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.)

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 committed 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)

The wording "Other researchers, such as [so and so] agree with Straus's conclusion that most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense." Is fine. But I disagree with your interpretation of the sources I cited. Yes there are qualifications to Lanischen-Rolling’s research. But those qualifications apply to all research in the field of motivations for IPV. Like with this quote: “The existing heterogeneity in methodology, measurement, and construct development may also reflect the inherent challenge of determining a person’s motivation for committing violence. Motivations are internal experiences that may be difficult for even the perpetrator to discern. For example, when something like anger is self-reported as a motive for IPV, what might underlie that anger (hurt, jealousy, discomfort from lack of control, inability to communicate one’s needs)? This specific difficulty is reflected in the studies included in this review as various researchers collapsed anger with retaliation (Kernsmith, 2005), jealousy (Harned, 2001), or other emotional dysregulation problems. It is also possible to argue that anger is not a motive for violence; it is an emotional state that is the context in which violence often occurs. Differentiating motives, reasons, functions, justifications, and contexts is a challenge that faces researchers in this area.” She still said that, in what was supposed to be a comprehensive review of the literature on motivations for IPV, neither a majority of men nor a majority of women endorsed self-defense as a motive. Sherry Hamby did affirm that most female perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense just going by self-report. Also, she did cite research more recent than the 90s to justify that claim “Is Women’s Violence Different Because It Is Primarily Motivated by Self-Defense? Not according to self-report. 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 (Carrado, George, Loxam, Jones, & Templar,1996; Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Cormier, 1995;Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian, 1991;Harned, 2001). Self-defense is typically re-ported by 20% or fewer of both males and females and either doesn’t vary by gender (Cas-cardi & Vivian, 1995; Cormier, 1995; Folling-stad et al., 1991) or shows moderate differences consistent with its relative rarity (Foshee,1996). Instructions to omit acts of self-defense do not affect gender patterns (Swahn et al.,2008).” Hamel did affirm that self-defense is uncommon for both men and women. “However, it should be pointed out that overall rates of self-defense are actually quite low, for both men and women. In non-perpetrator samples, men report rates of self-defense from 0% to 21%, and women report rates between 5% and 35%. Ironically, the rates exceed 50% only among adjudicated perpetrators, who report rates of 50% (men) and 65.4% (women).” I don’t see Hamel qualifying that statement by saying that it is only true if you define IPV broadly. In the conclusion they repeat that absolute rates of self-defense are low. “Also worth noting is that absolute rates of self-defense are fairly low for women (and men).” So, I still think we should use Hamby, Lanischen-Rolling, or Hamel for that statement. Sewblon (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Every time I disagree with how you present matters and your interpretation of things and explain why, or am clear that citing what some studies or samples have reported is not the same thing as researchers endorsing what those studies or samples have reported, you come back with more of the same (for example, stating "Hamby did affirm that most female perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense" after I already addressed that). And to what end? I don't agree with you and I've been extensively clear why. You even stated that Hamby "did cite research more recent than the 90s." Except for the lone 2001 mention, that quote is pointing to 1990s research for the "not according to self-report" piece. And I already noted this at Talk:Intimate partner violence. I'm not sure why you pointed to Swan 2008 for "instructions to omit acts of self-defense do not affect gender patterns" when Swan is very clear that "In an analysis of women's motivations for violence, self-defense was the most frequently endorsed motive, with 75% of participants stating that they had used violence to defend themselves." And Hamel? There are five consecutive special issues of "Partner Abuse," between April 2012 and April 2013. It's not like we are lying with regard to Hamel et al. in the Domestic violence article. To quote Jytdog back in 2014, "Hamel (and others) are saying essentially that we are all humans and we all suck toward one another.. so rates of what he calls 'partner abuse' are actually pretty even, when you define 'partner abuse' broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, even who hits first. They also have found that if you look at who is physically harmed and how seriously, who expresses more fear, who has psychological problems following abuse... this is indeed very gendered and women suffer the most. Hamel is aware that he and others are not mainstream and that the 'gendered paradigm' is mainstream (see discussion by Hamel here) but they also take the stance that they are doing important, careful, nuanced work that shows us reality more clearly. They also seem very aware that their work is in danger of being seen as sexist by some and also of getting hijacked by others (namely men's rights wackos). Interesting." When I got into a dispute with an editor over Hamel there in that discussion, Jytdog reaffirmed that Hamel et al. "found that with respect to 'partner abuse', which they defined broadly, there is a rough equality, but when you factor in the intensity of the violence and the impact, women have it much worse. [...] The work is not mainstream, because the mainstream message emphasizes the violence against women and doesn't leave room for nuance." He also stated, "You both are almost wilfully misreading the work that team did (as his article says people are likely to do)." Since that time, I have thoroughly read the work. I actually thoroughly read it soon after he stated that. I'm not sure what all you have read regarding Hamel, but Hamel is clear about his research and that it is not to be misinterpreted or used for advocacy.

