Talk:Battered woman syndrome/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Title

BD2412, would you be willing to undo your move to "battered woman defense"? This is known as "battered woman syndrome". The original title in 2005 was "battered wife syndrome", which was moved to "battered woman syndrome" in 2006.

  • "Battered woman syndrome" on Google: 1,260,000 results
  • "Battered woman defense": 26,500

SarahSV (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I am wondering whether there is considered to be a condition distinct from the legal defense. bd2412 T 01:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
So far as I can see, the legal and medical sources refer to it as "battered woman syndrome" (BWS), and it was developed by those sources around the same time (mid-1990s) in response to the same cases (e.g. PMID 8668013). Some sources refer to the "battered woman syndrome defense" (e.g. PMID 7606702). But it should all be at one article. The term "battered woman defense" is not the common name. SarahSV (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. I am, of course, handicapped by a law degree, which sometimes makes me see things in terms solely of their legal utility. Cheers! bd2412 T 02:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@BD2412: thanks! SarahSV (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This does not explain what Battered Wife Syndrome is only the legal responses or groups. Where is the information on the actual theory or information on what where when and why Margaret P. Clarke, M.B.A. 21:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attackgirl (talk • contribs)

RfC: Should this article and the Battered person syndrome article be merged?

There is a clear consensus in favor of merger. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

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


Should the Battered woman syndrome and Battered person syndrome articles be merged so that the medical and legal aspects defined under the terms "battered woman syndrome" and "battered person syndrome" are covered in one article? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes, merge. What we have here is a medical condition (or concept of a medical condition if one prefers to consider it in that light due to disputes regarding it) -- most commonly titled "Battered woman syndrome"-- that may be used as a legal defense. That the medical condition may be used as a legal defense does not make the topic any less of a medical topic. It does not make these two aspects two separate topics.
Sources do not separate the medical and legal aspects, like Wikipedia is artificially doing. They discuss them together. Both terms are used to refer to the medical condition and use of the medical condition as a legal defense. In other words, and as made clear in the #Title section above by a different editor, neither the term "battered woman syndrome" nor "battered person syndrome" is used solely to refer to a medical condition or legal defense. Yet Wikipedia currently has it set up as though "battered woman syndrome" is solely about a legal defense and that it's "battered person syndrome" that is the medical condition. The term "battered person syndrome" is rarely used. But when it is used, the sources are noting that the term is a synonym for "battered woman syndrome", or are using it in the same way that "battered woman syndrome" is defined/used (both in the medical and legal sense).
See the sources below, in the collapsed template.
Sources using the term "battered woman syndrome" to refer to the medical aspect or to both the medical and legal aspect, and others using the term interchangeably with "battered person syndrome" or noting that "battered person syndrome" may be a medical condition or legal defense.

1. This 1990 "Battered woman syndrome: a critical review." source states "BWS is recognized as important in providing legal defense to victims and as basis for diagnosis and treatment."

2. This 1995 "Battered woman syndrome: a conceptual analysis of its status vis-à-vis DSM IV mental disorders." source states, "Literature on battered woman syndrome is examined with a view to validating the use of the word 'syndrome'. It is concluded that there is now sufficient information to justify its serious consideration as a form of post-traumatic stress disorder, as that diagnosis is defined in DSM IV: and that this has significance for the legal defence of battered women who react aggressively towards their abusers."

3. This 1998 "Battered woman syndrome." source notes that both medical and legal aspects of the concept are discussed.

4. This 1999 "Encyclopedia of Women in American Politics" source, from Greenwood Publishing Group, page 58, states, "In recent years, the Battered Women's Syndrome (BWS) has been used in defense of women who have killed their abusive male partners. Battered Women's Syndrome is part of a recognized pattern of behavioral responses to intensely traumatic experiences known as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)."

5. This 2002 "Self-defense and Battered Women who Kill: A New Framework" source, from Greenwood Publishing Group, page 156, notes the "battered person syndrome self-defense claim"...while also referring to "battered woman syndrome" as a self-defense claim on pages before and after that page.

6. This 2006 "Battered woman syndrome: empirical findings." source states that "The construct of Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) has been conceptualized as a subcategory of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)."

