kinds) or use of an odd placements and images and not other more common choices (historic picture in mens vice in historic section; rare Littleton butter vice more common comics of woman with rolling pin or frying pan);
• 3) The wording in lead about self defense is improperly presenting the Swan cite, and wording is in Wiki voice as a determined finding inappropriate in less than a judicial setting.

SO... recommend delete the 'self-defense' line from the lead as not LEAD and UNDUE; then try and make Domestic Violence focus on covering all kinds in table or other unified form and let folks see whatever stats are for all rather than making it much about whose is justified or talking comparisons; adjust images of broom image to historical and replace Littleton butter with a few prominent comics or other Wikimedia e.g. [[1]] Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong. Replied further in the Discussion section below. I have no comment on images. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe the Strongest NO !vote I've ever lodged in a content discussion. With a heaping side of WP:SNOW, frankly. Stating that men inflict a heavier degree of violence on women is not an expression of POV, it's a reflection of reality. Which is why the vast amount (and I mean truly stupifyingly tidal-wave sized) majority of scholarship and other WP:reliable sources on the topic discuss this fact. Which is why we, in turn, faithfully represent that WP:WEIGHT, not our own pet theories, whether they are of the well-intentioned, the willfully ignorant or the outright trolling varieties, all of which have been represented on the women's safety and human rights articles. That women are vastly more likely to act in self-defense in intimate partner violence is similarly one of the the most straight-forward editorial calls a volunteer could be asked to make, if predicating matters on a faithfully representation of RS. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Snow Rise Please provide a cite if you can which says such. Proclaiming your feel for the overall body is fine, but that the line did not look supported by the cite used. If you cannot easily find a cite saying this — then please consider it simply a less discussed point not DUE prominence above where studies have it, and as inappropriate to strong !vote enthusiastic advocating. And again ... focusing on just physical violence to the extent that the breadth of Domestic Violence forms are not all mentioned seems a topic failure. It should perhaps be more radically rewritten as a clinical article of forms, without dragging in any gender balancing? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• No per Flyer. Johnuniq (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• NO I think article follows the literature and ones own idea of who is getting more sympathy or not shouldn't concerns Wikipedia. Nauriya (Let's talk) 17:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• No per Flyer22. While men are also victims, it would be intellectually dishonest to imply that they suffer the same traumatic psychological and physical consequences of DV as women. The research simply does not support this. And the majority of research on women's perpetration of IPV against a male partner finds significant levels of female victimization (esp sexual) suggesting that much of their IPV perpetration is defensive/reactive. More can really be added to the male section as there are documented male victim-specific effects etc. Jayx82 (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The first collapse box shows good-quality or high-quality sources reporting that domestic violence disproportionately affects women or that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women; some of them include commentary on men as victims of domestic violence. The second collapse box addresses the self defense aspect; it's limited to two reviews going over the literature's studies on the matter.

Sources for domestic violence disproportionately affecting women or that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women and that they suffer more severe consequences.

1. In this 2004 "Men and Masculinities: A-J" source, from ABC-CLIO, page 234, states, "Men too are subject to domestic violence at the hands of female and male sexual partners, ex-partners, and other family members. Yet there is no 'gender symmetry' in domestic violence; there are important differences between men's and women's typical patterns of victimization; and domestic violence represents only a small proportion of the violence to which men are subject." 2. This 2008 "A Review of Research on Women’s Use of Violence With Male Intimate Partners" source, published in Violence & Victims, states, "While Swan et al. (2005) found that women reported using equivalent levels of severe violence compared to what their partners used against them, Temple et al. (2005) found that women's violence was less severe than their partners' violence against them, even in relationships in which the women were the primary aggressors. Taken together, these studies suggest that the types of violence women and men commit differ, even in relationships in which both partners use violence. [...] The evidence presented above suggests that in many relationships that can be classified as mutually violent, women are more likely than men to experience severe and coercive forms of partner violence, such as sexual coercion and coercive control, and women are injured more often and more severely. It is not surprising, then, that relationships that are mutually violent have a more detrimental impact on women’s psychological and physical well-being, as compared to men." 3. This 2009 Domestic Violence Against Women: Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies source states that it was important to use consistent definitions of domestic violence, and that: Results of this review emphasize that violence against women has reached epidemic proportions in many societies. Accurate measurement of the prevalence of domestic violence remains problematic and further culturally sensitive research is required to develop more effective preventive policies and programs. 4. This 2011 International Human Rights Law and Domestic Violence: The Effectiveness of International Human Rights Law source, from Taylor & Francis, page PR13, 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 [...] In addition, violence used by men against female partners tends to be much more severe than that used by women against men. Mullender and Morley state that 'Domestic violence against women is the most common form of family violence worldwide.'" 5. This 2012 Screening Women for Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review to Update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation source states, "Although IPV affects both men and women as victims and perpetrators (4), more women experience IPV and most studies about screening and interventions for IPV enroll women. Approximately 1.3 to 5.3 million women in the United States experience IPV each year (5–6). Lifetime estimates range from 22% to 39% (7–8). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey indicated that 30% of women experience physical violence, 9% rape, 17% sexual violence other than rape, and 48% psychological aggression from their intimate partners over their lifetimes (4). Costs related to IPV are estimated to be between $2 and $7 billion each year (9)." 6. This 2012 Understanding and addressing violence against women World Health Organization (WHO) source states, "The overwhelming global burden of IPV is borne by women. Although women can be violent in relationships with men, often in self-defence, and violence sometimes occurs in same-sex partnerships, the most common perpetrators of violence against women are male intimate partners or ex-partners (1). By contrast, men are far more likely to experience violent acts by strangers or acquaintances than by someone close to them (2). How common is intimate partner violence? A growing number of population-based surveys have measured the prevalence of IPV, most notably the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women, which collected data on IPV from more than 24000 women in 10 countries, 1 representing diverse cultural, geographical and urban/rural settings (3) The study confirmed that IPV is widespread in all countries studied (Figure 1). In addition, a comparative analysis of Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data from nine countries found that the percentage of ever-partnered women who reported ever experiencing any physical or sexual violence by their current or most recent husband or cohabiting partner ranged from 18% in Cambodia to 48% in Zambia for physical violence, and 4% to 17% for sexual violence (4). In a 10-country analysis of DHS data, physical or sexual IPV ever reported by currently married women ranged from 17% in the Dominican Republic to 75% in Bangladesh (5). Similar ranges have been reported from other multi-country studies (6)." 7. This 2012 "Gender differences in intimate partner violence outcomes" review, published in the Psychology of Violence, found that women suffered disproportionately as a result of intimate partner violence, especially in terms of injuries, fear, and posttraumatic stress disorder. The review also found that 70% of female victims in one study were "very frightened" in response to IPV from their partners, but 85% of male victims reported "no fear", and that IPV mediated the satisfaction of the relationship for women but not for men. 8. This 2013 Health and Human Rights in a Changing World source, from Routledge, pages 780–781, states, "Intimate male partners are most often the main perpetrators of violence against women, a form of violence known as intimate partner violence, 'domestic' violence or 'spousal (or wife) abuse.' 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." 9. This 2013 Regional Protection of Human Rights: Documentary Supplement book source, from OUP USA, page 190, states that one of the goals is to recognize "that domestic violence disproportionately affects women." Like the book's Google description states, "[I]t illustrates how international human rights law is interpreted and implemented across international organizations and offers examples of political, economic, social problems and legal issues to emphasize the significant impact of international human rights law institutions on the constitutions, law, policies, and societies of different regions." 10. This 2013 Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence and Abuse source, from ABC-CLIO, page 644, relays, "As the Commission has established in the past, in the discharge of their duties, States must take into account that domestic violence is a problem that disproportionately affects women, since they constitute the majority of the victims." 11. This 2013 Partner Abuse Worldwide review, which acknowledges that its definition of domestic violence is not the mainstream view, defining partner abuse broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first, examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence; the authors stated that if one looks at who is physically harmed and how seriously, who expresses more fear, who has psychological problems following abuse, domestic violence is significantly gendered and women suffer the most; however, going by their broader paradigm, "partner abuse can no longer be conceived as merely a gender problem, but also (and perhaps primarily) as a human and relational problem, and should be framed as such by everyone concerned." 12. This 2014 Cultural Sociology of Mental Illness source, from SAGE Publications, page 961, states, "Interpersonal violence disproportionately affects women and includes child sexual abuse, rape, and domestic violence. Women who have been victims of any kind of violence at any age are at greater risk of developing a mental disorder." 13. This 2014 "Domestic Abuse, Homicide and Gender: Strategies for Policy and Practice" source, from Springer, starting on page 30, 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. In fact, the highest risk factor by far in domestic homicide and everyday terrorism, is being female. [...] 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, in accurate. 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." 14. This 2014 "Domestic Violence in Diverse Contexts: A Re-examination of Gender" source, from Routledge, states, "Overwhelmingly, it is women who are the victims of domestic violence and this book puts women’s experiences of domestic violence at its centre, whilst acknowledging their many diverse and complex identities." 15. This 2015 Intimate partner abuse: identifying, caring for and helping women in healthcare settings. review (full link to the article here), states, "IPA is a major public health issue, with serious social, economic and health consequences. It has been found to pose at least as high a health risk to women of child bearing age as raised blood pressure, tobacco use and obesity, and is a leading contributor to death, disability and illness for women in this age group [...] Research has found that only 12–20% of women report being asked by their doctor about IPA, with barriers to inquiry including clinician uncertainty about how to ask, lack of knowledge and training about IPA, and insufficient time [17–19]. Barriers to disclosure by women include both internal factors (shame, normalization and minimization) and external factors (perception that others cannot help, judgmental attitudes, previous negative responses from health professionals). Additionally, women are not always at a point where they feel comfortable to disclose. [...] Although it is acknowledged that men may also experience IPA, the power disparities present in most cases of IPA mean that women are more often survivors than perpetrators, and that the community health and economic burdens of IPA lie primarily with women as a group." 16. This 2017 "Saintly Women: Medieval Saints, Modern Women, and Intimate Partner Violence" source, from Routledge, page 35, states, "Intimate partner violence (IPV) is overwhelmingly a crime perpetrated by men against women. Although some U.S. studies have suggested that IPV is perpetrated equally by men and women, a deeper exploration of the facts reveals that this is simply untrue. There may be equal rates of conflict instigated by men and women, but when it comes to violence that rises to the level of criminal activity, offenders are overwhelmingly male."

Review articles on self-defense as the main, or one of the main, reasons that women engage in domestic violence/intimate partner violence.

