Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 9

Question Regarding Recent Edit
Hello, this is mostly relevant for Flyer22 Reborn. I am not sure exactly why my edit was undone, because the Hamby source doesn't seem to support the statement. Hamby does not appear to suggest that research supports Strauss's conclusion about self-defense. (EDIT: Nevermind, I see where I missed it in the source!)

Also, there is no mention of the significant gender difference in sexual violence perpetration, which Hamby states is the one area where the most significant difference is found in rates of IPV perpetration between women and men. Shouldn't there be mention of this?

Thank you Msenrises00 (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding this (followup note here), we already have a "Sexual" section and the article is more than clear that sexual violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you don't think there should be any mention of the sexual violence rates in the gender section? I say this because that has been a primary aspect of the controversy and the reason why some IPV research shows more equal rates of perpetration between genders, but then on measures where sexual violence is included, the rates are much less equal. It's a rather critical aspect to the whole gender controversy. Msenrises00 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't state "that has been a primary aspect of the controversy and the reason why some IPV research shows more equal rates of perpetration between genders." Rather, it has to do with what has been addressed before. The "equal rates" aspect comes from hitting back and self-defense, college-aged couples, and how these aspects are categorized and/or weighted. With regard to men and women committing domestic violence at equal or near equal rates, quality sources on the topic and the general literature are clear that the "equal rates" aspect, when found, only applies to "minor partner violence." Furthermore, most of the studies that have found "equal rates" are based on college-aged couples. Situational couple violence/minor partner violence is more common among adolescent and college-aged couples. But even in that case, and as the Wikipedia Domestic violence article makes clear, girls (just like women) are more likely to use less dangerous forms of physical violence, which is another reason why a number of quality sources dispute the idea of gender symmetry.


 * Hamby (2014) relays, "Contrary to statements that are sometimes seen in published scholarship, 'most' data do not show gender symmetry. Far from it. The total n for all of the data included in the Archer meta-analysis (2000) is surpassed by one year's worth of NCVS data alone, and that data has been collected every year for more than four decades. [...] Archer obtained his well-known result of gender parity by systematically excluding these huge data-bases. There is no reason to privilege the data on small convenience samples of college students over these nationally representative or population-based data sets that are collected by the Federal government. It would be like surveying your class about winter flu symptoms and claiming your data is better than that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)." In 2009, she also stated, "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."


 * The sexual violence text you added doesn't touch on gender symmetry. It states, "Sexual violence is often left out of measures of IPV. When sexual violence is accounted for, female perpetrators make up less than 10%." Still, I re-added (see followup edit here) the piece you added (except in a different spot). I don't see that the section in question needs anything else. Not much of anything else anyway. It has been the subject of significant debate, and editors need to be careful with it. See WP:CAREFUL and WP:CAUTIOUS. Also keep in mind that this article should generally adhere to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. For example, we should typically avoid WP:Primary sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:Student editing
DStewart1, regarding this and this, two pieces that you added and I reverted, everything you add needs to be sourced. We need to stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for this topic. For example, we should typically avoid primary sources for this topic. See WP:Primary sources and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Also, peer review is not the same thing as literature review. Please read and study WP:MEDRS. It is clear about the type of sourcing you should be using, and this begins with its introduction: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." You should be looking for secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, tertiary sources. You can look on Google Books if that will help. It often helps me. If you haven't looked on PubMed, look on there as well.

Also, you should not be linking to your ebscohost.com sign in. Why are you linking to that? Link to sources directly only. There is also an issue with where you added the material and redundancy regarding some of what you added since the article has a "Same-sex relationships" section specifically for same-sex relationship material. That section is meant to be a summary per WP:Summary style. In-depth material on domestic violence in same-sex relationships belongs in the main article on that topic -- Domestic violence in same-sex relationships. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Intimate partner violence
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Intimate partner violence. Generalrelative (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Unjustifiably lenient sentences for domestic abusers in the UK
Awareness of domestic abuse has slowly become more prominent.

Awareness of male victims of domestic abuse has also improved.

Police and victim support provided to those affected by domestic abuse has become more substantial.

When will the UK Criminal Prosecution Service and UK Justice System support the Police, charities and victims and deliver sentences to reflect the severity of these crimes? The journey a victim follows is questionably unnecessary and deters victims speaking out, because not only is the CPS hesitant to issue *applicable* charges, but the final ruling of a judge is (statistics unknown) more than likely going to result in case dismissal, a 'slap on the wrist' or a number of days in prison.