This discussion has gone on long enough. It started on February 27, 2019 (Wikipedia time); it is now March 23, 2019. If you don't agree to go with "Other research supports Straus's conclusion that most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense.", then we're done here. Per what I've stated above, I don't agree to go with "Other researchers, such as [so and so] agree with Straus's conclusion that most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense." I agree to go with "other research supports," not "other researchers agree." And going with "other research supports" makes it so that citing Hamby, for example, for the statement is more accurate and is not synthesis. After all, Hamby is not stating "I agree with Straus." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s true that in the introduction to his book, Hamel points out that the dominant paradigm in domestic violence is still mostly male on female assault. But we are talking specifically about motivation, not about relative prevalence of the physical act of assault. So that isn’t directly relevant. It’s also true that most clinicians still view female violence as reactive to male violence, but clinicians are not necessarily academic researchers. So that isn’t directly relevant either. We don’t need to act as if Strauss is the only author who takes the view that female violence is not mostly reactive. Nor should we, because the criticism on the page as it is that Strauss took an overly narrow view of self-defense, which doesn’t apply to Hamel et al as far as I know. He was very clear that absolute rates of self-defense are low for both men and women. I am not misreading his work when I cite him to that effect, willfully or otherwise. All we are talking about is motivation for domestic violence, not the effects. The fact that its effects on women are greater than those on men is irrelevant. As for Hamby, she was citing that research specifically to argue that the “mostly in self-defense” view of female IPV is not empirically supported. So saying that she was just reporting on those findings and not endorsing them, is inaccurate. I don’t see anything in Hamel’s work that says that his work could be construed as sexist or be hijacked by Men’s Rights Activists. Even if he did say it and I missed it, its irrelevant. "Other research supports Straus's conclusion that most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense." Is fine. Sewblon (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This pseudo-discussion violates WP:NOTFORUM and I hope Flyer22 will not respond. Post a new section with an actionable proposal to improve the article, with sources, or find another place to chat. Johnuniq (talk) 02:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnuniq. I'm responding because Sewblon and I have agreed on the "Other research supports Straus's conclusion that most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense." wording and I have added it to the article (followup edits here and here) with (per what I stated above) sources that I think are appropriate for the statement. We don't need a new discussion section, which will only draw this out further. Sewblon, as for the rest, we clearly disagree on a number of things, and I'm not going into all of that again. But I will note that I never stated or implied that we "need to act as if Straus is the only author who takes the view that female violence is not mostly reactive." Also, as we know, "reactive" doesn't automtically equate to self-defense. A schlolar who believes that most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense might believe that most of it is reactive. The literature very much supports that it's mostly reactive (with issues on how to define self-defense). And for the last time, Hamel was very clear that one only finds that partner abuse is relatively even when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first. That is not irrelevant. It matters because of context. Sources reporting on unreported minor violence via situational altercation state the same thing. You don't have to be misreading Hamel to be leaving out the context that he and his team felt was important to mention. We went into "equal rates" talk; so I noted what Hamel stated on equal rates. The "equal rates" aspect matters with regard to self-defense when IPV is given context. In other words, if a woman is hitting back for self-defense or other self-protection, then an "equal rates" finding is no surprise. That aspect matters. Researchers who argue against gender symmetry give women using IPV for self-defense or other self-protection, and women suffering significantly more mentally and physically, as reasons why they argue against it. Researchers (including Straus) that have argued in support of gender symmetry have used the "most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense" argument. I have no issue citing Hamby for the "other research supports" sentence since she is pointing to research (though old with issues) when stating "not according to self-report" (although I disagree that she was concluding that). But that aforementioned source from years later clearly shows her relaying, "Contrary to statements that are sometimes seen in published scholarship, 'most' data do not show gender symmetry." Hamby is also the same woman (as is clear from the Domestic violence article) who stated that males' self-reports of victimization are unreliable, as they consistently underreport their own violence perpetration. I also used the Hamel source per the quote you cited above. We should also probably qualify the material by stating "In the United States." I'll eventually add something about the vast majority of the research being limited to the United States, just like, in the "Adolescents and young adults" section, we relay, "Among adolescents, researchers have primarily focused on heterosexual Caucasian populations." But I'll leave it as is for now. And Straus's research was criticized by more than just Loseke et al.; so I will fix that at some point per what WP:In-text attribution states about misleading detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