1. This 2008 "A Review of Research on Women’s Use of Violence With Male Intimate Partners" source, published in Violence & Victims, states, "Studies have consistently found that the majority of domestically violent women also have experienced violence from their male partners. [...] Thus, many domestically violent women—especially those who are involved with the criminal justice system—are not the sole perpetrators of violence. The victimization they have experienced from their male partners is an important contextual factor in understanding their motivations for violence. Some women who have been adjudicated for a domestic violence offense are, in fact, battered women who fought back. [...] Women who engage in intimate partner violence commonly report using violence to defend themselves from their partners (Babcock, Miller, & Siard, 2003), and several studies have found that women cite self-defense as a motivation for violence more frequently than men do (e.g., Barnett, Lee, & Thelen, 1997; Hamberger, 2005; Makepeace, 1986; but for an exception see Kernsmith, 2005). In an analysis of women’s motivations for violence (Swan & Snow, 2003), self-defense was the most frequently endorsed motive, with 75% of participants stating that they had used violence to defend themselves. In Stuart et al.’s (2006) sample of women who were arrested for intimate partner violence, women’s violence was motivated by self-defense 39% of the time." 2. This 2010 "Why Do Women Use Intimate Partner Violence? A Systematic Review of Women’s Motivations" source, published in Trauma Violence Abuse, states, "Self-defense was listed as a motivation for women’s use of IPV in all of the included articles, except three, one of which administered a questionnaire that did not ask about self-defense (Archer & Graham-Kevan, 2003; Rosen, Stith, Few et al., 2005; Weston, Marshall, & Coker, 2007). Of the 14 studies that ranked or compared motivations based on frequency of endorsement, (Barnett, Lee, & Thelen, 1997; Carrado, George, Loxam et al., 1996; Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Hamberger, 1997; Hamberger & Guse, 2005; Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005; Kernsmith, 2005; O'Leary & Slep, 2006; Olson & Lloyd, 2005; Saunders, 1986; Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007; Stuart, Moore, Hellmuth et al., 2006; Swan & Snow, 2003; Ward & Muldoon, 2007), four (Hamberger, 1997; Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005; Saunders, 1986; Swan & Snow, 2003) found that self-defense was women’s primary motivation (46–79%) for using IPV, with one additional study reporting self-defense as the second most common motivation (39%) (Stuart, Moore, Hellmuth et al., 2006). Self-defense was defined differently between studies. Most women described self-defense as using IPV to avert their partner’s physical injury (Downs, Rindels, & Atkinson, 2007; Flemke & Allen, 2008; Miller & Meloy, 2006; Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007; Ward & Muldoon, 2007); some used IPV after their partner had struck, while others initiated IPV because of fear of imminent danger. Other women reciprocated their partner’s physical abuse to protect their emotional health (Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007)." The source also notes that retaliation was a listed motivation in 15 studies, but that only "one study document[ed] this as women’s primary motivation (Kernsmith, 2005)." The source additionally states, "Disentangling self-defense and retaliation was difficult in some studies. Hamberger & Guse (2005) grouped self-defense and retaliation as one motivation. O’Leary& Slep (2006) reported that women most frequently used IPV 'in response to their partner’s aggression,' which could incorporate either. Weston, Marshall & Coker did not list self-defense as a motivation, but hypothesized that 'women [may] perceive self-protective actions as more retaliatory than self-defensive' (p.1063). [...] This review demonstrates the difficulty in defining and measuring self-defense and retaliation. Many women discussed using physical aggression after their partner’s IPV to minimize personal injury (Downs, Rindels, & Atkinson, 2007; Flemke & Allen, 2008; Miller & Meloy, 2006; Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007; Ward & Muldoon, 2007). All would agree this is self-defense (Wimberly, 2007). Women also described using IPV because they did not want to internalize images of themselves as victims (Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007). Although these women were arguably using IPV to protect their emotional health, this does not meet the legal definition of self-defense (Wimberly, 2007). Whether this should fall into a more conceptual definition of self-defense or whether it is more consistent with retaliation is controversial."

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• . Flyer : One can google up a dozen cites on almost anything, and I surely could google up two dozen back in the field that make no mention of this.... Which says absolutely nothing as far as the WEIGHT and UNDUE question. To do *that*, you need to show what percentage of DV is either, or what percentage of the literature covers which ....EXACTLY the ‘table of everything’ kind of say-it-all I keep pointing out as a way this ‘only room for one’ is not necessary. And again, if it is going to NOT be all Domestic Violence, then it needs a different title. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, your views do not align with the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Your views on WP:UNDUE are out of step with the way that it works. The literature is clear, and however you are arguing against it in this section makes not a bit of sense. You will find no reliable sources stating that "domestic violence disproportionately affects men or that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly men and that they suffer more severe consequences." You will find no reliable sources stating that men are likelier than women to commit domestic violence in self-defense. You can Google and look for sources that don't note the "women are more affected" and "self-defense is a primary motive for women" aspects as much as you want to, but it will not change the fact that the overwhelming majority of the literature is about women and is about how domestic violence overwhelmingly affects them. It will not change the fact that sources that go over the literature on domestic violence always mention this fact. You would need to cherry pick to find sources that don't note the "women are more affected" aspect. And those sources, especially quality sources on the matter, are few and far between. And, yes, WP:Due very clearly states, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." No one has argued "only room for one." So stop acting like I or they have. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Flyer - Got citations for that position ? Otherwise listing some and proclaiming your personal feel 'everything is about women' is fine but not WP:V valid for article content, and may simply not something the literature says as a recognized trend. When thousands of publications exist does 18 mean that those 18 are a big weight ? No. Tell me that there are a thousand publications that are actually comparing women and men's claiming self-defense and then you'd at least have plausible OR -- but here it's just your saying so. Get on to things other than IPV... Tell me there are no documents about Economic suppression and control and then it has no WEIGHT. Tell me it has 2,000 and IPV has 3,000 and that just means IPV gets listed first. Otherwise, look -- one can change the wording to a neutral "Domestic violence may be done for self-defense or retaliation." without gendering and then you've got a direct cite and there wouldn't be any gender statement under UNDUE question. Put up a stats table for all factually showing all forms of DV which happens more and even by sex and again there would be no bias / POV and scope issues. Going beyond these into motives or justified by what is where the POV/UNDUE comes up and it does not have to be that way. There are other ways to go. Think about it, and which would be most acceptable to you. Over & out. Markbassett (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Got citations for that position? What are you even talking about? Your "everything is about women" claim is you projecting and showing how you really feel. You wanting to hide information that women are disproportionately and more severely affected by domestic violence, and the importance of self-defense in women's motives...by putting up tables as if this article shouldn't mostly include prose or as Wikipedia articles don't typically include prose with tables...is one of the oddest suggestions I've ever read/heard. You can conclude however you want to. You are wrong, for the reasons that Snow Rise and I stated above. You are wrong for the reasons that others (opposed to what you are arguing for) in the RfC stated above. You are wrong for the same reason we will not make the Sexism or Serial killer article "balanced" to be "equally" about men and women. You are wrong for reasons similar to why you were wrong in the 2015 RfC at this talk page. Most importantly, you are wrong per what the quality and high-quality sources that have reviewed the literature state very clearly, including with regard to the supposed gender symmetry you are always so keen on supporting (such as in that aforementioned 2015 RfC). That and our rules are the reasons others have voted opposite your position. In 2016, at the Campus sexual assault article, you opposed appropriately following the literature with due weight and supported unnecessary in-text attribution. So that you voted and commented the way you have above is not a surprise to me. What might be a surprise to some people is that you still haven't learned how to appropriately follow and apply WP:Due weight. Or that, to suit your own POV, you still refuse to follow Wikipedia's rules on this matter. Whatever the case, I am done debating this with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn - Specifically, do you or do you not have a cite for the mentioned "sources that have reviewed the literature" which speak to the question in RFC is "article lends undue weight to women as victims and/or their use of self-defense as a reason"? (It is unclear if you are speaking hyperbolically or actually have a usable item.) The existing language and position in lead does not appear supported by the existing cite to Swan or the article content, and giving a handful of cites above is not addressing WP:WEIGHT of the entire field. If there is a citeable table covering all forms of physical, emotional, sexual, and economic that would be WP:V content that would cover ALL Domestic Violence and not require exclusions or a POV statement. The WP:ONUS is on article text to ahow WP:V -- and if there is no suitable cite, particularly for something like a comparison, justification, and lead position -- then the line should simply not be there. So again -- just looking for cite(s) to literature survey(s) or to data source(s). Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Bombarding talk pages with good faith demands for this and that did not work at Talk:Objections to evolution and it won't work here. Consensus does not require that every POV pusher is happy. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Markbassett, "sources that have reviewed the literature" are above. So I fail to see what you are going on about on that. As for the rest, I've already been over how you have not mentioned exactly what form of domestic violence is missing from this article (whether one in which women prevail in as abusers or not) and that your views of the rules are not in line with how Wikipedia is supposed to work. So, again, my discussion with you on this is over. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Flyer22 Reborn - thanks for pointing to your source. If you'll look again at how they are studies of "Violence against women" you may also see I view it as just not speaking to WEIGHT and UNDUE questions across all forms of domestic violence. Some seem not literature surveys, although the WHO study of violence against women seems of interest for international variations in violence against women and is an authoritative body, just not speaking beyond its focus. I was asking at least in part because I wonder if there is an overview out there. It's not easy to match the whole DV as framed in the article, it seems partly as definitions vary and emotional and economic abuse may not be included - or literature may exclude acid attacks and genital mutilation -- or literature may be limited to entirely IPV physical violence -- and so forth. If I may offer a few links in exchange from googling 'domestic violence' literature review, you may see that interesting data occurs in focus areas that may broaden your outlook but I'm just not seeing an external broad literature survey to resolve the question. (Though I suspect such survey exists SOMEwhere.):

• Inspectorate of Probation, Domestic Violence: A Literature Review (Barnish, 2004) - a gov.uk public document from webarchive
• Domestic Violence Literature Review: Analysis Report, (JSI 2016) health focus, lead finding "More than one in three women (35.6%) and one in four men (28.5%) aged 18 and older reported a lifetime prevalence of physical violence, rape, and/or stalking by an intimate partner"
• Domestic Violence: A Literature Review Reflecting an International Crisis(Ely et al 2001), a bit short and non-specific but I did note mentions on international variations and older woman vs younger.
• National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma & Mental Health website, diverse articles seems good resource though not comparison
• Domestic Violence Dryden-Edwards, medicine.net article on diagnosis and treatment not useful for WEIGHT though the numbers (2 million women and 800,000 men victims in US) are noted.
• Male Victims of Domestic Violence (Kimmel, 2002) includes discussion of gender symmetry and Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS).
• And I do not get much better from 'measuring the extent of domestic violence' ... instead winding up at interedting places like Measuring Intimate Partner (Domestic) Violence, NIJ.Gov

So - most I can offer to the RFC question on weight and on self-defense is that it's looking UNDUE as in not supported by cites nor by the article content, and that otherwise the article has some places of issue in images and coverage flaws. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I pointed to more than one source, and they are all good-quality or high-quality. Sources like #13 and #16 address the gender symmetry aspect. Numerous scholars are clear that incidents of minor (meaning not as severe) partner violence do not equate to true gender symmetry. And I don't consider sources like my medicinenet.com. The points that I and others are making are the following: The literature is clear that domestic violence disproportionately affects women. Domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women and they suffer more severe consequences. Sources commonly cite self-defense as the main, or one of the main, reasons that women engage in domestic violence/intimate partner violence. The literature is overwhelming about women. All of this is why the article does not lend undue to weight to women as victims; I know that you disagree with that, but I've already thoroughly addressed you on the matter. You want to rely on survey data, but Wikipedia is under no obligation to do so. Not to mention...the issues with survey data. Your "not supported by cites" argument is false. And again, there is no reason at all to keep pinging me to this talk page when it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The issue in cites above is that items focused to “violence against women” or “physical violence” simply cannot by their nature inform WEIGHT or UNDUE in the overall topic Domestic Violence. They will introduce an inherent POV bias unless the article topic was altered to “Domestic violence against women” or “Domestic violence (physical abuse)”. Not POV as ‘bad’, just POV as in looking at a part, and/or looking at it one way. The cites were winding up with seeking and bolding gender comparisons and doing things like additional depth on justification for solely women committing physical violence against solely men - looking at cites of ‘gender comparisons’ studies further feed feed that aspect. I am saying that these are not looking or able to answer the RFC question of if the coverage for Domestic Violence is predominantly about that. One can compare them to the ‘Medical POV’ or the ‘Law Enforcement POV’ and get different highlights and different conclusions, and numerical comparisons at 5:2 ratio or iirc about 40 to 30 percent for POV aspects within physical victim stats. To the UNDUE question and particularly ‘self-defense’, I will point out that where it takes deleting ‘or retaliation’ and ignoring ‘mutual violence’ makes it whiff of undue, and that supporting phrases are waaaaay back at pg 780 or 644 or 961 is not supporting LEAD prominence for the self defense mention. Going with ‘physical abuse predominantly affects women, the young, and minorities’ would seem much more prominent and supportable and that there is a better choice. Frankly, this part all seems contradictory — having women be mostly the victim, yet lead with having women committing is disjointed; adding it as justified seems a bit of obviously over the top. I think I have stated my input, I think the underlying flaw is in narrowing an overall topic into physical and gendered narratives depth. The overview or even coverage at all of aspects other than that winds up missing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

More twisted, flawed and repetitive logic that will have me repeating myself, I see. Yep, I'm done discussing this with you. Cheers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-defense edits.

