Talk:Christianity and domestic violence

Deletion
AS a history major, I appreciate that this subject is being talked about openly. Historic facts about domestic violence, specifically tied to the rise of Christianity and tied to any form of religious fundamentalism must be discussed. I oppose deletion of this page just because it might make some people feel "uncomfortable", especially if the facts warrant the report. We know that domestic violence in the middle ages Europe was not only excused, but encouraged because of the literal interpretation of the bible, specifically where it is said that woman must obey her husband as a servant his master. Since we do live in a civilized, educated society whose basis lies in the anals of information, then the page must stay.

I also oppose deletion, and propose expansion, because if the islam and domestic violence article is purely not a hate page, then there should also be due coverage of christiantiy and dometic violence, because domestic violence has been common in one tiem in both religions.86.150.147.133 (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the issue is that people take the Bible literally (as my husband and I do) but that the Bible has been distorted from what it actually says. Repeatedly the Bible says that husbands should be considerate to their wives and not harsh with them.  A submission wife does not mean she is a doormat.  Anyways, I think it was a good choice to keep the article simply because there are some people who do distort the Bible to justify abuse.  It is not isolated to mainline Christianity, but extends to Christian sects and cults as well as other religions.  Perhaps a merger of articles dealing with domestic violence in connection with religion should be considered?  Kristamaranatha (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose deletion, not because the topic is not interesting. But 1/ if Wikipedia is neutral and serious, you have to make this same page for EVERY major religion in the world. 2/ the page seems to have been written by a teenager, like a kind of blog, not a real wikipedia article. Seriously. Did you read it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:CFD:D2BF:CC94:9A38 (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Weasel words?
...some feminists have pointed to traditional Christian conceptions of patriarchy... EJF (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined speedy
Article has problems, but does not seem to meet CSD-G10. Dloh cierekim'''  23:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please also note the past CfD discussion. If it wasn't deleted from the CfD, it isn't likely that it could be speedy deleted (unless there is a copyvio or something of the sort).-Andrew c [talk] 00:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Cycle of Home invasion, Perpetrators and Survivors
Could someone please add a section on Old Testament and New Testament teachings and a link to the source.

Commentary on the Novel 'HouseGuest' Humorous extracts from Hugh Mackay and a definitive compilation of Old Testament and New Testament teachings.

Thanks 61.8.3.177 (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Original Research
The table in the section "Incidence of domestic violence among Christians" consitutes original research. It appears wikipedians have decided that 92% is christian enough for inclusion and then looked at domestic violence statistics in those countires as if to draw some conclusion about christians. I suggest it not be reinserted. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless of course reliable sources draw this same conclusion. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Synthesis tag
There was a Template:Synthesis tag placed on the article, with no explanation in the edit summary and nothing placed on the talk page.

I've started the conversation here to get more information. , if you could add your concerns, there, that would be great!-- CaroleHenson  ( talk ) 09:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Few empirical studies have examined the relationship between religion and domestic violence, however, four major surveys of wife assault found no causal relationship between men raised in a "patriarchal system" and incidence of wife assault, and faith groups endorsing hierarchical marital structures do not appear to report higher rates of interpersonal violence.

This passage sticks out as possible original research, particularly regarding the statement about "four major surveys", unless one of the sources explicitly states this claim. Six footnotes for the last sentence are also a red flag; two or three reliable citations should be enough to support this claim. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

For comparison, see this article:
 * Johnson, M. P.. (1995). Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence: Two Forms of Violence against Women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57(2), 283–294. http://doi.org/10.2307/353683

—Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This can be written in a way to avoid synthesis. If there are relatively few studies, it isn't inappropriate to list a few.  If the Johnson study has a countering view, we should list it too. EastTN (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This page looks more like a teenager blog that a serious encyclopedia article
I removed that: "Christian women are often silent and accepting of any domestic violence that they may suffer."

Because 1/ It's a personal opinion from the author. 3/ Where are the sources? The proof? The survey? 2/ It's wrong and very very very general. What is a "Christian woman"? A catholics, an orthodox, a baptist...etc? the author are so ignorant in religion and sociology, that they seem to think that something called a "christian woman" exist, and that they have all the same rules, morales, behaviour, accross all the cultures of the world. Is Wikipedia a serious site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:CFD:D2BF:CC94:9A38 (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)