As recently seen in Channel 4's 24 hours in police custody, where the horrific story of Paul Jenner is shown - who's partner is sentenced for assaulting him, on her release, assaults him again, resulting in his DEATH and she receives a 16 month sentence for "ABH", she is cleared GBH with intent, cleared of manslaughter and murder (despite the coroner reporting the death was a result of the physical abuse he endured and the police and CPS who had pre warned the court on previous occasion that should this not be sorted - it will most likely result in the victims murder).

Will this ever change? Will there be a time in which a judge can deliver reasonable punishment to abusers?

Is this due to the individual judge?

Is this due to the regulations, laws and presidents a judge must follow?

How can we stand up for victims (unknown victims, known victims, dead and alive) what must we do?

Ask for the reform of an Act? The introduction of a new Act? What can be done? HumansWithHumanityAreEndangered (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Revising the "underreporting" section
Near the top of the section it is stated that Chan 2009 found that women were more likely to overestimate their violence perpetration as well as that men are less likely to report their own violence due to "a narrative focus on their own needs and emotions". Upon review of the articles cited I have found that these statements are wholly inaccurate and are likely a result of misinterpretation.

The first statement is false since nowhere does it state that women overestimate their violence. Chan mentions two studies that show that women may be less likely to underreport their violence but nothing mentions overreporting. Additionally Chan merely mentions these studies briefly and does not include the info in the discussion or conclusion.

The second statement is false because the article states that one of the factors affecting men reporting their own violence is using reporting as a way to communicate a narrative of their needs and distresses to the interviewers. This is a reason why men DO report their violence, not a reason why they don't.

I also believe it will be beneficial to include a statement regarding the limitations of the study made by Chan that the true number of cases is almost never known and underreporting of one partner may be just overreporting of the other. Disagreeable entity (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that the OP is now subject to an indefinite topic ban from any gender-related dispute or controversy, so cannot respond. Unless someone else thinks that these points have merit, this thread can be considered defunct. Generalrelative (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I honestly do not understand how u could not see merit in this I am literally correcting an error. Also I'm clearly not banned its confusing me too. Disagreeable entity (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You were not correcting an error. Also, I removed some copy sourced to a single study of Chinese couples wedged in with the review of literature.  One single study is not acceptable for our reporting here.  Gandydancer (talk) 14:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Both under and over reporting (by either males or females) could be enabled by (in the UK) the lack of criminal justice in the final ruling of cases.

A) over reporting (I presume false) could be increased as the 'victim' knows nothing substantial will come of the report. B) under reporting because a victim is terrified of the abuse becoming worse after a judge rules the charges out. HumansWithHumanityAreEndangered (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency between lead and body?
The lead states "Globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women, and women tend to experience more severe forms of violence.", but the section on gender differences states "There continues to be some debate regarding gender differences with relation to domestic violence." It seems strange to make a statement in Wikipedia's voice that is apparently not a settled matter. Am I missing something here? 2604:2D80:DA81:D800:A955:2F56:C7BD:1DFD (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this issue has been discussed quite a lot. Try searching the archives. And while there is indeed "some debate" about perpetration and victimization proportions, that doesn't preclude a scholarly consensus that domestic violence overwhelmingly impacts women. So really there is no inconsistency here, just a general overview in the lead and a bit more nuance in the body, which is how articles are supposed to be structured per e.g. MOS:LEAD. Generalrelative (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes and no, while there is some agreement on the fact that women end up with more severe injuries in hospital, there is no consensus at all that women are more often the victim of domestic violence. Most studies that survey victims or perpatrators claim a 50/50 distribution, while some found only a small majority for one of the genders. Studies based on police/justice statistics show an overwelming female victimhood. However these results are not reliable because of the stigmatization of male victimhood (literally every study on this topic has found a massive underreporting of men), or the fact that males are sometimes not recognized as victims by some justice- or policedepartments because of their gender.


 * In short the general consesus (what I understood from reading the literature that surveys gender victims and perpatrators) regarding the gender distribution:


 * Sexual: more female
 * Heavy injury: more female
 * Killed: more female
 * Being hit: more male
 * Psychological: more male/equal
 * Suicide after abuse: more male
 * Overal victimhood: in general +/- equal


 * I agree that this should be adapted.Willibord (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The editor pointed to the archives. I think I found all of the more recent discussions they wanted us to read. There's also one at the intimate partner violence talk page. You're wrong when you say "there is no consensus at all that women are more often the victim of domestic violence." I don't think you read the discussions. If you did, you're ignoring the sources that were provided and the arguments that were made. The text in the article has consensus based on those sources and arguments. Nowearskirts (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

References do not always prove what is said
I was quick checking two references and noticed totally wrong interpretations and claims. I already updated the Chan part about underreporting (1) both men and women underreport victimization, men even more than women, however the part about men was not added 2 I deleted the explanation afterwards as this was not his original research (these were examples from one paper in the review) and very skewed towards women, but before people claim I am vandalizing the article I would also like to adress this part:

"Findings often 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)."