I have reliable secondary sources that say that most domestic violence committed by women is not in self defense: Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Adrianne McCullars, Tiffany A. Misra. "Motivations for Men and Women's Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: A Comprehensive Review." Partner Abuse, Volume 3, Number 4, 2012. DOI: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.429 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272209909_Motivations_for_Men_and_Women's_Intimate_Partner_Violence_Perpetration_A_Comprehensive_Review

Hamby, Sherry. "The Gender Debate About Intimate Partner Violence: Solutions and Dead Ends." Psychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and Policy 1(1):24-34 · March 2009 DOI: 10.1037/a0015066. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232559408_The_Gender_Debate_About_Intimate_Partner_Violence_Solutions_and_Dead_Ends.
Hamil, John. Russel, Brenda L. " Perceptions of Female Offenders: Chapter 10: The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project: Implications for Law Enforcement Responses to Domestic Violence." DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-5871-5_10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287265042_The_Partner_Abuse_State_of_Knowledge_Project_Implications_for_Law_Enforcement_Responses_to_Domestic_Violence.
Frederick Buttell, Michelle Mohr Carney. "Women Who Perpetrate Relationship Violence: Moving Beyond Political Correctness." page 3. https://books.google.bs/books?id=s8e3AwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=motivations+for+female+perpetrated+IPV&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHwOK3rtrgAhXRo1kKHZypAigQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Straus, Murray A (2011). "Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence and implications for prevention and treatment". Aggression and Violent Behavior. 16 (4): 279–288. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.010.

So what is the justification for removing it? Also, in the current version it cites an article by Hamby when it means to cite the book by Loseke. The 2014 article by Hamby doesn't mention motives for IPV. Sewblon (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Sewblon, regarding this, this and this, do you not see the RfC above, which you had the chance to participate in but didn't? Have we not extensively been over this (for example, self-defense being defined too narrowly by some researchers and being based on Straus's research) at Talk:Intimate partner violence? Do I need to start a RfC on this every time (which is every few months) you return to add or suggest some "not mostly in self-defense" narrative? Do I need to keep bringing in WP:Med editors to help every time you do this? You've already been pointed to WP:Discretionary sanctions, and I'd rather not need to take anything to WP:ANI. Given what I argued above in the RfC and at Talk:Intimate partner violence, I really don't see what is left for me to state to you on this matter. I restored this bit about Loseke. And I added the "A 2010 systematic review of the literature on women's perpetration of IPV 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." part seen in the Intimate partner violence article. But as for the "other findings indicate that most violence committed by both men and women are not in self-defense" you added, we went over this extensively at Talk:Intimate partner violence. For example, I stated there, "That is your opinion of Hamby's argument. She doesn't state that, and I'm not aware of any source that says she's wrong about Archer's meta-analysis. I told you that Archer's meta-analysis had been challenged, and what Hamby states about it is why. My quoting of Hamby above concerns Archer's meta-analysis (not the CTS data), and it concerns her statement about self-defense. As for the CTS data, it's been challenged times over. It's not like Hamby is the first to criticize it. As for self-defense and other-self-protection [...] The two reviews above, the WHO, and other research is clear -- a common reason that women give for engaging in IPV is for self-defense and/or other-self-protection. The literature states that women often either cite it as the sole reason for committing IPV or as a top reason." But by stating that "other findings indicate that most violence committed by both men and women are not in self-defense," you are oversimplifying the literature and are giving false balance to the minority view. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I stopped engaging in the discussion because it became too upsetting. Sorry about that. But what I said isn't false balance, it accurately summarizes the reliable secondary sources that I cited. Sewblon (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

also, I fail to see how the RFC policy is relevant. Sewblon (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Because these are high-quality sources that I am citing. Sewblon (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, what I should have said is that I now see how the request for comment is relevant. But I still disagree. My sources say that its wrong. Sewblon (talk) 04:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Sewblon, it is false balance because your edit makes the "not mostly in self-defense" piece seem as prominent as the "in self-defense or for other self-protection" reports. At Talk:Intimate partner violence, I argued the following: You stated, "But for both men and women, intimate partner violence in self-defense is much less frequent than violence not in self-defense." I have read much of the research, and not just or mostly abstracts, and I have not seen that to be the case for women. I don't look at single studies on the matter. I look at secondary sources and tertiary sources, and some of those include reviews. The research shows that self-defense is often the primary motive or one of the top motives for women who commit IPV, but that some women define self-defense differently (for example, the retaliation aspect or the preemptive aspect). Fear is the other big motive, and that fear is often intertwined with self-defense or the belief that the act of IPV is self-defense. Men commit IPV for control and to physically harm far more than women do. Many or most boys and men who are hit by girls or women in these relationships express no fear at the situation. They often don't feel that the girls or women were trying to harm them by, say, a slap to the arm. They commonly shrug off the acts. It's not the same for girls and women. Of course, there are men who are in danger from their female intimate partners with regard to IPV and deal with similar abuse that women deal with. Or they aren't in danger, but it's the woman who is the truly abusive one while the man either just takes the abuse or engages in IPV for protection, but they are in the significant minority.

As you and I also discussed before, the self-defense aspect may be defined narrowly by some sources. It seems that sources stating "not mostly in self-defense" use a narrow definition of self-defense. Again, that approach, which is mainly based on Straus's research and sometimes on Archer's meta-analysis, has been criticized. Archer's meta-analysis is flawed for reasons I've addressed at Talk:Intimate partner violence. And as is clear by some of the research, distinguishing between self-defense and retaliation with regard to women who commit IPV is difficult. The RfC, where I listed a number of reliable sources, is relevant because it is partly about the self-defense aspect you were (and still are) disputing. The consensus from that RfC was that what the section, and article as a whole, reports on with regard to women and self-defense is mostly fine. There are almost always counter sources for a matter. Per WP:Due weight, the goal is to not make the counterarguments seem as though they have the same weight as the main view or aspect when they don't. Your wording would be fine if we used some wording to make it clear that the "in self-defense or for other self-protection" motives are more commonly given or more commonly cited as the motives for female- perpetrated IPV than are the other reported motives. Even including "that women cite self-defense as a motivation for violence more frequently than men do" or "women are likelier than men to use intimate partner violence in self-defense" (like we state in the lead) would make your text seem less like the literature is stating that non-self defense/non-other self protection motives are as prominent as the self-defense/other self-protection motives given by women. In the Discussion section of the RfC, the bolded pieces in the collapsed part of the "Review articles on self-defense as the main, or one of the main, reasons that women engage in domestic violence/intimate partner violence." area show just how prominent the self-defense report is, including that what some women consider self-defense is not technically (or rather legally) self-defense. Also, the "other findings indicate that most violence committed by both men and women are not in self-defense" part should have "IPV" in place of "violence," and it fits better with the Straus material since Straus reported that as well and this view has been criticized.

As for the RfC, the conclusion was not wrong. It's based on the overall state of the article in addition to noting that self-defense is often given as a reason for female-perpetrated IPV. And considering the criticism of Straus and gender symmetry, it's not a strong argument for you to claim that the Straus primary source is a high-quality source and to state that "[your] sources say that its wrong." I'm sure we can come up with satisfactory wording if we work together. Resolving a matter right then while the discussion is hot is better than showing up months later after an RfC that partially concerned the matter resolved the dispute. No need to ping me to the talk page, though, since it's on my watchlist. I prefer not to be pinged to talk pages I'm watching. Snow Rise, in the RfC that, you stated, "That women are vastly more likely to act in self-defense in intimate partner violence is similarly one of the the most straight-forward editorial calls a volunteer could be asked to make, if predicating matters on a faithfully representation of RS. Other than what we state about Straus, do you have an opinion on how to present the "not mostly in self-defense" aspect in the "Gender differences" section? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry I didn't resolve this earlier. For some reason I became very emotional about the discussion and didn't have it in me to keep going. That is on me. But here is the decisive issue, All the sources that I cited, including the Straus one, are not single studies. They are a meta-analyses, two literature reviews, and two book chapters. In other words, they are reliable secondary sources. Reliable secondary sources are the best guide that we have for determining majority expert opinion. So it just seems arbitrary to disregard them. In (Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Adrianne McCullars, Tiffany A. Misra. “Motivations for Men and Women’s Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: A Comprehensive Review.” Partner Abuse, Volume 3, Number 4, 2012. DOI: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.429) It said that women are more likely to commit IPV in self-defense than men. But in both cases neither men's violence nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense. Can we use that phrasing? Its a systemic review of women's motivations for IPV. So it seems like a good source for this topic.Sewblon (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You didn't resolve the issue here, but others did. As for disregarding the sources you cited, I reiterate that it is a matter of how you are presenting the literature. This is why I stated above that your edit makes the "not mostly in self-defense" piece seem as prominent as the "in self-defense or for other self-protection" reports. It is why I stated that "There are almost always counter sources for a matter. Per WP:Due weight, the goal is to not make the counterarguments seem as though they have the same weight as the main view or aspect when they don't." At Talk:Intimate partner violence, I presented you with a list of sources and argued the following: The fourth source in the collapse box -- this 2013 "Motivations for Men and Women's Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: A Comprehensive Review" source, published in "Partner Abuse, Volume 3, Number 4," was critical of the second source and previous research that found that women mainly commit IPV for self-defense, but it obviously notes that the literature has found this and that "few of the existing studies have data that directly compare motivations for the perpetration of men's versus women's violence" and that the "existing empirical studies would primarily focus on control/dominance and self-defense as motivations for men's versus women's violence." It also notes that "further work needs to be done to distinguish between self-defense and retaliation for previously experienced violence because these motives were difficult to separate in many of the papers included in this review." The eighth source [at Talk:Intimate partner violence] that I presented in the collapse box states, "Men, however, are more likely to use perpetration to control their partners, whereas women are more reactive in their use of violence." The word reactive often covers self-defense in the IPV literature. I stated that reactive is often entangled in retaliation, in part, because retaliation is often viewed as self-defense or other self-protection by women, researchers or law enforcement. I stated that Hamby does state that "not according to self-report" on the topic of whether female-perpetrated IPV is primarily motivated by self-defense and that "the most commonly reported IPV motives for both men and women are anger, reacting to a verbal or emotional insult, or to "get through to the partner," but she mostly (except for one study) points to 1990s research for that statement and is critical of "self-defense and retaliation [being] uttered together as if they are similarly mitigating motives for violence." I noted that even the WHO states "often in self-defense."