7. This 2006 "Criminal Law" source, from Roxbury Publishing Company, page 137, "Speaks of "an Illinois murder case [in which] the defendant-wife wanted to use the battered person syndrome in defense of an act she committed after she killed her husband." Speaks of the term "battered person syndrome" in relation to being a battered woman. The term is not spoken of in some gender neutral way."

8. This 2008 "Forensic Psychology" source, from Cengage Learning, pages 148-165, discusses the topic as both a medical condition (one that is questioned/criticized) and a legal defense. It discusses the topic as "a psychological self-defense defense." And on page 178, it states, "Note that the battered woman syndrome is not a legal defense in and of itself; usually the woman's defense is either to claim that she acted out of self-defense or to claim insanity."

9. This 2008 "Criminal Law: The Essentials" source, from Oxford University Press, page 75, states, "First is the battered person syndrome defense, which is somewhat analogous to self-defense, discussed earlier. The difference is that evidence of the battered person syndrome is permitted in some courts as a defense to criminal acts [...]."

10. This 2011 "Practical General Practice: Guidelines for Effective Clinical Management" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 25, states, "Battered Women Syndrome (BWS) is a psychological condition that is characterized by psychological, emotional and behavioral deficits arising from chronic and persistent violence."

11. This 2013 "Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence and Abuse [2 volumes]" source, from ABC-CLIO, page 39, states, "BWS is used to describe the signs and symptoms that battered women may experience as a result of violent and abusive relationships. [...] BWS has also been used in cases of self-defense to explain why battered women use violent means to defend themselves against their battering partners."

12. This 2013 "Understanding Parricide: When Sons and Daughters Kill Parents" source, from OUP USA, page 153, states, "It appears that Georgia is the only state to clearly set forth the elements necessary in order for a defendant to use evidence of being battered by the victim to establish a defense of justification in a prosecution for murder or manslaughter. [...] Although this statute specifically references BWS but not battered person syndrome, it recognizes the latter as analogous. Therefore, this statute is cited extensively in Georgia case law concerning battered person syndrome as evidence of justifiable homicide committed in self-defense."

13. This 2014 "Battered Woman Syndrome as a Legal Defense: History, Effectiveness and Implications" source, from McFarland, page 159, states, "[It] was argued that judicial opinion and legal commentary supported the admission of expert testimony on the battered woman syndrome. By 1983, a substantial number of courts had accepted the testimony, and much of the legal commentary applauded its methodology and use in the courtroom (Kinports, 1988, Schuller, 1994). However, based on the many problems inherent in the syndrome theory, Faigman (1986) recognized the limitations associated with the syndrome and claimed that it had 'little evidentiary value in self-defense cases' (p. 647) for battered women on trial for killing their abuser and strongly believed the syndrome should not be admitted as expert testimony. Further criticism came in a report conducted by the Federal Government in 1994 to investigate and describe the content of expert testimony and its effects of criminal trials where women kill their abusers. It demanded an examination of 'medical and psychological testimony on the validity of battered woman's syndrome as a psychological condition' (VAWA, 1994, as cited in Rothenberg, 2003)."

14. This 2015 "Abuse: An Encyclopedia of Causes, Consequences, and Treatments" source, from ABC-CLIO, page 30, states, ""Battered person syndrome is important because it is considered an affirmative defense, for example, in Georgia, used in combination with a self-defense or justification defense. For example, a woman is charged with the murder of her husband who abused her over a long period of time. However, if the woman can convince a jury that she suffers from battered person syndrome and that 'the circumstances were such that would excite the fears of a reasonable person possessing the same or similar psychological and physical characteristics of the defendant at the time that the deceased victim used force against the defendant, then she may be acquitted by a jury.' "

15. This 2016 "Social Work and Family Violence, Second Edition: Theories, Assessment, and Intervention" source, from Springer Publishing Company, pages 184-185, states, "Lenore E. A. Walker (1984) proposed the concept of the battered woman syndrome (BWS), which [c]onsisted of the pattern of the signs and symptoms that have been found to occur after a women has been physically, sexually, and/or psychologically abused in an intimate relationship, when the partner (usually, but not always a man) exerted power and control over the woman to coerce her into doing whatever he wanted, without regard for her right or feelings (Walker, 2009, p. 42)." Like other sources, the source goes on to speak on the condition as a legal defense.