The fact that 'emotional-health' is stated as being part of self-defense or self-protection in female on male violence is not (always) legally recognized. This would mean that a woman can hit a man because she feels bad about something a man did, disregarding if he commited actual DV.

Moreover the references are not really discussing the literature, only ref 160 does this and this reference finds something different than stated:

Reference 3 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2968709/): Self-Defense Women who engage in intimate partner violence commonly report using violence to defend themselves from their partners (Babcock, Miller, & Siard, 2003), and several studies have found that women cite self-defense as a motivation for violence more frequently than men do (e.g., Barnett, Lee, & Thelen, 1997; Hamberger, 2005; Makepeace, 1986; but for an exception see Kernsmith, 2005). In an analysis of women’s motivations for violence (Swan & Snow, 2003), self-defense was the most frequently endorsed motive, with 75% of participants stating that they had used violence to defend themselves. In Stuart et al.’s (2006) sample of women who were arrested for intimate partner violence, women’s violence was motivated by self-defense 39% of the time.

Swan and snow are themselves authors of reference 3 and thus basically refering to themselves, while there are studies out there that claim the opposite

Reference 160 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2994556/): Self-defense and Retaliation Self-defense was listed as a motivation for women’s use of IPV in all of the included articles, except three, one of which administered a questionnaire that did not ask about self-defense (Archer & Graham-Kevan, 2003; Rosen, Stith, Few et al., 2005; Weston, Marshall, & Coker, 2007). Of the 14 studies that ranked or compared motivations based on frequency of endorsement, (Barnett, Lee, & Thelen, 1997; Carrado, George, Loxam et al., 1996; Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Hamberger, 1997; Hamberger & Guse, 2005; Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005; Kernsmith, 2005; O'Leary & Slep, 2006; Olson & Lloyd, 2005; Saunders, 1986; Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007; Stuart, Moore, Hellmuth et al., 2006; Swan & Snow, 2003; Ward & Muldoon, 2007), four (Hamberger, 1997; Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005; Saunders, 1986; Swan & Snow, 2003) found that self-defense was women’s primary motivation (46–79%) for using IPV, with one additional study reporting self-defense as the second most common motivation (39%) (Stuart, Moore, Hellmuth et al., 2006).

Only four articles out of 13 claim this. Apart from the 2005 article the others return in reference 162 and ref 3

Reference 161 (https://books.google.be/books?id=YBVGswoPYqMC&q=related:PTrUoeplCIkKdM:scholar.google.com/&pg=PA79&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=related%3APTrUoeplCIkKdM%3Ascholar.google.com%2F&f=false): refers to reference 162

Reference 162 (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/107780102237408): Is from journal Violence Against Women, a journal that mainly publishes feminst articles. She mainly refers to her own research and other feminist authors. She does not really review literature but is cherry-picking studies to construct her framework

In short: Reference 3, 161 and 162 are known feminist authors. In fact, feminist authors are the only one in the cited sources to claim self-defense to be the mayor driving force for female on male violence. While I think feminist stances should be included, it is not serious that they form the majority of the cited sources, knowing there are a lot of other authors claiming the opposite. Moreover these three studies offer no serious review of the existing literature to subtantiate this claim. Only reference 160 seems to be really giving an overview of the literature. In this article it is stated that only a minority of authors say self-defense is the main or a primary motive for female on male violence.