That is what I argued at Talk:Intimate partner violence. There, I tried to work the matter out with you by proposing wording. I suggested that you propose wording. You went away. I'm not going to keep debating this with you every few months, extensively or otherwise, repeating myself, especially after the matter has been resolved by an RfC. Above, per self-defense having the weight that it does in the literature, I essentially suggested that we propose different wording than what you recently added. I am not going to agree to add "not mainly in self-defense" in a way that make it looks like it has the same weight as the "self-defense or other self-protection" material. It needs to be clear that the "for self-defense or other self-protection" aspect is more commonly given or more commonly cited as the motive for female-perpetrated IPV than are the other reported motives. Above, you proposed "It said that women are more likely to commit IPV in self-defense than men. But in both cases neither men's violence nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense." An issue with this proposed text is the statement that "neither men's violence nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense." That is a false statement, given all of the sources (including reviews) that state that women commonly commit IPV in self-defense. How can it be that women are more likely to commit IPV in self-defense than men are...but also be the case that neither men's violence nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense?

I'll look over more of the literature and see about proposing different wording here on the talk page. It would also be good to wait and see if Snow Rise has anything to state on the matter. On a side note: Not all journals and other sources are created equal. Some journals can be WP:Fringe, predatory open-access publishing, or simply WP:Undue with their primary sources or reviews. So coming across a journal's review article doesn't automatically mean it should be used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"You didn't resolve the issue here, but others did. As for disregarding the sources you cited, I reiterate that it is a matter of how you are presenting the literature. This is why I stated above that your edit makes the "not mostly in self-defense" piece seem as prominent as the "in self-defense or for other self-protection" reports. It is why I stated that "There are almost always counter sources for a matter. Per WP:Due weight, the goal is to not make the counterarguments seem as though they have the same weight as the main view or aspect when they don't."" I understand that. I just don't understand how you came to the conclusion that one has greater weight than the other. "was critical of the second source and previous research that found that women mainly commit IPV for self-defense, but it obviously notes that the literature has found this." It found two reviews that found that the main motive for female IPV was self-defense. If we don't count Strauss, Hamby and Langhinrichsen-Rohling herself are two reviews that found that that isn't the case. "that "few of the existing studies have data that directly compare motivations for the perpetration of men's versus women's violence" and that the "existing empirical studies would primarily focus on control/dominance and self-defense as motivations for men's versus women's violence." Those were the initial hypotheses. Not the conclusions. "I stated that reactive is often entangled in retaliation, in part, because retaliation is often viewed as self-defense or other self-protection by women, researchers or law enforcement." I have never heard a case of law-enforcement viewing retaliation as an act of self-defense in any jurisdiction, nor of any scientist claiming that retaliation counts as self-protection. "I stated that Hamby does state that "not according to self-report" on the topic of whether female-perpetrated IPV is primarily motivated by self-defense and that "the most commonly reported IPV motives for both men and women are anger, reacting to a verbal or emotional insult, or to "get through to the partner," but she mostly (except for one study) points to 1990s research for that statement and is critical of "self-defense and retaliation [being] uttered together as if they are similarly mitigating motives for violence." So what is your point? None of that changes that its what she said, and she is cited elsewhere in this article. "I noted that even the WHO states "often in self-defense." " So where do they say that? "Above, you proposed "It said that women are more likely to commit IPV in self-defense than men. But in both cases neither men's violence nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense." An issue with this proposed text is the statement that "neither men's violence nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense." That is a false statement, given all of the sources (including reviews) that state that women commonly commit IPV in self-defense. How can it be that women are more likely to commit IPV in self-defense than men are...but also be the case that neither men's violence nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense?" Neither men nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense most of the time. There is no contradiction here. You can tell just by looking at the actual numbers from Langhinrichsen-Rohling. In non-perpetrator samples the rate of self-defense for men is about 20% and the rate for women is about 35%. So women are more likely to commit violence in self-defense than men. But in both cases most of their violence isn't in self-defense. In perpetrator samples its 55% self-defense for men and 65% self-defense for women. But Langhinrichsen-Rohling doesn't think that perpetrator reports are reliable. So again, the wording that I think gives the best summary of the literature is that women are more likely to commit violence in self-defense than men. But self-defense is a minority of all IPV committed by both men and women. Sewblon (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

One has greater weight than the other because one (the self-defense or for other self-protection aspect) is commonly cited as a primary reason for why women commit IPV. Like Swan et al. stated in their 2008 review, "Women who engage in intimate partner violence commonly report using violence to defend themselves from their partners (Babcock, Miller, & Siard, 2003), and several studies have found that women cite self-defense as a motivation for violence more frequently than men do (e.g., Barnett, Lee, & Thelen, 1997; Hamberger, 2005; Makepeace, 1986; but for an exception see Kernsmith, 2005)." The literature does not commonly state that self-defense is not a primary motive for why women commit IPV. Looking at the literature, including sources I pointed to in the above RfC, makes that clear. One has to specifically go looking for such sources to find anything like "most women don't commit IPV for self-defense." And that statement often or usually traces back to Straus and/or Archer. Women more often state that they committed IPV because they were protecting themselves than they state that they committed IPV for any other reason. I'll get back to the "protecting themselves" point later in this post. You stated that the source stating that the "existing empirical studies would primarily focus on control/dominance and self-defense as motivations for men's versus women's violence" were "the initial hypotheses. Not the conclusions." But in terms of the overall literature, there is a big focus on control/dominance and self-defense as motivations for men's versus women's violence; anyone who has studied domestic violence/IPV knows this. You stated that you "have never heard a case of law-enforcement viewing retaliation as an act of self-defense in any jurisdiction, nor of any scientist claiming that retaliation counts as self-protection." And yet there exists reviews and other sources on the topic of IPV stating that retaliation and self-defense among women who commit IPV is difficult to distinguish. There is Hamby being critical of "self-defense and retaliation [being] uttered together as if they are similarly mitigating motives for violence." With regard to Hamby having focused on 1990s research for the statement that, "according to self-report," most female-perpetrated IPV is not primarily motivated by self-defense, you asked, "So what is [my] point?" My point is that reviews after the 1990s research state differently. You asked, "So where does [the WHO state 'often in self-defense']"? Do you never go back and look at the sources I listed, even when I point you to them? The WHO statement is right up there in the first collapse box of the RfC. To repeat, the WHO states, "The overwhelming global burden of IPV is borne by women. Although women can be violent in relationships with men, often in self-defence, and violence sometimes occurs in same-sex partnerships, the most common perpetrators of violence against women are male intimate partners or ex-partners (1). By contrast, men are far more likely to experience violent acts by strangers or acquaintances than by someone close to them (2)."

You stated, "Neither men nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense most of the time. There is no contradiction here." Why are you stating "violence" instead of "IPV"? If you are focused on violence in general, it doesn't belong in this article. The statement that "neither men nor women's violence is attributable to [IPV] most of the time" is not true according to certain reviews and a number of other reliable sources, including the WHO. Furthermore, your previous proposed text doesn't speak of "most of the time." It flat out states "neither men's violence nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense." Yes, if "violence" means "IPV," the "neither men's violence nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense" statement is contradictory to "women are more likely to commit IPV in self-defense than men." If women's violence is not attributable to self-defense, then they aren't committing IPV in self-defense. You stated that one "can tell just by looking at the actual numbers from Langhinrichsen-Rohling." Not really. First, that is one review contradicted by other research. Second, this research is focused on the United States. The WHO, on the other hand, is an international source, and has cross-culturally found self-defense to be a (or the) primary motive for female-perpetrated IPV. For example, this WHO source (page 94) states, "Where violence by women occurs it is more likely to be in the form of self-defence." And this 2013 "Responding to Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence Against Women: WHO Clinical and Policy Guidelines" source (website link here) states that violence carried out by women is often in self-defense. Third, we know from previous research, including the 2010 "Why Do Women Use Intimate Partner Violence? A Systematic Review of Women’s Motivations" source, that many women consider retaliation to be self-defense and some sources state that the retaliation is at least for overall protection. The "Why Do Women Use Intimate Partner Violence? A Systematic Review of Women’s Motivations" source is one such source stating, "Women also described using IPV because they did not want to internalize images of themselves as victims (Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007). Although these women were arguably using IPV to protect their emotional health, this does not meet the legal definition of self-defense (Wimberly, 2007). Whether this should fall into a more conceptual definition of self-defense or whether it is more consistent with retaliation is controversial." And lastly, Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. state, "These results should be viewed with caution, however, because many methodological and measurement challenges exist in this field. There was also considerable heterogeneity across papers making direct gender comparisons problematic." And "given the extremely small number of papers that are summarized here, these findings should be considered preliminary." And "Taken as a whole, however, the findings gleaned from this review suggest that this area of the IPV field is in its infancy." Beyond all of that, you are only focused on a strict definition of self-defense, when enough sources talk about women also using IPV for other self-protection, and the second paragraph in the "Gender differences" section states "self-defense or other self-protection (such as emotional health)." Notice that I don't just keep focusing on self-defense in the legal sense; I keep stressing "self-defense or other self-protection." In terms of motives for why women commit IPV, self-defense or other self-protection are more commonly noted as, or given as, motives for why women commit IPV. One might state that some form of other self-protection is given as a reason more often than self-defense is, but the "for protection" motive is there as a primary motive either way.

As for your latest proposed wording, if we were to include it, it should have WP:In-text attribution and go after the Straus piece so that it reads as "Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. argue that although women are more likely than men to commit violence in self-defense, self-defense is a minority of all IPV committed by both men and women." The thing is, though, "minority" is vague. And more importantly, Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. do not state that self-defense is in the minority with regard to all IPV committed by both men and women. They state, "Power/control and self-defense were commonly measured motivations (76% and 61%, respectively). However, using violence as an expression of negative emotion (63%), communication difficulties (48%), retaliation (60%), or because of jealousy (49%) were also commonly assessed motives." Going by those numbers power/control and self-defense are the more commonly cited motives. You also stated "55% self-defense for men and 65% self-defense for women. But Langhinrichsen-Rohling doesn't think that perpetrator reports are reliable." Well, "doesn't think that perpetrator reports are reliable" is their opinion. And they also state that "it seems clear that both men and women perpetrate violence in response to various motives." I don't see where they state that self-defense is a minority reason for IPV. So I would propose that, after the Straus piece, we state "Some researchers, such as [so and so], have supported Straus's findings." Or "Some research has supported Straus's findings." Or "Other research aligns with Straus's findings." But I don't see that we should mention Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. as being among those researchers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