16 This 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Abnormal and Clinical Psychology" source, from Sage Publications, states, "Battered woman syndrome (BWS) is the term used to describe a pattern of signs and symptoms that are commonly found in women who have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) or domestic violence. The syndrome is listed in the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, but is not listed in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), as no subcategories of the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are listed in the latter nosology. Nonetheless, because women who evidence the signs and symptoms of BWS also meet the criteria for PTSD, it is often used as a classification to guide treatment plans and forensic issues."

These sources show that -- whether the term "battered woman syndrome" or "battered person syndrome" is used -- the medical and legal aspects should be discussed together, not separately. We are not doing readers a service by sending them to different articles for the same topic. That is a disservice. As discussed at WP:Med, it is clear to me and others that the Battered person syndrome article is a WP:POVFORK and was created to give validity to the highly disputed concept of "battered husband syndrome", which is already sufficiently covered in the Domestic violence against men article, and to unmarried men in intimate relationships reportedly being battered. Like WP:POVFORK states, "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." The POVFORK nature of the Battered person syndrome article is even evident by the fact that its References section is overwhelmingly filled with sources that use the term "battered woman syndrome" (not "battered person syndrome"). And "battered child syndrome"? Although the term "battered child syndrome" is still occasionally used today, the term "child abuse" is used far more often for the things traditionally covered under the "battered child syndrome" title. The term "battered person syndrome" can be mentioned in the Battered woman syndrome article as an alternative term that is used for gender neutrality...if an academic source is located stating that. It can also be mentioned in the article because of the ICD-9 code 995.81 listing. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • No. There are two fundamentally different topics: one legal and one medical. This article is unequivocally about legal issues. Principally it relates the shift in legal opinion from one where cumulative abuse (which did not fit within the defence of 'provocation' in the UK) was not accepted as a defence to one where the result of that cumulative abuse was seen as leading to diminished responsibility or loss of self control. It further surveys the legal position of similar defences in four other English-speaking countries. The 23 sources used currently in this article are almost entirely legal sources, most of which do not discuss the medical syndrome. There are also 14 sources given as further reading, a mixture of background reading on the interplay between the legal and medical issues and wholly legal writings.
Sources in the article that discuss the legal issues alone include:
  1. Connelly, Clare (2010). "Commentary on Attorney-General for Jersey v Holley". In Hunter, Rosemary; McGlynn, Clare; Rackley, Erica (eds.). Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice. Oxford: Hart Publishing. pp. (292–310), 292.
  2. Bottomley, Anne (1996). Feminist Perspectives on The Foundational Subjects of Law. London: Cavendish Publishing. p. 201.
  3. Magrath, Paul (3 August 1992). "Law Report: Classic direction to jury on provocation defence upheld: R v Ahluwalia". The Independent.
  4. Ying Hui Tan (11 July 1995). "Abnormal traits relevant to provocation", The Independent.
  5. Mills, Heather (30 May 1996). "Trial forced plight of battered wives into the open". The Independent.
  6. R v Ahluwalia 1993
  7. R v Thornton 1996
  8. R v Charlton 2003
There are many more, but this sample should make it obvious that these sources are discussing only a legal issue and not a medical one. In fact, the article makes it clear that in the US, the terminology has moved on since the 1990s:

"The federal report ultimately rejected all terminology related to the battered woman syndrome...noting that these terms were 'no longer useful or appropriate'" (Rothenberg, "Social Change", Gender and Society, Oct. 2003, 782). Instead of using the term "battered woman", the terminology "battering and its effects" became acceptable. The decision to change this terminology was based on a changing body of research indicating there is more than one pattern to battering and a more inclusive definition more accurately represented the realities of domestic violence.