These were the first two references I checked, and if I read the article further, I think this article needs a serious update. All the sources should be checked to see if they are correctly interpreted and not using insights that are solely derived from gender studies as they are very highly politicized and follow (according to some people) ideological paradigms rather than striving for objective insights. I will try to do this myself in the next weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willibord (talk • contribs) 05:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC) To wrap up, I believe I have addressed all of the concerns you have raised; please let me know if I missed anything. Also, I'm curious about how you determine who is a feminist researcher. Would you be able to explain that process? --Xurizuri (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Gender symmetry hinges on flawed analyses and perspectives. This is known. What are "feminist authors"? How is using "feminist authors" a problem for the issues mentioned in this article? More to the point, it's different types of academics who argue against gender symmetry and say self-defense is a driving force (not the only driving force) behind female-perpetrated IPV. You're going about this all wrong. I can tell you from having observed internal happenings on Wikipedia that they don't operate like you're doing. Please have a look at WP:DUE. I had to get used to seeing it on discussion pages. So should you. Nowearskirts (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that is your opinion, my view is that findings of radical feminist authors are often not recognized by scientists in other areas (be it economy, biology, criminolgy,... depending on the topic feminist authors touch) because they have a lot of goals and assumptions before they start their research. Now we will probably agree to disagree if feminist authors produce reliable knowledge. While you have your point of view and I have mine, this answer does not adress my critique, which we can objectivelly discuss by checking the sources. The citations do not prove that it is often claimed that women's main or a primary motive to use violence is to act in self-defense; the cited sources just do not prove this statement. The only one that really reviews the literature is reference 162 and this paper shows that only four out of 13 claim this is the case (all of these are feminist authors). So basically we should remove the 'often' to: a minority of authors or 'feminist authors'.Willibord (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, according to a discussion on a related page, you're wrong and your issues with this page have been resolved by previous discussions and consensus. So what I've said is more rooted in fact than what you've said. It isn't even an opinion at all. For this page, the sources you criticize say exactly what they say. You bolded one statement above. Trust me, Wikipedia doesn't care that you believe that the sources don't prove what they say. Your opinion that the reviews you don't like "offer no serious review of the existing literature" and that one of the authors "does not really review literature but is cherry-picking studies to construct her framework" are without weight here. It's not the Wikipedia verifiability policy MO. Wikipedia also doesn't care about your issue with feminist sources because you think they're biased. Previous discussions about self-defense and gender symmetry included many sources that prove you wrong, and most of those sources aren't by "radical feminist authors" or "feminist authors." You should read those discussions and their sources. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the amount of effort you spent on checking the sources. However, you should also have a quick look through the archives on this talk page, particularly Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 8, to get a sense of what the consensus is about gender disparity in DV. This is far from the first time this has been raised, and a lot of thought has gone into it. Next, Wikipedia does and will continue to use the articles of feminists... when they're published in reliable journals. Wikipedia also relies on the articles of misogynists when they're published in reliable journals. If either of those are a major concern for you, this isn't the right place to raise the issue - you'll need to go to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard.Regarding the reliability of the sources: 3, 160 and 162 were all published in journals that were very reliable in that time period. 161 was published by a reputable publisher. There is no reason to suspect issues with the reliability on that front. Let me put it another way: feminist researchers are still researchers. It's just another perspective for examining evidence.Regarding your concerns about the phrasing. The phrasing is based on the sources, not on what is legal and certainly not on your opinion about emotional health; writing this article based on the latter would be explicit original research.Regarding source 3. Authors are very much allowed to cite themselves. They just have to make sure they're appropriately putting them into the landscape of the research. In this case, they have also cited many other sources which demonstrate the same point. Further, as you say, there are some sources that make opposing claims, but you appear to not have noticed that one is present in the quote you provided, "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 )". To summarise, the authors appropriately discussed a variety of studies, including those which disagreed with their own viewpoint, and avoided undue emphasis on their own work. And it got peer-reviewed and published in a reliable journal.Regarding source 160. (note: the source analysed 23 studies) Only four found that it was the primary motivation, but you will note that the statement in our DV article actually says, "Findings often 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)." Please also see these lines from the source (one of which you included in your quote): "Self-defense was listed as a motivation for women’s use of IPV in all of the included articles, except three" and "Two studies did not support that self-defense is a predominant impetus for women’s IPV" (i.e. this was not true of the other studies). I will admit, I feel that the use of this source to support this statement is on the borderline - however, the statement and the other sources do stand on their own.Regarding source 161. See my comments on source 3. Authors are allowed to reference their own work. The source goes to significant effort to cover a range of sources.Regarding source 162. See my comments on source 3 - authors are allowed to reference their own work. Further, feminist researchers are allowed to reference feminist researchers. If a behavioural psychologist references another behavioural psychologist, that just means they're referencing other relevant research in the field. Given that this is a reliable source on this topic, this quotation from it thoroughly supports the statement in question all by itself: "Various researchers studying women’s violent behavior toward intimate partners have asserted that women’s main motivation is self-defense. Many have found that women who use physical force against intimate partners are battered women themselves and strike out to stop attacks on themselves and/or to escape such attacks (e.g., Barnett, Lee, & Thelen, 1997; Browne, 1987; Dasgupta, 1999; R. E. Dobash & Dobash, 1979, 1992; Feld & Straus, 1989; Hamberger, 1997; Hamberger, Lohr, & Bonge, 1994; Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, & Tolin, 1997; Hamberger & Potente, 1994; Miller, 2001; Saunders, 1986, 1988b; Sommer, 1994; Straus, 1999; Vivian & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1996)."