"The literature does not commonly state that self-defense is not a primary motive for why women commit IPV. Looking at the literature, including sources I pointed to in the above RfC, makes that clear. One has to specifically go looking for such sources to find anything like 'most women don't commit IPV for self-defense.' And that statement often or usually traces back to Straus and/or Archer." That isn't true. The first result on Google Books for "motives for female IPV" states that other motivations are more important and it doesn't cite Archer or Strauss. With respect to "Women more often state that they committed IPV because they were protecting themselves than they state that they committed IPV for any other reason." There is a subtle but important distinction to make: Between the statements "women commit IPV in self-defense more than men." "Women commit IPV in self-defense more often than for other reasons." and "Most IPV committed by women is done in self-defense." It is the third statement that I take issue with. The sources that I have seen indicate that it is false. The way to reconcile this with the WHO statement, that I can think of, is that women are more likely to commit IPV in self-defense than men. But for both men and women motives besides self-defense are more common. With respect to this: "You stated that you 'have never heard a case of law-enforcement viewing retaliation as an act of self-defense in any jurisdiction, nor of any scientist claiming that retaliation counts as self-protection.' And yet there exists reviews and other sources on the topic of IPV stating that retaliation and self-defense among women who commit IPV is difficult to distinguish." retaliation and self-defense being difficult to distinguish isn't the same thing as actually claiming that retaliation is a sub-set of self-defense. "My point is that reviews after the 1990s research state differently." Some do, like Swan and Blair Merritt. But other's don't. Like Strauss's 2010 review and Langhinrichsen-Rohling 2013 review. "You asked, 'So where does [the WHO state 'often in self-defense']'? Do you never go back and look at the sources I listed, even when I point you to them? The WHO statement is right up there in the first collapse box of the RfC. To repeat, the WHO states, 'The overwhelming global burden of IPV is borne by women. Although women can be violent in relationships with men, often in self-defence, and violence sometimes occurs in same-sex partnerships, the most common perpetrators of violence against women are male intimate partners or ex-partners (1). By contrast, men are far more likely to experience violent acts by strangers or acquaintances than by someone close to them (2).'" Sorry for not going back and reading this source up until now. That is on me. However, women being more likely to commit IPV in self-defense than men doesn't mean that most of the IPV that they commit is accounted for by self-defense. This is where I think the crux of our disagreement lies. "You stated, 'Neither men nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense most of the time. There is no contradiction here.' Why are you stating 'violence' instead of 'IPV'? If you are focused on violence in general, it doesn't belong in this article. The statement that 'neither men nor women's violence is attributable to [IPV] most of the time' is not true according to certain reviews and a number of other reliable sources, including the WHO." First, sorry for saying "violence." I meant to say "IPV." I should have been more precise. The idea that neither men's nor women's IPV isn't attributable to self-defense most of the time isn't true according to Swan. But I don't think that the Blair-Merritt review actually said that. Assuming that I am reading it right, the WHO was saying that women commit IPV in self-defense more often than men do. Not the same thing as saying that it accounts for most of the IPV that they commit. "Furthermore, your previous proposed text doesn't speak of 'most of the time.' It flat out states 'neither men's violence nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense.' Yes, if 'violence" means 'IPV,' then 'neither men's violence nor women's violence is attributable to self-defense' statement is contradictory to 'women are more likely to commit IPV in self-defense than men.' If women's violence is not attributable to self-defense, then they aren't committing IPV in self-defense." Sorry. I meant to say "Neither men's IPV nor women's IPV is attributable to self-defense most of the time." However, I think that if you adopt that phrasing, the contradiction is resolved. "You stated that one 'can tell just by looking at the actual numbers from Langhinrichsen-Rohling.' Not really. First, that is one review contradicted by other research." And that other research therefore contradicts Langhinrichsen-Rohling. Either way, looking at the actual percentages makes it very clear that there is nothing contradictory about saying that women commit IPV in self-defense more often than men. But that most of their IPV isn't in self-defense just by using its max figures for non-perpetrator samples as an example, 20% for men and 35% for women. "Second, this research is focused on the United States. The WHO, on the other hand, is an international source, and has cross-culturally found self-defense to be a (or the) primary motive for female-perpetrated IPV. For example, this WHO source (page 94) states, 'Where violence by women occurs it is more likely to be in the form of self-defence.'" But the sources for that statement are suspect. One of them was a study of 52 battered women from 1986. So no real cross-cultural relevance. Another was a study of Canadian college students. So also not really cross-culturally relevant The final source was a 2000 review by Johnson Which is contradicted by more recent reviews of the literature like from Hamby, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, and Esteban Eugenio Esquivel-Santoveña. "And this 2013 'Responding to Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence Against Women: WHO Clinical and Policy Guidelines' source (website link here)" This source doesn't mention motives for IPV. Its about the various ways of preventing IPV and their measured effectiveness. So I am going to need a page number for that. "Third, we know from previous research, including the 2010 'Why Do Women Use Intimate Partner Violence? A Systematic Review of Women’s Motivations' source, that many women consider retaliation to be self-defense and some sources state that the retaliation is at least for overall protection. The "Why Do Women Use Intimate Partner Violence? A Systematic Review of Women’s Motivations' source is one such source stating, "Women also described using IPV because they did not want to internalize images of themselves as victims (Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007). Although these women were arguably using IPV to protect their emotional health, this does not meet the legal definition of self-defense (Wimberly, 2007). Whether this should fall into a more conceptual definition of self-defense or whether it is more consistent with retaliation is controversial." Fair point. But you said that retaliation was often viewed as self-defense by law-enforcement. I have never heard of retaliation being considered a form of self-defense in the eyes of the law. "And lastly, Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. state, 'These results should be viewed with caution, however, because many methodological and measurement challenges exist in this field. There was also considerable heterogeneity across papers making direct gender comparisons problematic.' And 'given the extremely small number of papers that are summarized here, these findings should be considered preliminary.' And 'Taken as a whole, however, the findings gleaned from this review suggest that this area of the IPV field is in its infancy.'" But don't those problems apply to all reviews of the literature on motives for IPV? The researchers are all searching the same databases for the same information. "Beyond all of that, you are only focused on a strict definition of self-defense, when enough sources talk about women also using IPV for other self-protection In terms of motives for why women commit IPV, self-defense or other self-protection are more commonly noted as, or given as, motives for why women commit IPV. One might state that some form of other self-protection is given as a reason more often than self-defense is, but the "for protection" motive is there as a primary motive either way." Fair point. But if you include protecting your emotional health under self-protection, then the motives for men and women are usually the same. For both men and women, the most common motive is to get back at a partner for hurting their feelings. Langhinrichsen-Rohling page 459. "The thing is, though, 'minority' is vague. And more importantly, Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. do not state that self-defense is in the minority with regard to all IPV committed by both men and women. They state, "Power/control and self-defense were commonly measured motivations (76% and 61%, respectively). However, using violence as an expression of negative emotion (63%), communication difficulties (48%), retaliation (60%), or because of jealousy (49%) were also commonly assessed motives." Going by those numbers power/control and self-defense are the more commonly cited motives. You also stated "55% self-defense for men and 65% self-defense for women. But Langhinrichsen-Rohling doesn't think that perpetrator reports are reliable.' Well, 'doesn't think that perpetrator reports are reliable' is their opinion. And they also state that 'it seems clear that both men and women perpetrate violence in response to various motives.' I don't see where they state that self-defense is a minority reason for IPV. So I would propose that, after the Straus piece, we state 'Some researchers, such as [so and so], have supported Straus's findings.' Or 'Some research has supported Straus's findings.' Or 'Other research aligns with Straus's findings.' But I don't see that we should mention Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. as being among those researchers." First, "minority" isn't vague. It means less than 50%. Its mathematically precise. Second, Langhinrichensen-Rohling et al should be included among those researchers because they affirmed that for the most common motivations of IPV, the motives for men and women are usually the same (page 459). But my preference would be to not mention Straus in the text and just cite him as one of multiple researchers who concluded that self-defense does not account for most female IPV. Sewblon (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It is true that the literature does not commonly state that self-defense is not a primary motive for why women commit IPV and that one has to specifically go looking for such sources to find anything like "most women don't commit IPV for self-defense" and that the statement often or usually traces back to Straus and/or Archer." I should know. I've read a lot more of the literature than you have, and never do I just go by the abstracts like you have more than once in the past. And I have access to WP:PAYWALL sources. That "first result on Google Books" source you pointed to does not state that self-defense is not a primary motive for why women commit IPV. It does not state that most women don't commit IPV for self-defense. It does not state that other motivations are more important. That it names/discusses other motives is also what a number of sources (like Swan) stating that women often commit IPV in self-defense have done. Other common motives don't negate self-defense as a common motive. And that source indeed cites self-defense as a common motive. It also, unsurprisingly, cites Archer when speaking of anger and violence being commonly related for women and when speaking of stereotypes. And it then goes on to cite Archer again. And either way, one example not citing Archer or Straus doesn't change the fact that the literature does not commonly state that self-defense is not a primary motive for why women commit IPV. Like this 2012 "Perceptions of Female Offenders: How Stereotypes and Social Norms Affect Criminal Justice Responses" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, pages 101-102, states, "The gender paradigm explains intimate partner violence (IPV) as being committed predominantly by men against women victims and views female violence merely as an expression of women's emancipation or as an act of self-defense." The source also calls this paradigm the conventional one, meaning it is what the literature generally reports or has reported more often. It notes that empirical studies (including Archer's flawed one) have challenged this conventional paradigm. But, as is clear from the research, it's not just a paradigm. It's a fact, one backed up by the WHO and numerous other reliable sources, that IPV is predominantly a "male perpetrator and female victim" matter. The gender symmetry literature is very flawed, for reasons I've noted before, including at Talk:Intimate partner violence, where (after I listed a number of reliable sources) you acknowledged that you were wrong about gender symmetry being as valid as gender asymmetry. It's a fact that many women commit IPV in self-defense and that it's common for sources to report that women often commit IPV in self-defense. So, yes, going by the "conventional paradigm," stating that "women usually don't commit IPV in self-defense" or that "most female-perpetrated IPV is not for self-defense" is the minority view. And yet you are trying to place it right up against the majority view. You are trying to make it look like it is reported as often as the "for self-defense" view. It's not. And so I oppose that setup, per WP:Due weight. Even when Hamel et al. concluded that when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first, partner abuse is relatively even, they were clear that the "defined broadly/relatively even" view is not the standard view in the literature. The standard view is that domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims/women are disproportionately affected by domestic violence/IPV.

When it comes to the literature on women and self-defense, sources are significantly more likely to state what this 2013 "Routledge International Handbook of Crime and Gender Studies" source, page 172, states: "Generally, men are more likely to engage in domestic abuse as a means of control over their partner, while women are more likely to engage in domestic abuse for reasons of self-defense, defense of their children, and retribution (see Swan et al., 2008); in fact, Miller's (2005) work demonstrates that most women arrested for domestic violence were either victims of battering who fought back or women who were defending their children or property (see also Osthoff, 2002)." Or what this 2016 "Intimate Partner Violence: Effective Procedure, Response and Policy" source, from CRC Press, states: "The idea is that couples sometimes fight, and that fighting can sometimes escalate to physical violence such as pushing, shoving and hitting, but that violence is not characterized by the control and terroristic tactics used in abuse referred to as patriarchal terrorism. Common couple violence does not feature the fear and power dynamic that characterizes patriarchal terrorism. This is a useful distinction in understanding the violence of women as well as men. Our position in this fray is that the vast majority of violence perpetrated by women falls in the category of common couple violence or self-defense, while the violence of men is split among the categories of common couple violence, patriarchal terrorism and, to a lesser degree, self-defense. This distinction matters a great deal, because the consequences and harm involved in common couple violence are significantly reduced relative to patriarchal terrorism, while self-defense is justified and unavoidable."

