Talk:Domestic violence

On the neutrality of this article

Other sources suggest that the victims are gender neutral. But this article does not include any information on the scientific debate on gender symmetry. Should the article both have views on the debate? Remove the "overwhelming"?

Please note that previous consensus was to keep "victims are overwhelmingly women" in the lede rather than keeping gender symmetry out of the article.

There is a lot of debate among scholars about whether the genders are both victimised similarly. To me it seems to be a violation of WP:NPOV for the article to omit the alternate view in science or that it is under debate. See Domestic violence against men#Gender symmetry and Intimate partner violence#Gender symmetry. The theory is not WP:FRINGE/pseudoscience as it has a significant amount of scholarly sources. See WP:FRINGE/ALT which says "Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. They should not be classified as pseudoscience but should still be put into context with respect to the mainstream perspective."

One of the sources is a literature review of 1,700 studies on domestic violence, and it suggested that the genders are equal. I have seem previous concerns about this source, so please do note that it is not the only source in question. Furthermore, there is lack of consensus in the scientific community on whether it is symmetrical or asymmetrical,[1][2][3] so omitting it doesn't seem to be appropriate for neutrality.

Also, is there a way we can remove the previous unclosed discussions (without removing the comments)? Or do anything else to prevent confusion? It's getting a bit ridiculous, I have changed my concern from the lede to gender symmetry being in this article, so those discussions do not reflect my current view/argument. Panamitsu (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

there is not a "debate" on whether or not women are more affected by interpartner violence than men are. your sources do not support your suppositions.

I am starting to think this person is actually trolling...? AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

We have really good sourcing for women being more affected than men, but I don't think we have good sourcing for "overwhelmingly" more affected. Of the sources listed for that claim right now, one says that verbatim, two say that women are disproportionately affected, and the last one gives statistics saying that Although estimates vary, IPV (including sexual violence, physical violence, and stalking) is experienced by approximately 36% of US women and 33% of US men during their lifetime, which is certainly more women than men but very much not "overwhelmingly" more. Loki (talk) 03:01, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@LokiTheLiar: There are lots of sources for "overwhelmingly", even if not all of them are currently cited here. See Flyer22's (hatted) discussion of sources at the 2018 RfC. I count 5 solid sources that explicitly state "overwhelmingly", as well as a few others that effectively say the same thing in other words. It is no wonder, then, that the consensus to retain "overwhelmingly" was reaffirmed in the 2019 RfC, and has not been seriously challenged since. Generalrelative (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative That looks a lot like WP:CHERRYPICKING to me. While it is a mainstream idea that women are more likely to be victims, 95% (suggested by "overwhelming") of them is not mainstream. It sounds a lot like a WP:PEACOCK term even if the sources say that. I think it would be less biassed to have something quantitative such as "two thirds". Panamitsu (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It has already been addressed in previous RfC's. You can open a new one, but judging by the previous one you opened, it doesn't seem likely that it could be impartial.

a very strange crusade to embark upon, indeed... AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, please see Intimate partner violence#Gender symmetry and Domestic violence against men#Gender symmetry which describes the debate. Please remain civil and support your arguments rather than calling people trolls. Panamitsu (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

you are manufacturing a debate by posting links to studies that do not support your arguments adequately. this is not a battleground for you to impress your ideological claim that men can be oppressed too -- instead of repeating the same 5 sources that do not support your views, maybe try to do more research before you repost the same argument over and over again. spamming this talk page with rephrased and reworded instances of your same core argument is trolling AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually no I'm not. For the final time, I would like to direct your attention to what people have written about on Intimate partner violence#Gender symmetry and Domestic violence against men#Gender symmetry. I will not be engaging with you further as you have neither been civil nor cooperative. Panamitsu (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