Summaries of subarticles
This article, as the main article for the DV topic, has a fair few subarticles linked to its sections (WP:SPINOUT/WP:SPLIT). So, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, those sections need to be a summary of their subarticles. Currently, many of these sections have summary style violations, e.g. too long to be a summary, don't summarise the content of the subarticle well, or include information that isn't in the subarticle.

In the short term, we need to WP:SYNC the sections with their subarticles. We should essentially repeat steps 2 to 10 of WP:CORRECTSPLIT for each of the sections, noting that generally the lead of the subarticle is going to be a pretty good starting point. (EDIT: also add Summary in to the talk page of the subarticle.) These are the current summary sections: I would prefer to leave the sections Sexual, Men, Religion, and Same-sex relationships until last, as they are the most complicated and/or contentious of the summary sections. I plan to start with Intergenerational violence and Cycle of abuse, as I suspect those will be the most straightforward. I'll comment here after completing a section (or if I run into any issues). It would be great if others could also tackle some; please comment here too as you make progress.
 * 1) Domestic violence
 * 2) Domestic violence
 * 3) Domestic violence
 * 4) Domestic violence
 * 5) Domestic violence (abuse of children)
 * 6) Domestic violence
 * 7) Domestic violence
 * 8) Domestic violence
 * 9) Domestic violence
 * 10) Domestic violence
 * 11) Domestic violence (effect on children)
 * 12) Domestic violence