You stated that there is "a subtle but important distinction to make between the statements 'women commit IPV in self-defense more than men.' 'Women commit IPV in self-defense more often than for other reasons.' and 'Most IPV committed by women is done in self-defense.' It is the third statement that [you] take issue with." You have also taken issue with the statement that "women commit IPV in self-defense more often than for other reasons." Otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing that female-perpetrated IPV is not for self-defense in most cases or that it is a minority motive. How can women commit IPV in self-defense more often than for other reasons, but self-defense also be a minority reason for women who commit IPV? You stated that "the sources that [you] have seen indicate that it is false" that "most IPV committed by women is done in self-defense." Well, "often in self-defense" and "most is committed in self-defense" are two different things. I have more so focused on "often" and "a primary motive," although I have also noted that some of the literature indicates that self-defense is the primary motive for female-perpetrated IPV. Also, you are focusing on sources that agree with your POV, and you are only focused on sources about IPV in the United States. You compared this Hamel source that is focused on the United States to the international WHO, which relays in more than one of its sources that women often commit IPV in self-defense. You can think of how to reconcile that with other sources, but there are a lot of other sources that agree with the WHO. Going back to the international view, women in Pakistan have it much harder when it comes to gender inequality, and therefore domestic violence in Pakistan. No source would dare state that the women in Pakistan who fight back (the ones who call on the courage to do so anyway) are not primarily doing so for self-defense. When the WHO looks at such cases as those, not just the United States, they find self-defense to be a primary or main motive for why women commit IPV. You stated "retaliation and self-defense being difficult to distinguish isn't the same thing as actually claiming that retaliation is a sub-set of self-defense." My point is that retaliation is commonly seen as self-defense by women because it's not just retaliation to them and enough sources have discussed self-defense and retaliation as essentially being one and the same for women or have considered that perhaps retaliation in these cases should be seen as another form of self-defense, which, again, is why Bair-Merritt et al. stated that "Women also described using IPV because they did not want to internalize images of themselves as victims (Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007). Although these women were arguably using IPV to protect their emotional health, this does not meet the legal definition of self-defense (Wimberly, 2007). Whether this should fall into a more conceptual definition of self-defense or whether it is more consistent with retaliation is controversial." It is why Hamby is critical of "self-defense and retaliation [being] uttered together as if they are similarly mitigating motives for violence."

You argued, "Some do, like Swan and Blair Merritt. But other's don't. Like Strauss's 2010 review and Langhinrichsen-Rohling 2013 review." Calling that Straus source a review is iffy, and either way, as has been pointed out by me to you times before, Straus's research is significantly criticized. Like this 2013 "An Introduction to Social Psychology" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 299, states, "Critics have argued that the overrepresentation of women as perpetrators of intimate partner violence portrayed by studies using CTS is distorted, because this instrument records acts of violence without considering their context. In particular, it does not consider whether the behavior shown is an act of unprovoked aggression or a response to a previous attack, so that an act of self-defense by a woman is counted in the same way as the initial assault by her male partner." You keep going back to Straus because the "most women don't commit IPV for self-defense" statement starts with Straus and is one of the few sources stating that. And to repeat, Langhinrichsen-Rohling does not state self-defense is in the minority with regard to all IPV committed by women. That is you stating that. And that source is very clear that its review is flawed and should be used with caution. And yet you are holding it up as some solid source. Again, not all reviews are made equal; they are not all of the same quality.

With regard to the WHO, you argued that "women being more likely to commit IPV in self-defense than men doesn't mean that most of the IPV that they commit is accounted for by self-defense." The WHO is not stating "more likely to commit IPV in self-defense than men." It's stating that women often commit IPV in self-defense. It's also stating that when they commit violence against their male partners, the likeliest reason is for self-defense. You argued, "The idea that neither men's nor women's IPV isn't attributable to self-defense most of the time isn't true according to Swan. But [you] don't think that the Blair-Merritt review actually said that." The Blair-Merritt review also does not indicate that men's and women's IPV is attributable to self-defense most of the time. With regard to women, it is quite clear that self-defense was often given as a primary motive and often as the primary motive. It is clear that retaliation was a listed motivation in 15 studies, but that only "one study document[ed] this as women's primary motivation (Kernsmith, 2005)." It states "Many women discussed using physical aggression after their partner's IPV to minimize personal injury (Downs, Rindels, & Atkinson, 2007; Flemke & Allen, 2008; Miller & Meloy, 2006; Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007; Ward & Muldoon, 2007). All would agree this is self-defense (Wimberly, 2007)." It then goes into the aforementioned "protect[ing] their emotional health" aspect that may be seen as self-defense depending on the woman or researcher. You argued, "And that other research therefore contradicts Langhinrichsen-Rohling. Either way, looking at the actual percentages makes it very clear that there is nothing contradictory about saying that women commit IPV in self-defense more often than men." I never argued that women do not commit IPV in self-defense more often than men do. I didn't argue that as contradictory. I've been clear that they do. But Langhinrichsen-Rohling do not state that most IPV committed by women is not for self-defense. So, per WP:Synthesis, you cannot use that source to state, "Well, going by its percentages, most women don't use IPV for self-defense." This is especially the case when considering that the source is about the United States research and what the source itself notes about the flaws of its review. As mentioned, it also states, "Power/control and self-defense were commonly measured motivations (76% and 61%, respectively)." You called the sources for the WHO statement "suspect" because "one of them was a study of 52 battered women from 1986" and "another was a study of Canadian college students." I pointed to more than one WHO source. You stated that "the final source [in the WHO source] was a 2000 review by Johnson [w]hich is contradicted by more recent reviews of the literature like from Hamby, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, and Esteban Eugenio Esquivel-Santoveña." I've already been over the reviews aspect above. And in addition to sources I've already pointed to noting that women often commit IPV in self-defense, reviews like this 2015 "Men’s and Women’s Experience of Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of Ten Years of Comparative Studies in Clinical Samples; Part I" source are clear that female-perpetrated IPV is more so reactive, including self-defense, other self-protection or retaliation (which, as noted before, is often not easy to distinguish from self-defense). With regard to one of the WHO sources, You stated, "This source doesn't mention motives for IPV. Its about the various ways of preventing IPV and their measured effectiveness. So I am going to need a page number for that." I lost the page number for that source and can't seem to find it. But moving on...

You stated, "But [I] said that retaliation was often viewed as self-defense by law-enforcement" and "[you] have never heard of retaliation being considered a form of self-defense in the eyes of the law." I meant how law enforcement may categorize retaliation as self-defense based on the woman's view that she committed IPV in self-defense. As you know, some sources talk about how men and women perceive their IPV and therefore report their IPV. With regard to the Langhinrichsen-Rohling review, you asked, "But don't those problems apply to all reviews of the literature on motives for IPV?" To reiterate, not all reviews are created equal, which is why the other reviews don't warn how flawed their review is and to use the conclusions with caution. There are different methods and different focuses. A review of the empirical evidence, for example, is one focus. You argued, "But if you include protecting your emotional health under self-protection, then the motives for men and women are usually the same." No, they aren't. Sources usually don't talk about men using IPV for overall self-protection or for emotional health. And "to get back at a partner for hurting their feelings" does not automatically equate to "for emotional health." You argued, "First, 'minority' isn't vague. It means less than 50%." It's vague because the reader has to guess with regard to "how much of a minority?" I've already been over Langhinrichensen-Rohling et al. They don't state that most IPV committed by women is not for self-defense. So we should not make it seem like they state this.

You stated, "But my preference would be to not mention Straus in the text and just cite him as one of multiple researchers who concluded that self-defense does not account for most female IPV." Like I noted, the "most women don't commit IPV for self-defense" statement starts with Straus. Straus's view has been criticized, and not just by one scholar. So, yes, Straus should be mentioned in the text. Per WP:Due weight, the Straus piece should remain where it is in the article. The "others that agree with Straus" material should be after that. It is best that we compromise in this way. It is not best that we keep debating this, with these large posts, where you quote so much of my statements (bolding and all), as though we are going to agree with each other on this matter. I shouldn't have to resort to yet another RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I will stop quoting blocks of your text. It doesn't really help anything. First, the book I cited "female Aggression" by Gavin and Porter does say that self-defense doesn't explain female perpetrated IPV. (Chapter 5) section: Intimate Partner Violence Initiation Vs Self-Defense The rates at which women initiate partner violence vary from 29% to 73.4% depending on the population studied. Whats more, most unilateral heterosexual violence, violence where one partner does all the hitting, is female on male. Second, the Gender Paradigm of domestic violence, with domestic violence being primarily a male-perpetrator female-victim matter, is not a fact, nor is it the consensus view among scholars of IPV. Esquivel-Santoveña et all found that most theoretical literature has moved away from feminist analyses of IPV in favor of explanations routed in individual psychopathology (page 9). Also, physical abuse seems to be mostly symmetrical world-wide from the review of the literature that they did. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236018381_Partner_Abuse_Worldwide. I know that I said otherwise on the IPV page. But that was when I thought that gender symmetry had only been found in the United States. It was before I had read the paper from Esquivel-Santovena et al that said that gender symmetry has been found in international samples. With regards to the flaws in Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al.'s study. Its true that it has limitations. But every study has limitations. The Blair-Merrit study has the limitations of only looking at data from questionnaires and interviews, which have their own respective problems, as well as drawing exclusively on data from industrialized English-speaking countries. It also got most of its data from courts, IPV shelters, and Batterer’s Treatment programs. So it can’t necessarily be generalized to the broader population. But you still seem to think that citing it is fine. Also, Laninrichensen-Rohling et all cited more than 3 times as many papers as Bair-Merrit did, so holding up Bair-Merrit as more reliable than Laninrichensen-Rohling seems strange. The study from Hamberger and Larson that you cited in support of female violence being in reaction to male violence was based on clinical samples. Clinical samples are known to show different traits than samples meant to be representative of the broader community. So that doesn’t help. I know that people have criticized Straus’s and Archer’s work. But Winstock responded to those criticisms. (Critical Review of Hamby’s (2014) Article Titled ‘‘Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Research, Scientific Progress, Scientific Challenges, and Gender’’ DOI: 10.1177/1524838015596962). The criticism that keeps coming up of the not in self-defense thesis is that it embraces too narrow a definition of self-defense per Loseke. But if you include protecting ones emotional health under self-protection as the page does now, then the most common motive for both men and women who do IPV is to get back at a partner for hurting them per Langhinrichensen-Rohling et al.’s study. As for this: “How can women commit IPV in self-defense more often than for other reasons, but self-defense also be a minority reason for women who commit IPV?” The way to reconcile that is for self-defense to make up a plurality of cases, but not a majority of cases. But anyway, I have pointed you to scholars besides Strauss and Archer who dispute the idea that women’s IPV is usually in self-defense, who haven’t been criticized like they have. So I can’t endorse the current wording with Strauss. My preference would be to say that women drawn from clinical samples commonly endorse self-defense, whereas women drawn from community samples commonly endorse similar motives to men, as per “Female Perpetrators of Intimate Abuse” by Donald G. Dutton et al. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233311739_Female_Perpetrators_of_Intimate_Abuse Sewblon (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You stated that "[you] will stop quoting blocks of [my] text. It doesn't really help anything." Neither does us continuing to debate all of this, especially when we are repeating ourselves. Sources are clear about what is the standard view in the literature. WP:Due weight is clear that "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery." You placing the "Other research concludes that neither men's violence nor women's violence is explained by self-defense in most cases." text right up against the "Findings indicate that the main or a primary motive for female-on-male intimate partner violence (IPV) is self-defense or other self-protection (such as emotional health)." text is an undue weight issue, for reasons I've noted above. I haven't objected to some form of your material being included; I've objected to the way you included it. And flow-wise, it makes more sense for it to come after the Straus piece that is on the same topic. Not to have one "not usually for self-defense" piece at the beginning of the paragraph, and then another "not usually for self-defense" piece toward the end of the paragraph, which also makes the "not usually for self-defense" claim seem more prominent than it is.