and the legal defence encompasses more elements than just the medical condition that we currently refer to as Battered person syndrome.
I cannot believe that any reader interested in the legal defence related to provocation or diminished responsibility caused by cumulative abuse would need to read about the minutiae of a medical condition, just as I cannot believe that any reader interested in the medical condition will want to have half of the article taken up by descriptions of changing legal decisions concerning a defence to murder. Of course, anyone who does wish to learn more should be able to visit each article from the other, but that is what wiki-links are for. This is an online encyclopedia and we are not constrained by printing restrictions to the extent that we must lump together two distinctly different topics into a single page. The legal topic and the medical topic are related, of course, but remain distinct, and are clearly independently notable, as they have existed since around 2006 as separate entities. A reading of WP:MERGEREASON gives two good reasons not to merge: Merging should be avoided if ... The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles ... [or] The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short. Both of those apply in the case of the articles proposed for merger here as the existence of two independently notable articles for 14 years and the plethora of distinct sources amply demonstrate.
I am completely agnostic about what the best titles for the article about the legal defence and the article about the medical condition should be, but I am absolutely certain that keeping them as separate articles benefits the reader most, and that should be our overriding concern. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge I think the topic would be better covered in a single article. I'm not as familiar with this topic as others seem to be, but my impression is that the legal and medical aspects are related aspects which developed together? I think an article which describes the development of the legal doctrine in conversation with the growing recognition in medicine of the long-term effects of intimate partner violence would actually do a better job than two articles covering these aspects separately. If these topics got too long and detailed to cover together, we could split them out, but I don't think we're at that point nor would this be the best dividing line to draw. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Wugapodes: how can the article battered woman syndrome (PTSD) cover content that pertains to men suffering from PTSD caused by male on male or female on male domestic violence?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
See what I stated below. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think both sides have good points here - Wugapodes's argument that awareness of the concept in the legal and medical fields developed together is convincing, but so is Rexxs's argument that one article is about legal defenses while one is about the physical and psychological effects of domestic abuse (which should have its own article; currently Effects of domestic violence redirects to a subsection) whether it's described as "battered woman/person syndrome" or not. Above all however it's clearly ridiculous to go on with one of these articles at Battered woman syndrome and one at Battered person syndrome when Rexxs's own quotations indicate that these terms reflect a change in the terminology used to describe a discrete topic, not two separate topics. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Just a note: The quote concerning the federal report is speaking of not using the term "battered woman." And it mentions the terminology "battering and its effects." It doesn't state that the terminology moved to using "battered person syndrome." Again, the "battered person syndrome" terminology is used significantly less than the "battered woman syndrome" terminology, and it has overwhelmingly been used to mean "battered woman syndrome." Yes, the literature has largely moved away from "battered woman." I noted at WP:Med that the terms "wife abuse," "wife beating," and "wife battering" (and similar) were phased out for the terms "domestic violence," "domestic abuse" and "intimate partner violence" instead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge - per above, it is clear that these are both the same topic, and hence should be one article per WP:CFORK. If any readers only care about some of the article, they would just read that part. And the sources make clear that the medical and legal aspects are especially tightly bound for this topic. Just because so far an attempt has been made to have two articles, one about the legal issues and the other the medical issues (mostly), does not mean that the two actually can be meaningfully separated. And in any case, our articles typically cover history, legal matters, and/or society/culture aspects together with the medical or scientific aspects, only spinning out those things if there is enough material - which there clearly is not in this case. Crossroads -talk- 03:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I support the merged article being under the name "battered woman syndrome" (i.e. as proposed), per the reasoning by Flyer22 Frozen and per WP:COMMONNAME. And the closer should keep in mind that the other participants that don't discuss titling are implicitly supporting the merge as proposed as well. Crossroads -talk- 14:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Crossroads: how can the article battered woman syndrome (PTSD) cover content that pertains to men suffering from PTSD caused by male on male or female on male domestic violence?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
See my reply to you below. This condition does not "cover content that pertains to men suffering from PTSD caused by male on male or female on male domestic violence." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Actually, yes it does. And this source says: “women and men can develop the syndrome”. And this source describes the legal defence of children or adolescents who kill their physically abusive parents.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Literaturegeek, this source does not address battered person syndrome in relation to men having PTSD as a result of battered person syndrome. And that a court was willing to consider the battered woman defense in reverse, where the man is the victim, does not negate the fact that literature is focused on women as victims with regard to this topic. More below. So that I don't repeat everything here and below. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Make “battered person syndrome” article a stub and merge the majority of the content elsewhere: ICD-11 links and redirects battered person syndrome to post-traumatic stress disorder so this is a recognised diagnosable term, so we really should have at least a stub article on it. Although normally used to refer to women it does seem to be used on occasion for men who have suffered prolonged domestic violence (obviously since women suffer domestic violence much more often than men), and may on occasion or rarely be used in court as a legal defence by men but much more often will be relevant to affected men seeking psychotherapy for this affliction and situation. What I feel should occur is to briefly describe this disorder as a form of PTSD describing its common features briefly, and then briefly mentioning its use as a legal defence, and also articulating that it most often refers to battered woman syndrome but occasionally is used to refer to men who have been traumatised by domestic violence against men. Then readers can decide whether to click on the battered woman syndrome, or domestic violence against men articles or indeed PTSD wiki links to better understand the subject matter they are interested in. I believe this approach is the best because simply merging everything into one article about women is discriminating against the very real problem of battered person syndrome (PTSD) caused by violence against men by male partners or by violent alcoholic or personality disordered women.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 07:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Literaturegeek, per the sources I listed above and various other sources, this condition does not "cover content that pertains to men suffering from PTSD caused by male on male or female on male domestic violence." And the literature is not about men using this condition as a legal defense. If it were, the sourcing in the Battered person syndrome article would not solely be about women, with the exception of this terminology shown in the ICD-9 listing. Like I stated at WP:Med, this terminology is the exception, not the rule. I'm not seeing it used in other sources about this topic. For example, this 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Abnormal and Clinical Psychology" source, from Sage Publications, that I cited above, states, "Battered woman syndrome (BWS) is the term used to describe a pattern of signs and symptoms that are commonly found in women who have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) or domestic violence. The syndrome is listed in the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, but is not listed in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), as no subcategories of the diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are listed in the latter nosology. Nonetheless, because women who evidence the signs and symptoms of BWS also meet the criteria for PTSD, it is often used as a classification to guide treatment plans and forensic issues." Nothing about men as victims. To repeat what I stated at WP:Med, the concept of "battered husband syndrome" is a highly disputed social/political topic (far more so than the "battered woman syndrome" is) and it is mainly attributed to one researcher. It is a highly disputed social/political topic because that researcher's research has been significantly criticized; this is covered in the Domestic violence against men article. You seem to keep considering the use of "person" in "battered person syndrome." But like I stated above, "The term 'battered person syndrome' is rarely used. But when it is used, the sources are noting that the term is a synonym for 'battered woman syndrome', or are using it in the same way that 'battered woman syndrome' is defined/used (both in the medical and legal sense)." This isn't about being discriminatory against men; it's about following the literature with WP:Due weight and not engaging in WP:False balance. Yes, there is evidence that men can suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder as a result of being victims of intimate partner violence, but that's not called "battered person syndrome." It's simply reported as something that, given the little data on it, men might experience. To quote this 2011 "Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Men Who Sustain Intimate Partner Violence: A Study of Helpseeking and Community Samples" source, "Extensive work has documented an association between sustaining intimate partner violence (IPV) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among women, yet little research has documented the same association in men, even though men comprise 25–50% of all IPV victims in a given year."
I don't understand your proposal. You are suggesting that we strip this article down to a stub even though the material on it goes beyond a stub? Stub size is not an adequate size to address this topic. You are suggesting that all of the medical material be covered at the Post-traumatic stress disorder article via merging the Battered person syndrome article there? But this particular topic is usually called "battered woman syndrome" and (per sources I listed above) it's about a medical condition that is sometimes used as a legal defense. Yes, the Post-traumatic stress disorder article can address battered woman syndrome, but most of the content on it should not be there instead of at this article. It should be mentioned there, with a wikilink pointing readers to this article. And if readers click on this article, it should not simply be about the legal defense. Above, I was clear that the term "battered person syndrome" can be mentioned in the Battered woman syndrome article as an alternative term that is used for gender neutrality...if an academic source is located stating that. It can also be mentioned in the article because of the ICD-9 code 995.81 listing.
When you reply to me on this, please don't ping me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I have changed the bolded part of my message above, I can see how I confused you. Sorry about that. Yes, the material goes beyond a stub but most of it can be merged into battered woman syndrome article (which is not a stub) or deleted if redundant. There could be a short mention of this on our PTSD and domestic violence against men article. Here is one source that describes a man using battered person syndrome as a legal defence. And this source says: “women and men can develop the syndrome”. We have lots of articles about not well researched and controversial topics. And this source describes the battered person syndrome legal defence of children or adolescents who kill their physically abusive parents. So a number of sources confirm battered person syndrome is not just about women. The word ‘person’ is not an alternative for the word ‘women’, for example nobody calls “women’s sport” “person’s sport” or “female changing area” “persons changing area”, etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Literaturegeek, like I stated above, this source does not address battered person syndrome in relation to men having PTSD as a result of battered person syndrome. It does address male Vietnam veterans using a PTSD