In the long term, we can either manually maintain the summaries or we can use Excerpt (or another transclusion method). This has a few pros and cons (as described on the template documentation), and we should consider whether or not to use Excerpt separately for each summary section. Pros (copied from documentation): Cons (copied from documentation): We should also make better use of the other templates available to help with summary sections and invisible comments. --Xurizuri (talk) 09:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC) // edited at 09:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reduces maintenance by avoiding duplicate content that must be updated multiple times
 * Improves content quality by encouraging editors to merge related content, rather than having multiple versions in various stages of development
 * Fosters collaboration by channeling contributors into one place, rather than working in parallel
 * Impediment to editing as you have to go to the sub article to make changes to the main article (this will also impede vandals)
 * Reduces accuracy as an excerpt of one article is not always a perfect fit into a new article (but see Template:Excerpt)
 * Decreases visibility as changes to the sub article will not appear on the watchlist of editors of the main article
 * May create some complicated wikicode in the lead of the subarticle
 * I was very wrong about the Intergenerational violence section being straightforward. It has some scope creep problems.--Xurizuri (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Cycle of abuse section was already summarised well, so I just made changes to the subarticle's talk page. That section can now be considered done. --Xurizuri (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think sections in the article should be beholden to what's in its subarticles. I don't think Wikipedia articles are most often contributed to or improved based on what's in the subarticle. Contributors write about the topic and then guide the audience to read the subarticles if they exist so that people can get more information from those subarticles. If what's in the main article is better, it's not a winning ingredient to trade out what's in the main article for what's in the subarticle just to sync the pages. If what's in the main article is better, then maybe some of it should be taken and added to the subarticle for syncing. "The lead of the subarticle is going to be a pretty good starting point" only for articles that are in good condition. SangXurWan (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a good point. I haven't had time to look super closely, but hopefully nothing here has been replaced with lower-quality content. Crossroads -talk- 05:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Part of WP:SUMMARY is that higher-quality content that was added here would be transferred into the subarticle, so it wouldn't just be deleted. This would allow improvements to the subarticles as a result of the efforts people put in here. It also helps to prevent contradictory articles and POV forks. You'll also note that I said "starting point" earlier, not "final product".And most of all, WP:SUMMARY is a guideline. So you'll need to make an argument about why it shouldn't apply to this series of articles rather than a general argument about why it's bad, because we cannot override consensus about whether it should apply to WP as a whole. --Xurizuri (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct WP:SUMMARY is one of the rules. When I look at those rules, I'm shown that policies are top tier and guidelines are right beneath them and that although we should attempt to follow guidelines, "they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I'm immediately told at the top of the page that Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules. You're incorrect in your characterization of my statement. Take care to see I didn't say WP:SUMMARY shouldn't apply to this series of articles. Nor that it's bad. I didn't say anything about overriding consensus. What I'm saying is I don't agree with your understanding or application of WP:SUMMARY if what you're saying is Wikipedia articles should be beholden to what's in their subarticles. Guidelines, I'm told, at WP:RULES, are about leading or finest practice. As Wikipedia articles are not most often contributed to or improved based on what's in their subarticles, that's not the leading or finest practice. WP:SYNC doesn't say this either. I agree that the subsections should be in a summary-style manner when they're guiding people to subarticles. What I'm saying is I don't agree with replacing content in sections with content from their subarticles that is poorer or leaves the summary in the main article with suboptimal information about the topic. SangXuriWan (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed a section that was added a few days ago and invited the editor who added it to discuss with us. SangXuriWan (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Restructures of theories/causes/factors
, I would like to explain my reasoning for how I labelled the sections, and get a better understanding of your perspective. For anyone else that joins this discussion, the sections were originally "Causes" and "Social influences". On 8 November, I renamed them to "Key theories" and "Contributing factors" respectively, and moved some content between the sections. On 11 November, SanXurWan changed the naming respectively to "Contributing factors" and "Social influences".Just firstly, you said that facts shouldn't be labelled as theories - a theory isn't something that we're not sure about, it's an explanation of phenomena. Most of the topics in that section are explicitly called theories as well. There are two reasons why I said key (As you eluded to, a section labelled theories versus one labelled key theories is not a huge distinction - but there is one that I think is pretty important. "Key" might make people think twice before they put non-central theories there. This is the main article for this topic, and we don't have space for minutiae (although a reader may not know it from some of the messier sections). The distinction I made between theories and contributing factors is that the theories are overarching and about why and how it happens, whereas the factors are aspects that just make it more or less likely to occur. I do actually think that I should've put intergenerational cycles under what I had called "contributing factors". Oh well. I am definitely willing to be moved on which of these are in each section, but I do feel very strongly that presenting substance abuse as being similarly as central as social learning or nonsubordination theory is giving it undue weight. Substance abuse definitely isn't a social factor, and it definitely does increase the risk, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the same category as the cycle of abuse theory.I had a couple of specific points of confusion about what you said. Could you explain why you'd say that the pandemic/restrictions are not a contributing factor? And more broadly, why social influences aren't contributing factors?I'm happy to leave the structure you set up until there's consensus. Please ping me when you respond, otherwise it may be a few weeks before I see the reply. --Xurizuri (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A theory may be something we're not sure about, perhaps not entirely, particularly when the term theory is used in everyday parlance. Wikipedia has theory articles that inform they're about a topic that is still being debated by scientists. In this article, there's a section about biological and psychological theories and there's plenty of it researchers are not sure about. As you eluded to, there's also theories that are well-established as mainstream and are believed to be facts. Knowing how the term theory is interpreted among everyday people, it's my belief that it's not in the best interest of the audience to have facts that are proven to contribute to domestic violence only labeled as "theories". I said "just be labeled 'theories'." My meaning was "don't just call these 'theories' and the other stuff 'contributing factors'." The first few paragraphs under the section are about well-known facts concerning domestic violence that aren't labeled "theories". My solution was to put the key points under "contributing factors" and have things that are considered theories or both theories and contributing factors under sub-labels that point that out. SangXuriWan (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you feel strongly about substance abuse being under the label "contributing factors". The section says, "DV typically co-occurs with alcohol abuse. Alcohol use has been reported as a factor by two-thirds of domestic abuse victims." There's wide acceptance in the scholarship that it's a big contributor to DV. It appears you feel that by having it in that section, we're telling the audience that alcohol drove the person to perpetrate DV. If that's how you feel, I don't agree. Alcoholism has it effects, but no scholar will say the alcohol alone is why the person perpetrated DV. Perhaps we should make that clearer in the section, but I don't think that having alcohol use last in a section labeled "contributing factors" is saying it's "similarly as central as social learning or nonsubordination theory" and "is giving it undue weight." SangXuriWan (talk) 05:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * COVID is a very new situation society is dealing with and it isn't usually said to be a contributing factor to domestic violence. What's out there on it when speaking of COVID is that COVID came into the conversation because people had to be in close proximity to their abusers for lengthier periods of times. Social distancing with the abuser is the key factor there. Social influences can be contributing factors. I never said they weren't, but there are things that are typically considered causes or contributing factors, and then there are other things that are most often talked about in the space of social influences or societal pressures. An article like this should have a section on societal influence, and so it does. I'd be fine with going back to "causes" instead "contributing factors." You added in the label "contributing factors", and I decided I'd compromise by leaving it in. But everything can't be under "contributing factors", and "causes" isn't quite right for some of the things. On the other hand, sections in Wikipedia articles may be labeled "causes" and include things that are speculative causes or talk about the causes being unknown.
 * Ping you? Okay, done. But it appears you have the article watchlisted. SangXuriWan (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing domestic/normal about violence!
The domestic typo should be removed permanently! JahTressHouse (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Domestic doesn't mean "normal" here. It means "relating to domiciles".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I can't remember ever hearing "domestic" being used to mean "normal". And just removing the word makes it nonsensical and is against the reliable sources. Crossroads -talk- 07:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DStewart1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 18 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mbarekzia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