this dispute has been resolved through WP:DR Third Opinion. Do not change the article again to include information about "gender symmetry" or the disproportionate rates of violence against women. AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Please link me it, I have not seen it and am unsure of how to find it. Panamitsu (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@AGIwithTheBraids link it please. I don't see it a DRN or your contribution history EvergreenFir (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Straus and the gender (as)symmetry stuff is important but horribly muddled with poor metrics (like the CTS) and differing operationalizations of "abuse". That said, it's accurate to say women are more likely to be the victim of injurious abuse in hetero couples. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Straus falls under WP:FRINGE AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 04:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, no, he's not fringe. Outdated but not fringe. I rather doubt Finklehor or anyone at UNH would call him on par with David Avocado Wolf EvergreenFir (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

in either case, it does not belong as a source if it is not current and can substantiate the content of an article. and i was mistaken about the DRN. One should be created -- @Generalrelative started with @Panamitsu and they have not stopped AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 04:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Which source? I see attributions (per WP:YESPOV and WP:DUE) but nothing stated in Wikivoice that is flat out wrong. Straus's view, gender symmetry, CTS, etc. all belong in the article; and academic review of this topic would include them and so should we. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The section needs work but I agree that cutting it entirely is UNDUE. Now that this article has the active attention of several editors, let's apply the scalpel rather than the sledgehammer. I would suggest again taking a look at the sources marshaled by Flyer22 in the 2018 RfC. Generalrelative (talk) 04:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrt DRN, I'm not sure that it's necessary. We appear to be looking at a WP:1AM situation, given the discussion here and at at FTN. The normal consensus process should be adequate for addressing actual, existing NPOV issues (i.e. rather than calls to bring the article father away from the scholarly mainstream in the name of "neutrality", which is simply not going to happen). Generalrelative (talk) 04:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

the entire section repeatedly uses the same paper by Strauss with little to no other direct references to the ideas of gender symmetry. I believe it can be mentioned in the paragraph regarding Gender Asymmetry as a rebuttal and a fringe idea regarding gender imbalance in domestic violence, but to give it its own section places undue weight on the theory as a whole AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at the way Straus and Gelles is discussed in the related article Intimate partner violence. I would argue that that is a far more balanced discussion, and could serve as a model for revisions here. Generalrelative (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a new suggestion: we should combine this article with the domestic violence against men article and additionally create a new section that has information about domestic violence in relation to heterosexual relationships, homosexual relationships, and relationships that do not fit into either of these categories (the terminology is escaping me right now.

that way, we can include the information about how domestic violence is committed against men too without muddying the water regarding whether or not women are disproportionately affected (which has been settled on this page numerous time). It would also prevent vague statements regarding violence against men popping up elsewhere in the article AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@AGIwithTheBraids I oppose this proposition as domestic violence against men and women is treated vastly different by society, and many believe that it simply cannot exist. Merging the two would create a WP:FALSEBALANCE. While I believe (both) articles have neutrality issues, neutrality would be worse if they were merged because of false balance. Panamitsu (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

it does not create a false balance -- a false balance would be each having their own articles, when each are clearly not of the same magnitude of relevance (as established numerous times on this talk page). Creating a section regarding violence against men in the Domestic Violence allows it to be acknowledged but not focused upon.

Seeking other opinions to build consensus... AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@AGIwithTheBraids Good point. We'll need to sort out existing npov issues on both articles before we could proceed. Panamitsu (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

So it turns out that for me and Generalrelative at least, we've been misinterpreting each other. I was talking about prevelence (ignoring severity), while Generalrelative (perhaps others too) was talking about prevelence (including severity). I have not disputed that women experience more severe forms of violence.

Because we've figured out our misinterpretations, I'd like to mention why I was talking excluding the severity. It says in the lead, "Worldwide, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women, and women tend to experience more severe forms of violence." Because it says "and women tend to experience more severe..." it suggests that the first part of the sentence is prevelance (ignoring severity).

Now, as I have cited before, there appears to be no scientific consensus on gender symmetry (ignoring severity). So to deal with that, I propose two changes:

• Mention in the lead that there is no scientific consensus
• Remove that first part of the sentence, the "Worldwide, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women" because it due to the second part of the sentence, it looks like it's talking about prevelance (igonring severity). Because there is no scientific consensus, I think it wouldn't be appropriate for us pick a side for better WP:NPOV.