You stated that "Gavin and Porter does say that self-defense doesn't explain female perpetrated IPV. (Chapter 5) section: Intimate Partner Violence Initiation Vs Self-Defense The rates at which women initiate partner violence vary from 29% to 73.4% depending on the population studied." And? The source is stating that "rates at which women initiate partner violence vary from 29% to 73.4% depending on the population studied," but that does not equate to "most IPV committed by women is not for self-defense" or "women usually don't commit IPV for self-defense," especially when the source is citing a rate as low as 29%. And those rates are usually based on the United States and often on college samples, which are flawed in part because sources on IPV most commonly find situational couple violence being commiited nearly equally by both genders when it comes to younger couples, such as college students. Even the 2005 Dutton et al. source you pointed to states, "It is concluded that females are as abusive as males in intimate relationships according to survey and epidemiological studies. This is especially so for younger 'cohort' community samples followed longitudinally." At Talk:Intimate partner violence, I pointed you to this 2018 "The Psychology of Sex and Gender" source, from Sage Publications, page 485, stating, "Some data indicate that women and men are roughly equally likely to be victims of intimate partner violence. However, the issue of sex differences in intimate partner violence is hotly debated." I stated that the source "goes on to examine both sides of the debate and suggests maybe the gender symmetry viewpoint better explains situational couple violence, which it states is more common than intimate terrorism, and that gender asymmetry better explains intimate terrorism." But even in those "younger couple" cases, the IPV is gender asymmetrical for a number of reasons. You argued, "Whats more, most unilateral heterosexual violence, violence where one partner does all the hitting, is female on male." Why are you stating this as fact, given the various reliable sources on this topic, some of which conflict, and when the gender symmetry literature is highly disputed and very flawed? You know what? Never mind. It's not important for this discussion. Neither is the other gender symmetry stuff you are going arguing yet again.

You argued that "Second, the Gender Paradigm of domestic violence, with domestic violence being primarily a male-perpetrator female-victim matter, is not a fact, nor is it the consensus view among scholars of IPV." That is completely false. Yes, sources are better about recognizing IPV committed by women against men (and against other women) these days, but the overwhelming majority of the literature is still clear that domestic violence and specifically IPV disproportionately affect women/that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women and that they suffer more severe consequences, as made clear by the sources I listed in the aforementioned RfC. That is why that RfC closed as "Overwhelming consensus is [that the article does not lend undue weight to women as victims], due to the article simply following the high quality sources that are more focused on women as victims, in accordance with WP:NPOV." It's not just a paradigm. It's a fact. There are no reliable source stating that domestic violence/IPV disproportionately affects men or that men are mostly the victims of domestic violence/IPV. There is no "equal" in "disproportionately affects." At Talk:Intimate partner violence, I pointed you to the following 2014 "Domestic Abuse, Homicide and Gender: Strategies for Policy and Practice" source, from Springer, starting on page 30, which 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. In fact, the highest risk factor by far in domestic homicide and everyday terrorism, is being female. [...] 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. [...] [There are] arguments which seek to undermine the fact that women are predominantly the victims." The "Psychology of Sex and Gender" source, from Sage Publications, page 485, also states, "Even today, researchers direct most of their attention toward violence against women in heterosexual relationships." You argued that "Esquivel-Santoveña et all found that most theoretical literature has moved away from feminist analyses of IPV in favor of explanations routed in individual psychopathology (page 9)." Besides Esquivel-Santoveña et al.'s argument being their argument, to repeat...that domestic violence and specifically IPV disproportionately affect women/that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women and that they suffer more severe consequences is not simply a "feminist analyses of IPV." The overwhelming majority of the literature, including authoritative sources like the WHO, are clear that IPV disproportionately affects women/that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women and that they suffer more severe consequences.

You stated, "Also, physical abuse seems to be mostly symmetrical world-wide from the review of the literature that they did." Again with this flawed gender symmetry view? Whether or not gender symmetry is reported on in the United States or elsewhere, or to exist across countries, it is still a flawed concept (per above) because of the factors being excluded. The Esquivel-Santoveña et al. source is the same Hamel et al. source already included in this Wikipedia article. And like I noted to you above and before recently to you, Hamel et al. state that they used a "defined broadly/relatively even" view that is not the standard view in the literature. It is already noted in the Wikipedia article that 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." But the article additionally notes that "they also stated if one examines who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, and experiences subsequent psychological problems, domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims." And that latter part is why so many sources dispute the concept of gender symmetry. We've already been over this. You stated that you "know that [you] said otherwise on the IPV page. But that was when [you] thought that gender symmetry had only been found in the United States" and "It was before [you] had read the paper from Esquivel-Santovena et al that said that gender symmetry has been found in international samples." Huh? You were already aware of the Hamel et al. source. You were already aware that this Wikipedia article includes a piece that begins with "A 2013 review examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence." And if you haven't read a source, it might be dubious to point to it only based on what the abstract says, which has been noted on your talk page. You stated, "Ok, I was wrong about gender-symmetry. I wasn't taking into account the difference in the percentage of the male and female population that sufferers it from the government sources, or that the studies that find gender symmetry are mostly based on the U.S., whereas the government studies are based on 10 different countries." You did not state that gender gender symmetry is only found in the United States. You stated "the studies that find gender symmetry are mostly based on the U.S." And that is a factual statement.

As for Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al.'s study, I stand by my arguments on that. Every study might have limitations, but not to the same degree. You state that the Blair-Merrit study "can't necessarily be generalized to the broader population." But, as has been noted, there are international sources like the WHO (or other sources that have looked at IPV in other countries) clearly stating that women often commit IPV in self-defense, not "sometimes" or "occasionally." That, in addition to it being a systematic review, and one commonly cited in the literature, is why I feel that citing Blair-Merrit for the statement that "Findings indicate that the main or a primary motive for female-on-male intimate partner violence (IPV) is self-defense or other self-protection (such as emotional health)." is fine. You argued that "The study from Hamberger and Larson that [I] cited in support of female violence being in reaction to male violence was based on clinical samples" and that "clinical samples are known to show different traits than samples meant to be representative of the broader community." A source for that? I mean, I know how the literature works. But what source do you have for that statement? And either way, my point is that it's just another source, among many other sources, stating that female-perpetrated IPV is more so reactive. At Talk:Intimate partner violence, I cited the following 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" source, from Sage Publications, page 980, stating, "Generally, men have been documented as the more aggressive perpetrators in IPV. Much of the literature documents women perpetrating in retaliation, but recent research and further examination of older studies suggest that women initiate violence as well. Men, however, are more likely to use perpetration to control their partners, whereas women are more reactive in their use of violence. Men also tend to use more severe forms of violence, such as throwing a larger or more damaging object, than a woman might. [...] Many studies have been conducted to examine rates of IPV and to determine primary victimization. However, more conclusive research needs to be done to examine issues of symmetry and whether or not there is equality in perpetration. Also, studies show that men are more aggressive than women in general, so more work should be done to learn about this connection." Right now, the literature leans significantly more toward the "no equality in perpetration" view when it comes to IPV, accept for when talking about younger couples. But, again, even with younger couples, "equality" is still disputed in those cases because the gender asymmetry aspects.

You stated, "[you] know that people have criticized Straus’s and Archer’s work. But Winstock responded to those criticisms. (Critical Review of Hamby’s (2014) Article Titled 'Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Research, Scientific Progress, Scientific Challenges, and Gender')." Have you even read beyond the abstract on that? If you have read beyond the abstract and propose solid wording from that critical review, we could add that Winstock challenged criticism of Straus's work. I haven't yet read the article, but I doubt that it defends Archer's limited studies. You argued, "The criticism that keeps coming up of the not in self-defense thesis is that it embraces too narrow a definition of self-defense per Loseke. But if you include protecting ones emotional health under self-protection as the page does now, then the most common motive for both men and women who do IPV is to get back at a partner for hurting them per Langhinrichensen-Rohling et al.’s study." When you argued "But if you include protecting your emotional health under self-protection, then the motives for men and women are usually the same.", I already told you "No, they aren't. Sources usually don't talk about men using IPV for overall self-protection or for emotional health. And 'to get back at a partner for hurting their feelings' does not automatically equate to 'for emotional health.'" And one last time...you are stating things about Langhinrichensen-Rohling et al.'s study that they do not themselves state. Our WP:Synthesis policy is clear. So stop doing that. Your "plurality of cases, but not a majority of cases" argument makes no sense as a reply to my "How can women commit IPV in self-defense more often than for other reasons, but self-defense also be a minority reason for women who commit IPV?" question. You argued, "But anyway, [you] have pointed you to scholars besides Strauss and Archer who dispute the idea that women's IPV is usually in self-defense, who haven't been criticized like they have. So [you] can't endorse the current wording with Strauss." Like I've stated, sources you cite on that matter usually trace back Straus or Archer. It's easy enough to see when looking at sources you cite. And it's not uncommon for you to conclude things from the sources that the sources themselves do not state. I've already noted that I don't object to being clear that Straus isn't the only one who has claimed that most IPV committed by women is not for self-defense, but I will not agree to removing mention of Straus or putting that piece or another "not primarily for self-defense" piece right up against the "Findings indicate that the main or a primary motive for female-on-male intimate partner violence (IPV) is self-defense or other self-protection (such as emotional health." statement. I do not agree to your proposal to state that "women drawn from clinical samples commonly endorse self-defense, whereas women drawn from community samples commonly endorse similar motives to men" based on one source (review or not) in Wikipedia' voice. And I don't see that the source states that. It appears that you are making a conclusion that the source itself does not state.

All we need to do is add is "Some researchers, such as [so and so], have supported Straus's findings." Or "Some research has supported Straus's findings." Or "Other research aligns with Straus's findings." Even the wording you added to the article would be fine if included right after the Straus piece and cited appropriately (meaning that we do not include any source for that statement if the source doesn't explicitly state that). The end of the paragraph could read the following way: "Family violence research by Murray A. Straus concluded that most IPV perpetrated by women against men is not motivated by self-defense. Other research has concluded that neither men's violence nor women's violence is explained by self-defense in most cases. Straus's view has, however, been criticized by Loseke et al. for using narrow definitions of self-defense." We could also word it the following way: "Family violence research by Murray A. Straus concluded that most IPV perpetrated by men and women against is not motivated by self-defense. Other research has concluded the same. Straus's view has, however, been criticized by Loseke et al. for using narrow definitions of self-defense." I like the latter suggestion more so, since it starts with the "men and women" aspect instead of focusing on women and then going into the "men and women" aspect. After all, Straus isn't simply stating most IPV perpetrated by women against is not motivated by self-defense; he's stating that most IPV perpetrated by men and women is not motivated by self-defense. If we can agree to this proposed wording or something similar to it, this dispute matter can be over with. I see no need to keep debating all of the gender symmetry stuff. Or even all of the self-defense stuff, after everything we've argued. It takes up a lot of my time, and every time I have to do an RfC on this or something like it, the outcome of the RfC is the same or similar. So, yeah, I view all of this debating as a waste of time. A waste of my time at least. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