English first additional languange
Voice concern 41.116.0.233 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Domestic violence
How does Christian religion respond to the problem of domestic violence 41.89.129.11 (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Does it respond? I have encountered Christians who use their religion as an excuse to abuse their own family members. Dimadick (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Prevalence of domestic violence by gender.
The references that are cited to support the claim that "Globally, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women" do not support that claim. The largest ever review of the evidence specifically refutes it.

Domestic Violence Research – PARTNER ABUSE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE PROJECT (PASK): The world's largest domestic violence research data base, 2,657 pages, with summaries of 1700 peer-reviewed studies.

Domestic Violence Facts and Statistics At A Glance – Domestic Violence Research

https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/

Overall, 25.3% of individuals have perpetrated IPV Rates of female-perpetrated violence higher than male-perpetrated (28.3% vs. 21.6%) Wide range in perpetration rates: 1.0% to 61.6% for males; 2.4% to 68.9% for women, Range of findings due to variety of samples and operational definitions of PV

etc. 92.15.243.182 (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Check out the talk page archives. This has already been discussed at length. Generalrelative (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should have undone the edit without at least referring to the evidence that you are relying on. Can you link to it, or quote it please, and explain why you believe it carries more weight than the evidence I referred to, i.e. the findings of the largest study of the subject ever carried out? If you cannot make the case I think my edit should stand. However, I will leave it as it is for now while I await your reply, and will return to the matter next week. 92.15.243.182 (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't actually provide any evidence in either direction. You claimed without explanation or evidence that the existing article sources don't support the claim. Then you provided a quote about of IPV. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. Unfortunately the way this subject is presented in the media and the page itself does imply that because women are "overwhelmingly the victims" men must be overwhelmingly the perpetrators, and I read that into the article. Apologies. As the evidence I presented shows, this is not the case, and that alone should be sufficient to establish that a section should be added about the majority of perpetrators being women, as the evidence shows. Certainly, the findings of the largest ever research project into this topic should feature in a wikipedia article about the topic. 92.15.243.182 (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually though, the largest research project ever conducted into the subject does provide evidence of the balance of victims -
 * "revealed that 23% of women and 19.3% of men experience some form of IPV during their lifetime (Hamel & Russell, 2013)."
 * which indicates quite clearly that women are not "overwhelmingly" the victims. so there's that.
 * What do you think? 92.15.243.182 (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What did you learn from searching through the talk page archives here? What arguments have already been put forward that are nearly identical to your own and what arguments were made in response? Hint: this and this should give you a good idea of why there is a consensus that the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women. Generalrelative (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest you stop asking me to read through a conversation that you obviously know extremely well, and point me to the evidence that you think outweighs the largest study ever undertaken? Here's a summary of the reasons why this study has to be refuted for the claims made in the article to stand-
 * "Over the years, research on partner abuse has become unnecessarily fragmented and politicized. The purpose of The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK) is to bring together in a rigorously evidence-based, transparent and methodical manner existing knowledge about partner abuse with reliable, up-to-date research that can easily be accessed both by researchers and the general public.
 * Family violence scholars from the United States, Canada and the U.K. were invited to conduct an extensive and thorough review of the empirical literature, in 17 broad topic areas. They were asked to conduct a formal search for published, peer-reviewed studies through standard, widely-used search programs, and then catalogue and summarize all known research studies relevant to each major topic and its sub-topics. In the interest of thoroughness and transparency, the researchers agreed to summarize all quantitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals after 1990, as well as any major studies published prior to that time, and to clearly specify exclusion criteria. Included studies are organized in extended tables, each table containing summaries of studies relevant to its particular sub-topic.
 * In this unprecedented undertaking, a total of 42 scholars and 70 research assistants at 20 universities and research institutions spent two years or more researching their topics and writing the results. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered and more than 1,700 were summarized and organized into tables. The 17 manuscripts, which provide a review of findings on each of the topics, for a total of 2,657 pages, appear in 5 consecutive special issues of the peer-reviewed journal Partner Abuse. All conclusions, including the extent to which the research evidence supports or undermines current theories, are based strictly on the data collected."