defense. And that a court was willing to consider the battered woman defense in reverse, where the man is the victim, does not negate the fact that the literature is focused on women as victims with regard to this topic. When I stated "the literature is not about men using this condition as a legal defense", I should have stated "the literature is not focused on men using this condition as a legal defense." That source states that the court considered "battered child syndrome" similar to "battered woman syndrome" and the defense that "both syndromes find their basis in abuse-induced PTSD." It doesn't group these two things under something called "battered person syndrome." In fact, the source calls the strategies "victimization defense strategies", which is not the same thing that Lenore E. A. Walker proposed. Obviously, Vietnam veterans using a PTSD defense are also using a victimization defense strategy. And, regardless, like I stated before, we don't need a Battered person syndrome article to cover the topic of battered child syndrome. I was clear before that "Although the term 'battered child syndrome' is still occasionally used today, the term 'child abuse' is used far more often for the things traditionally covered under the 'battered child syndrome' title." This is why we don't have a Battered child syndrome article, and the history regarding it and C. Henry Kempe is covered in the Child abuse article.
Walker's concept is the battered woman syndrome, and it hinges on PTSD. That one source I cited to you above is clear that "extensive work has documented an association between sustaining intimate partner violence (IPV) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among women, yet little research has documented the same association in men." That remains true today. That source is clear that some evidence indicates that men may experience PTSD as a result of intimate partner violence, not that they definitively do. So given that there is very little data indicating that men experience PTSD as a result of intimate partner violence, how can their "battered" legal defense strategy legitimately include the PTSD aspect? Their lawyers can argue that it does, but it doesn't mean that the medical literature definitively supports the argument. I have yet to see an academic source stating that men experience PTSD as a result of battered person syndrome. And as the "Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Men Who Sustain Intimate Partner Violence: A Study of Helpseeking and Community Samples" source makes clear, you will barely find any data on men experiencing PTSD under the topic of intimate partner violence.
You stated, "The word 'person' is not an alternative for the word 'women', for example nobody calls 'women's sport' 'person’s sport' or 'female changing area' 'persons changing area', etc." The difference is that out of the few sources that use the term "battered person syndrome", most of them use the term interchangeably with "battered woman syndrome." The "Understanding Parricide: When Sons and Daughters Kill Parents" source that both you and I cited quite clearly states "Although this statute specifically references BWS but not battered person syndrome, it recognizes the latter as analogous." I never stated that "battered person syndrome" only refers to women; I stated that it referring to men is the exception (not the rule), and explained why that's the case. The vast majority of the weight is with women, which is what I mean about WP:Due weight and WP:False balance. We do not need the article to be titled "Battered person syndrome" to mention men as victims, and the topic of men as victims of intimate partner violence has a Wikipedia article -- Domestic violence against men. This topic -- whether it's titled "Battered woman syndrome" or "Battered person syndrome" -- is going to be overwhelmingly about women as victims because the literature is. So it's far more accurate to title it "Battered woman syndrome", and have the "battered person syndrome" aspect of it get its due weight in the article. Regardless of how this RfC closes, I could easily expand this article to include the medical aspects covered in sources. And then what would the Battered person syndrome article be? Completely redundant to this one, an article only being kept because of its name. It would also be a tiny stub because I would strip it of its sources that are specifically about battered woman syndrome. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes both articles should be merged into one single article. Idealigic (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes why can a legal and medical topic not be discussed together? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Doc James:, because battered person syndrome covers children, adolescents and men who have been physically abused and these groups of people cannot be described as “women” and won’t be looking up information with the search term ‘woman’ if they are a man experiencing this. Instead a small stub article should be left on battered person syndrome defining that while it generally refers to women, men, children and adolescents can be affected and have a small article about this and redirecting readers to the main articles for men and women affected by this. But yes, there is no need to separate content based on whether it is medical or legal.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    @Literaturegeek: I was thinking merging to "battered person syndrome". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    Well, that would resolve my concern. Though there is the WP:COMMONNAME issue. The problem though is this RfC was not actually worded to determine which article should be merged into the other, I have fixed the wording of the section title. So none of us are sure what we are being asked, it seems. @Doc James: it seems you misunderstand, the merge template on the article that points to this RfC states that the suggestion is that battered person syndrome be merged into battered woman syndrome article not the other way around.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    Okay well this is my clarification for the closer of the RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