With respect to Gavin and Porter. The claim that women usually engage in IPV in self-defense being inaccurate was based both on the 29% to 73.4% figure and on research indicating that in unilaterally violent relationships the perpetrator is usually the woman. You said that I shouldn’t assert that as a fact because the gender symmetry literature is highly flawed and disputed. But the flaws are not taking disparate impacts between men and women into account, which doesn’t really seem relevant to that claim. The other flaw being that it doesn’t account for violence in self-defense. But that can’t explain unilateral violence, by definition. To be fair, that 29% rate was based on a college sample. But the authors did still deny that the “usually in self-defense” position is accurate. To be fair, intimate terrorism is mostly perpetuated by men. Even Strauss says so. http://www.batteredmen.com/StrausV78.pdf. (page 286). But Intimate Terrorism is a rare phenomenon compared to common couple violence, at least according to his paper. So that really shouldn’t affect whether or not self-defense explains female IPV that much. As for the gender-symmetry thing. When I said that IPV being mostly a male perpetrator female victim phenomenon is not fact or scientific consensus, I was referring to perpetuation rates. Not proportions of effects. I concede that in terms of effects its overwhelmingly male on female. My issue is with rates of perpetuation. Since multiple reviews of the literature have found symmetry in rates of perpetuation, even if you don’t think that Strauss or Archer’s research is credible you still have Hamel’s Research (perceptions of female offenders chapter 10 pages 155-156) and Esquivel-Santoveña’s research (Partner Abuse World wide https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236018381_Partner_Abuse_Worldwide page 62), who looked at U.S. based data and International data respectively. With respect to Loninschen-Roling’s paper, they did say “However, despite findings of gender differences in some of the studies, it is important to point out that self-defense is endorsed in most samples by only a minority of respondents, male and female.” Page 461. So me saying that they didn’t endorse “usually in self-defense” isn’t WP: Synth. With respect to Zeev Winstok’s article. I have read it. It does defend the idea that, with respect to perpetuation rates, domestic violence is mostly symmetrical in both large national and large international samples. (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.4906&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Page 8). Its still true that the gender-symmetry literature is mostly based on U.S. data. But per-Esquivel-Santovena, the scientific research on domestic violence is mostly based on the U.S. period. So that really shouldn’t be surprising, or discredit the gender-symmetry research just based on that. The source for "clinical samples are known to show different traits than samples meant to be representative of the broader community." Is from “Female Perpetrators of Intimate Abuse” By Dutton et al. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233311739_Female_Perpetrators_of_Intimate_Abuse (page 18). “Like I've stated, sources you cite on that matter usually trace back Straus or Archer. It's easy enough to see when looking at sources you cite.” Winstock’s claim on symmetry in perpetuation traces back to Strauss. But as for the sources explicitly about self-defense: “Female Aggression” by Gavin and Porter doesn’t trace back to Strauss or Archer. Langhinrichsen-Rohling doesn’t trace back to Strauss or Archer. Hamby’s paper doesn’t trace back to Strauss or Archer. “Female Perpetrators of Intimate Abuse” by Dutton et, al doesn’t trace back to Strauss or Archer. So the idea that the sources I cited on self-defense usually trace back to Strauss or Archer isn’t true. “And it's not uncommon for you to conclude things from the sources that the sources themselves do not state.” Not True. Not with respect to the salient point. All the sources I have said deny the "often in self-defense" motive actually do deny it. My preference would be to use Dutton’s wording and say that “Women drawn from clinical samples usually commit domestic violence in self-defense or otherwise in reaction to violence from their male partners. Whereas motives for women drawn from community samples usually endorse the same motives as their male partners.” If you won’t consent to that. Then I guess I will have to settle for “Other researchers have confirmed Strauss’s conclusion that most female perpetrated domestic violence is not in self-defense.” Sewblon (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC) ; edited 21:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sewblon, come on. We're not going over all of this again. I'm not going to spend weeks debating you on all of this. I've thoroughly been over the literature with you and your arguments, some of which are interpretations. Per the sources I cited, the literature is clear that domestic violence and specifically IPV disproportionately affect women/that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women and that they suffer more severe consequences. The RfC agreed. The literature is clear that women often commit IPV in self-defense; the WHO states this more than once very clearly. The literature is clear that the idea of gender symmetry is very flawed and must leave out important context to even find that "partner abuse is relatively even"; Hamel is explict on that. You stated that "when [you] said that IPV being mostly a male perpetrator female victim phenomenon is not fact or scientific consensus, [you were] referring to perpetuation rates. Not proportions of effects. [You] concede that in terms of effects its overwhelmingly male on female. [Your] issue is with rates of perpetuation." You then pointed to Hamel. But Hamel et al.'s "partner abuse is relatively even" statement has context, including in this Wikipedia article. The literature is clear that the IPV research is mostly based on the United State studies and that studies that find gender symmetry mainly find gender symmetry among young couples (adolescents and young adults). Common couple violence (also known as situational couple violence) being significantly more common than intimate terrorism (which is committed primarily by men) is addressed in two or more of the sources I cited above, but, like those sources make clear, common couple violence is mainly found adolescents and young adults. And even among adolescents and young adults, the research shows that girls often commit IPV in self-defense; the literature is clear that there is no true gender symmetry among those groups either because of how girls are much more emotionally and physically impacted. Your "in unilaterally violent relationships the perpetrator is usually the woman" argument is an issue not just because of gender symmetry being highly disputed. You argued against my statement that it's not uncommon for you to conclude things from the sources that the sources themselves do not state. Well, we won't be agreeing on that. But moving on... Even sources that you think don't trace back to Archer or Straus do. You stated that "Hamby's paper doesn't trace back to Strauss or Archer." It does. Hamby's "The gender debate about intimate partner violence: Solutions and dead ends" source that you cited, for example, states, "In the Archer meta-analysis on IPV (2000)." It also mentions Straus. As I've noted to you before, she also talks about and criticizes Archer's meta-analysis in other sources. "Female Aggression" by Gavin and Porter does trace back to Straus and Archer. "Female Perpetrators of Intimate Abuse" by Dutton et al. does trace back to Archer. After speaking of self-defensive, it goes right into talking about" Archer's (2000, 2002) meta-analytic study." It does mention Straus. One cannot look over the gender symmetry research/debate without speaking of Archer or Straus. And the gender symmetry debate ties into the self-defense topic. And Langhinrichensen-Rohling et al. citing what some studies or samples have reported is not the same thing as them endorsing what those studies or samples have reported. They are very careful to not draw any definitive conclusions from the research.

Let's just focus on the disputed text, shall we? I'v agree to include it, but just not right up against the "Findings indicate that the main or a primary motive for female-on-male intimate partner violence (IPV) is self-defense or other self-protection (such as emotional health)." sentence. I've agreed to include it after the Straus piece. I've been over why I won't agree to go with "Women drawn from clinical samples usually commit domestic violence in self-defense or otherwise in reaction to violence from their male partners. Whereas motives for women drawn from community samples usually endorse the same motives as their male partners." As for your suggested wording of "Other researchers have confirmed Straus's conclusion that most female perpetrated domestic violence is not in self-defense." Use of "confirmed" is POV. Obviously. Per all of the literature that disagrees with that statement. It's not like we used "confirmed" for the "often in self-defense" aspect. We state "findings indicate." Your suggested wording should be: "Other researchers, such as [so and so] agree with Straus's conclusion that most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense." Or "Other research supports Straus's conclusion that most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense." Or "Family violence research by Murray A. Straus concluded that most IPV perpetrated by women against men is not motivated by self-defense, a conclusion supported by other researchers, such as [so and so]." And, again, the sources should be explicitly clear that they are stating that most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense. And now that we've settled on the wording, which sources do you want to use to support it? I've stated that I do not see that Langhinrichensen-Rohling et al. concluded that most IPV perpetrated by women against men is not motivated by self-defense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought that by “trace back to” you meant “cited.” Because the sources I cited don’t’ cite Strauss or Archer for the “not in self-defense” claim. If you just meant that they mentioned him for some other reason, then we don’t have any disagreement on that point. You said that some of my arguments are “interpretations” We will have to disagree on that. I think that we agree on gender asymmetry in effects of IPV. But I guess we won’t be able to agree on symmetry/asymmetry in raw perpetuation rates. I still think that most of the literature indicates symmetry in raw perpetuation rates per Hamel and Esquivel-Santoveña. But that isn’t directly relevant to the edits. So I guess we will drop that discussion. I am fine with the wording of “other researchers agree with Straus that most female IPV is not in self-defense” Langhinrichsen-Rohling did come to that conclusion as per this quote: “However, despite findings of gender differences in some of the studies, it is important to point out that self-defense is endorsed in most samples by only a minority of respondents, male and female.” Page 461. But if you won’t consent to that. Then using Hamel or Hamby or both also works. However, the language that I would actually prefer the most is still that “Women drawn from clinical samples endorse self-defense as a motive for IPV. Women drawn from community samples endorse the same motives as their male equivalents” per “Female Perpetrators of Intimate Abuse” By Dutton et al. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233311739_Female_Perpetrators_of_Intimate_Abuse (page 18). “Because it explains the disagreement we are having as well as anything else does. It’s from a review of the literature on the subject, and nothing else explicitly contradicts it as far as I know. Sewblon (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

To repeat once more, I'm not debating all of that again (at least not in this section). I stand by what I stated about Archer, Straus, self-defense and sources pointing to them on matters of "not usually in self-defense" and gender symmetry. Right now, we are at the "what wording to use in the article?" point. I stated that your suggested wording should be: "Other researchers, such as [so and so] agree with Straus's conclusion that most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense." Or "Other research supports Straus's conclusion that most female-perpetrated domestic violence is not in self-defense." Or "Family violence research by Murray A. Straus concluded that most IPV perpetrated by women against men is not motivated by self-defense, a conclusion supported by other researchers, such as [so and so]." I stated that the sources should be explicitly clear that they are stating that most female-perpetrated domestic violence is not in self-defense. I asked you: "Which sources do you want to use to support it? I've stated that I do not see that Langhinrichensen-Rohling et al. concluded that most IPV perpetrated by women against men is not motivated by self-defense." I've already countered your claim that "Langhinrichsen-Rohling did come to that conclusion"; I stated, "Langhinrichensen-Rohling et al. citing what some studies or samples have reported is not the same thing as them endorsing what those studies or samples have reported. They are very careful to not draw any definitive conclusions from the research." I'm not going to keep debating it. I've already stated that I don't agree with going with going with "Women drawn from clinical samples endorse self-defense as a motive for IPV. Women drawn from community samples endorse the same motives as their male equivalents."

You stated that you are okay going with "other researchers agree with Straus that most female IPV is not in self-defense." And that using "Hamel or Hamby or both also works" for sourcing. But we've already been over the fact that Hamel et al. qualify the matter by stating "when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first." They only came to that conclusion when defining IPV broadly. Otherwise, they state that IPV is gendered toward women. Their statement on that is lower in the section. And although Hamby states "not according to self-report" on the topic of whether female-perpetrated IPV is primarily motivated by self-defense and that "the most commonly reported IPV motives for both men and women are anger, reacting to a verbal or emotional insult, or to 'get through to' the partner," she (just like Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al.) doesn't conclude that most female-perpetrated IPV is not committed in self-defense. At least not in that source, unless I missed it. She is reporting on some old research. Years later, she relayed, "Contrary to statements that are sometimes seen in published scholarship, 'most' data do not show gender symmetry." I reported this to you at Talk:Intimate partner violence. I don't see the sources stating that they agree with Straus. So per accuracy and WP:Synthesis, we should instead state, "Other research supports Straus's conclusion that most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense." That old research that Hamby points to, for example, supports Straus's assertion that most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

____

References

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, 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)