What we now have is the wording "Other research supports Straus's conclusion that most female-perpetrated IPV is not in self-defense" in a paragragph that starts "Findings indicate that the main or a primary motive for female-on-male intimate partner violence (IPV) is self-defense". Surely, since we agree that findings support either viewpoint, the paragraph should be made to read more sensibly. At the very least, it could start "There are some findings which indicate that the main or primary motive for female-on-male intimate partner violence (IPV) is self-defense" Varybit (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If anything, it should be "findings consistently indicate" or "findings often indicate." I'm leaning toward "often," and I was considering adding it before your "16:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)" post. "Some" is vague wording that makes it seem like research equally or close to equally reports on women often using IPV for self-defense and women usually not using IPV for self-defense. That's not the case. I'm not going to argue all of what I argued above, this time with you. "Often" is supported by the WHO and various other reliable sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Even if one states that self-defense is not the main motive, research has consistently found it to be a primary motive for women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I still don't agree with what Flyer22 Reborn said about research consistently finding that self-defense is the primary motive for women, or that it is otherwise mostly reactive, see Hamby 2009, or what he said about Hamel only finding gender-symmetry if you include emotional abuse, see perceptions of female offenders. But the current wording is fine. So it doesn't matter. Sewblon (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't have to agree. Nor did you need to repeat yourself again, unless you want us to keep debating. Sources like this 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" source, from Sage Publications, page 80 (which I pointed you to at Talk:Intimate partner violence), are clear that "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." There is no getting around the fact that the literature overwhelmingly states that men typically use IPV to control their partners and that women's use of IPV is typically reactive. Not just that they "are more reactive" than men. The WHO states similarly with regard to "typically reactive" (and, as you know, also states "often in self-defense"). We've already been over that "reactive" (which also obviously covers retaliation) is not automatically the same thing as self-defense, though researchers often have a difficult time distinguishing between self-defense and retaliation when it comes to women's use of IPV (which is something we also went over and is an aspect that is touched on/sourced in the article). Hamby 2009 talks about self-defense, yes, and we've been over that. But she does not state that "most female-perpetrated IPV is not reactive" or quote anything like that. And I stated that research consistently finds that self-defense is the primary motive or a primary motive. Numerours reliable sources support that; it's not an opinion. And I'm not quoting the Hamel thing to you again. It's right there in the article for anyone to see. Emotional abuse is only a part of it. I did not limit my statement on what he stated to emotional abuse. And I am a she, by the way, if you truly did not already know that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

And althouh I responded to you on this, it is more so a response to counter your latest statement because of others who will read this section. You should not take it to mean that I want to keep debating you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:04, 18 April 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 (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

___

References

Improving linking of similar topics

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal by Musicwaves

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

Current

Proposal

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Reverted edit about wife-beating and wife-beating fallacy

I reverted this edit. This is a serious subject, and I do not think it all appropriate to put the wife-beating fallacy at the top. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree that a suggestion that wife beating is a fallacy is not appropriate at the top of this article. Technically it was a reasonable edit because wife beating is a redirect to domestic violence and "have you stopped beating your wife?" is a well known example of a loaded question. However, the result is not satisfactory in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Under-reporting

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