    Okay. :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Doc James, per what I argued above, I am against the article being titled "Battered person syndrome." "Battered woman syndrome" is the common name (both in general use and in academia/medical sources) and the term is barely applied to men. Also, it doesn't apply to children. Not even the ICD-9 states "child." The term "battered child syndrome" applies to children, but that term has significantly declined in usage and that topic is covered by the Child abuse article. To repeat a little of what I told Literaturegeek above, "We do not need the article to be titled 'Battered person syndrome' to mention men as victims, and the topic of men as victims of intimate partner violence has a Wikipedia article -- Domestic violence against men. This topic -- whether it's titled 'Battered woman syndrome' or 'Battered person syndrome' -- is going to be overwhelmingly about women as victims because the literature is. So it's far more accurate to title it 'Battered woman syndrome', and have the 'battered person syndrome' aspect of it get its due weight in the article." I mean, having the topic titled "Battered person syndrome" when barely any content in it will be about men? That is off. Literaturegeek is focused on this "gender neutral" notion that is not well-supported by the literature. In this 2016 "The Battered Woman Syndrome, Fourth Edition" source, from Springer Publishing Company, page 50, Lenore E. A. Walker, who developed the concept, tells us the following: "As there are significant differences between the theory underlying the construct of BWS, and to date there are no empirically supported data, it has not yet been applied to men. Therefore, the term used is BWS rather than a gender-neutral battered person syndrome (BPS) or even battered man syndrome (BMS). Of course, men are abused by women, but the psychological impact on the man does not appear to be consistent with trauma in most cases. This is further discussed in Chapter 12." That is supported by this 2011 "Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Men Who Sustain Intimate Partner Violence: A Study of Helpseeking and Community Samples" source, which is clear that little research has documented the same association with PTSD and intimate partner violence in men.
Literaturegeek, I changed the title of the RfC back to "Should this article and the Battered person syndrome article be merged?" That is my question. My question is if the topics aspects should be merged. If this were to come up again, one could point to this RfC and note what others decided with regard to whether the topics should be covered separately or together. Asking if the Battered person syndrome article should be merged into this article would mean that, if this closes as consensus, consensus is only for merging the Battered person syndrome article into the Battered woman syndrome article. Then again, the comments thus far would be clear, because those comments replied to my question of "Should this article and the Battered person syndrome article be merged?", not to you reworded question. Yes, I added the merge template suggesting that the Battered person syndrome article be merged into this article. That is because of things I argued above, such as the vast majority of the sources in the Battered person syndrome article being about women and that article being a POVFORK. I don't see the title up for debate, given that "battered woman syndrome" is the common name both in general use and in academia/medical sources. In any case, this is a merge discussion. If editors want to do a move discussion after the merge, that can happen. But I will argue things I argued above in that case, and I don't see how the term "battered person syndrome" could compete against "battered woman syndrome." It being moved to "battered person syndrome" certainly would not be based on the data. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I am not focused on a ‘gender neutral’ notion and there is no evidence of that. Quite the opposite as my preference, that I suggested in my vote and comment above, is that both this and the ‘person’ articles should be kept.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
You haven't been focused on a gender neutral notion via the use of "person"? Clearly, per above, with me stressing the "person", "battered man/husband" and "battered child" aspects to you, I disagree. And as for your preference to retain both articles? That's not how you voted above. And, after I explained the matter at WP:Med, you supported a merge. Just recently above, you stated, "But yes, there is no need to separate content based on whether it is medical or legal." No need to separate the content is why people have supported merging these articles. We obviously aren't proposing to delete one aspect over the other. I know what you've argued and proposed. And it's clear that we disagree enough that our above votes differ. So agree to disagree. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I voted to heavily trim the person article to a stub (a stub article is an article) and my vote favoured the woman article being a full article rather than a stub. How you interpret that as being a gender neutral advocacy is lost on me. But anyway, yeah agree to disagree.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Hum. As I think about this more, I think "Battered husband syndrome" / "Battered man syndrome" should redirect to Domestic_violence_against_men#Battered_husband_syndrome and that Battered person syndrome should redirect to Battered women syndrome. With a link from that to the battered husband syndrome article. Battered person syndrome is usually about women so I think it being primary is fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge at the gender neutral title, and discuss usage/prevalance of bws/bps terminology. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to make certain that everyone voting to merge as proposed is aware of they are voting for, I've performed a draft merge at User:RexxS/BWS. As you can see, because the legal defence article is currently twice the size of the medical topic article, it makes the merged article somewhat lop-sided, but it's actually not as bad as I originally envisaged. The talk pages won't be merged, of course, but some judicious archiving and links from this page should ease any problems from that. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge to Battered Woman Syndrome. A gender neutral title is somewhat WP:SYNTH. BWS emerged originally in a time when PTSD was not well-recognized as something women endured (most research was done on soldiers, and combat veterans were at times hostile to the concept being applied to battered women) —-it was used as a legal defense (a form of insanity defense, or self-defense, essentially) in cases where women killed their abusive partners. So there is a broad social and historic context to the concept. The broad concept when applied to men, transgendered people, etc., is intimate partner violence. For minors, it is child abuse. Different populations have different issues that arise from trauma, and so a merge to a “generic” isn’t really suitable. If anything gets merged, I think “battered person syndrome” may need to be made a disambiguation page or redirected to the proper clinical term (and there may be US/UK differences in terminology, to complicate matters more). “Battered person” is something of a well-meaning neologism, and the icd9 doesn’t quite state it as such: [1] and icd9 995.81 [2] uses the term adult physical abuse. Hope this clarifies matters a bit. Montanabw(talk) 01:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Closure