Please note again, I am not disputing the "women tend to experience more severse forms of violence" part. Panamitsu (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to think either the sources or our consensus about that sources has changed since the last time this was discussed. The fact that the theory of gender symmetry is has enough support to not be quite fringe doesn't mean we have to give it disproportionate representation. It still seems to be an extremely minority position. We could potentially mention it somewhere in the article, but it doesn't affect the lead given how much of a minority position it is. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This is my position as well. The issue, as I discussed with Panamitsu on their talk page, is definitional. Studies with broader definitions of violence (that is, including less severe forms) tend to lean more toward symmetry, whereas studies which restrict their definitions to more harmful violence lean more toward asymmetry. But all good social scientists are aware of this kind of methodological issue, and the vast majority are careful to emphasize that women are disproportionately victimized by a wide margin because that's where the balance of scholarship rests. The current text could be clarified, but it should not be in any way watered down. Generalrelative (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative Yup, adding clarification seems to be a better idea. Does anyone want to create a draft to what this may look like? Panamitsu (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: Do you have any idea on how to do this? I've been thinking about it for a couple of weeks and still cannot figure out how to start. Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 01:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not really sure that there's a problem here to be fixed. Generalrelative (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused then, what did you mean by "The current text could be clarified, but it should not be in any way watered down."? —Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 03:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

"Could be clarified" means: it's probably not perfect, feel free to suggest an alternative. But that doesn't imply that I see it as a problem in need of fixing. You seem to be the only one who finds the current language problematic, so it really falls on you to do the work of persuading others to back an alternative wording. I have other interests. Generalrelative (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Should we remove this source?

So I'm looking at what is source 4, by McQuigg. It was written in 2011 which for its mention on the gender differences, it cites Family Law, Gender and the State (p 316) from 1999. This seems to be much outdated, DV studies back then were quite gynocentric. Also the source says "the available research suggests that ...", which suggests that at the time there was very little research, but now there is now a lot of research on both genders. So should we remove this source? —Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 08:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove it. It's used twice and never on its own. Nor is there any reason to believe that scholarship has shifted on this matter. Generalrelative (talk) 02:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"DV studies back then were quite gynocentric" ...

we've been over this... AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 23:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Including numbers of male victimisation

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.

---

I've put a clarification needed tag next to the part that says women are overwhelmingly victims. At this moment it's a bit like a weasel word, although I'm not sure if that's the correct term. We currently have that 1 in 3 women experience DV, but it doesn't mention what the number is for men. It's quite vague in its current form. The measured statistics on male victims tend to vary so I'm wondering how you all think we should approach this? —Panamitsu (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No, this is just what the well-established consensus is among editors. And you are, at this point, fully aware of it. The tag is therefore inappropriate. It's time to either bring this to a centralized discussion board like WP:NPOVN (your responsibility, not anyone else's) or drop the WP:STICK. Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative Yes I've already dropped the stick on the "overwhelming" part. —Panamitsu (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative I'm a bit confused what you mean by this. Consensus was made on keeping the "overwhelming" part. It wasn't made on including statistics on men? You know that domestic violence affects both women and men. —Panamitsu (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I really don't know how to be more explicit than I've been above. See my comment of 02:09, 18 September 2023. Generalrelative (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that is relevant. Including statistics on male victims and keeping the "overwhelming" are two completely seperate things. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You could have at least suggested a new statistic. I just googled it and came across 1 in 7-9 men. AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@AGIwithTheBraids Could you provide your source? I haven't been able to find it. I've found 1 in 3 for IPV in US by CDC,[4] and an worldwide(?) estimate between 3% and 20%, though this is quite a big difference for the lead.[5]. This one says 1 in 9 for the US.[6]

This is why it can be quite difficult, the numbers vary quite a bit. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason for us to compare statistics between men's and women's victimization in the lead, Panamitsu. Women are the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic violence, and statistics about women's victimization are much more widely cited than statistics about men. That's why, per WP:DUE, women's victimization is highlighted in the lead. This will be my final response to you on the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

With respect, there is also no reason not to compare statistics either. I don't think WP:DUE applies here as the CDC is a very reliable source. It is true that women are overwhelmingly affected, but that does not mean that the victimisation of men should be omitted. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

if stats are to go anywhere, they should go in the men/boys section of demographics, but at this point, you have failed to establish consensus for editing the lead. AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

yes this is unbearable. drop the WP:STICK AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2023 (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.