Whatever the details of the eventual closure, it is apparent that there is overwhelming support to merge the two articles into one. I've gone ahead and performed the merge into the Battered woman syndrome title, and set Battered person syndrome to redirect to it. Further adjustments should now be easy to make. --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough with me RexxS.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Battered-woman's syndrome." listed at Redirects for discussion

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Battered-woman's syndrome.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 13#Battered-woman's syndrome. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Senator2029 “Talk” 05:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Title

A question to pose:

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

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

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

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

Per WP:Due weight the sources are about the subject as titled. We have discussed this previously in detail here. Crossroads -talk- 21:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I know a discussion of some weird distinction between the legal defense and medical condition and the phrasing came up before, Likewise a decision to merge this and battered person syndrome passed. That said some of those discussions and archives are long, I had to skim read them slightly and may have missed a few points.
I'm not disputing the legal defense and medical condition are synonymous by any means, and I agree there should only be one article, which seemed to have been very key points to those previous discussions. The terminology aspect being largely secondary (and used as a 'justification' for separating the topics)
My point though is that at least some (from a quick look, it seems like most?) of the most authoritative up-to-date sources seem to support both phrasings? Notably the ICD. I'm not entirely sure how it would be giving undue weight to any 'point' to use a more gender-neutral phrasing as the title, mentioning the common recognized synonymous terms in the lead, there is also a slight WP:HARM argument in that it acknowledges this could be a thing for someone of any gender. This side of the matter doesn't look to be as much explored.
Especially, given the DSM-5 doesn't mention it, the ICD-9/ICD-10 are rather authoritative figures and if they are giving equal weighting to the phrases it seems reasonable to say both are very valid?
On a less related note, is it worth updating the ICD-9 link to an ICD-10 one? Perhaps directly to ~~icd.who.int where its listed as T74.1?~~ icd10cmtool.cdc.gov 188.220.86.46 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The ICD link can be updated. Aside from that, the ICD isn't the only authority on the matter. Rather, it has to do with balancing all WP:MEDRS sources on the subject. An argument based on the ICD alone won't cut it. I also recommend reading the past discussion in full. Crossroads -talk- 06:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Alright, updated the ICD link.
I lack the expertise to dig through all the medical sources for this. Would there be a way to prevent sigmabot archiving this thread as it is a point likely someone will bring it up again? 188.220.86.46 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not in the ICD-10. The ICD-10 doesn't use this term. RandoBanks (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Individual cases/ Primary sources

The discussion of various individual cases sourced solely to the decisions themselves need to be sourced to reliable secondary sources. The decisions in the various Reporters are primary sources. I presume (perhaps erroneously) that the editor(s) who added the text on these cases learned of them through secondary sources. Those are the sources that should be cited, not the decisions in the Reporters. Banks Irk (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Battered_woman_syndrome/Archive_2"