Including numbers of male victimisation

Recently I added statistics from the CDC on male victimisation and it was reverted here, saying that "this is [not] sufficient framing, nor that the statistic is necessarily WP:DUE". This was following a reversion here saying While decently sourced, this edit appears to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE into the article, since the 1-in-3 statistic given for women's victimization in the lead is clearly using a different metric, but a casual reader may conclude that men's and women's victimization are equivalent, which is false. A much more nuanced presentation of this data would thus be required. I totally agree with this, which is why I added the clarification that women experience higher severity of violence later on.

Personally I believe that the most recent revision was sufficiently framed as it gives the context that women experience violence of higher severity, but I'm happy to help with adding more context. @Generalrelative: could you please explain your reasoning for the most recent revision? I mostly don't understand the WP:UNDUE part as the CDC is quite reliable being a government organisation.

I'm wanting to work collaboratively on this rather than the previous talk page edit war, and reminder that I have changed my mind about removing the "overwhelming" victimisation. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: Since I believe this is slipping into a behavioral issue (see the WP:ARBGENDER warning above), and have not had success engaging with Panamitsu on their talk page, I've brought the matter to the fringe theories noticeboard. I'd prefer to let others weigh in on matters of content now if they find it necessary, and let my original edit summary speak for itself. Generalrelative (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You aren't being cooperative here. I'm asking for an explanation on why you think it's WP:UNDUE when it's a perfectly reliable source. I've also asked you why you think including that women experience more severe forms of violence next to it isn't sufficient context. Please listen to my questions. As said, I agree with the first reversion that it creates a false balance, but you aren't cooperating with me to prevent it. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The undue issue is not a question of reliability of the source, but rather a situation where inclusion gives a disproportionate emphasis to a minor aspect of the topic. What you added and Generalrelative reverted still (even with the qualifier about severity) would have implied a type of symmetry between male abuse of women and female abuse of men, and that's false balance. NightHeron (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@NightHeron So do you think that it's possible to prevent a false balance, or is it unsolvable? —Panamitsu (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's definitely possible to prevent a false balance. If both studies include men and women, the obvious thing to do would be to give the numbers for both sexes for each study so each comparison is apples-to-apples. If they don't, at least include the full definition each time to avoid WP:SYNTH.

The issue with your edit is not using the CDC statistics (which I agree we should include somewhere), it's using the CDC statistics next to different statistics that were gathered using a much narrower definition. Loki (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand now! Thank you very much! I had a hard time understanding and I've finally got it, thank you, it means a lot. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to cite the CDC numbers, we should go with "About 41% of women and 26% of men" from here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers That's a much better figure —Panamitsu (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and if we need to include this near the other study, we should also include the proportion of men experiencing DV from it as well if we can. (I haven't looked at it in detail yet and don't know if it includes that number.) That way each comparison is apples-to-apples. Loki (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it does because it says About 41% of women and 26% of men experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported an intimate partner violence-related impact during their lifetime.

It also says that About 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men report having experienced severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime which we can use to take account in differing severities. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the article does mention these numbers, just buried inside the same-sex section.

This same report states that 26% of gay men, 37% of bisexual men, and 29% of heterosexual men have experienced domestic violence in their lifetime. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Domestic violence in lesbian relationships to See Also?

I don't have much experience in adding links to the See Also section. Should Domestic violence in lesbian relationships be added? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The article already has a section on same-sex relationships which links to the lesbian article, so we don't need to add it to the see also per WP:SEEALSO. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

All right, thanks! JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 22:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)