 * Now, please tell me why you believe that the findings of this study should be ignored. Thanks 92.15.243.182 (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did. There are two links in my previous comment. Those are RfCs, i.e. requests for comment. They establish a strong kind of consensus. Without holding a new RfC, we'd be violating policy to change the status quo language. And there's rather a high bar for holding new RfCs. You'd need to show substantially new evidence that was not previously considered, and in order to do that you'd first need to demonstrate a mastery of the previously considered material. We're all volunteers here, so no one is obliged to jump when you say jump. If you want something changed, the onus is on you to persuade the community, and I've given you a roadmap for how to do it. Oh, and see also this conversation, where your specific source was previously discussed. Generalrelative (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok I've read that. Nowhere does it make any argument or reference any evidence that shows why the source I've provided should not be given due weight. It appears that in each case that this has been raised people have simply been referred to a previous discussion, none of which contain any reasoning to the argument that the largest study on the topic ever undertaken should be ignored. So can you please provide an argument as to why a massive, peer-reviewed and published source by qualified researchers from 20 academic institutions should not be considered valid. Thank you. 92.15.243.182 (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Now you're wasting my time. I'm not here to spoon-feed you. Good luck out there. Generalrelative (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to spoon-feed me. I provided evidence from the largest study of domestic abuse ever undertaken, which clearly indicates that the use of the word "overwhelming" is not justified. Can you provide evidence to the contrary or not? If not, the word should be removed. I don't wish to start a game of edits and reverts, so please provide the evidence you are relying on so that I can consider it. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. 92.15.243.182 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Please can someone add this metastudy to the Ideal Sources section.
The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project (PASK) brings together existing knowledge about partner abuse with reliable, up-to-date research that can easily be accessed both by researchers and the general public. It is a formal study of published, peer-reviewed studies that catalogues and summarises all known research studies relevant to Partner abuse. It was conducted by 42 scholars and 70 research assistants at 20 universities and research institutions, who spent two years researching their topics and writing the results. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered and more than 1,700 were summarized and organized into tables. The 17 manuscripts, which provide a review of findings on each of the topics, for a total of 2,657 pages, appear in 5 consecutive special issues of the peer-reviewed journal Partner Abuse. All conclusions, including the extent to which the research evidence supports or undermines current theories, are based strictly on the data collected.

The Study can be found here - https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/ 92.15.243.182 (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion above before obliging this request. Generalrelative (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you give a reason why you think this study should not be included as an Ideal Source? It is the largest ever study undertaken in this area, by more than 110 researchers from 20 academic institutions and was published (over three special editions) in the peer-reviewed journal dedicated to this specific topic. Why is this not an ideal source of information on this topic? 92.15.243.182 (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research
— Assignment last updated by Abenaowusua3 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2014 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"Worldwide, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women"
NOTE: In this discussion I have not articulated my argument like I did in the other. Please refer to the RfC rather than this one.

There seems to be a lot of disagreement within literature about whether this is true or not. I'll add some sources which say that victims are equally men and women so that we can see what we can do.

Citations:     (this one reports that male victims are more common)

Panamitsu (talk) 01:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * While consensus can change, you should be aware of the existing consensus on this language established here and here, as well as the related conversation here. Any motion to reopen discussion should state clearly what new evidence is being brought to the table, i.e. evidence that wasn't previously considered. This will require a bit of homework on your part. Generalrelative (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * None of these sources support your assertion that "There is a lot of disagreement", and your one report that does slightly imply that male victims are more common (this is dubious from the contents of the report) is from 1999 and outdated. AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @AGIwithTheBraids I agree with your last statement, but what I meant by disagreement was an opinion. Some sources say that women are primarily victims, other sources say that men and women are victimised equally. Panamitsu (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the word "some" is doing way too much work for you here. The overwhelming preponderance of high quality sources (as Wikipedia defines them) state that women are –– by a large margin –– the primary victims of domestic violence. I hope that's helpful. We really don't need to get into this again barring some major new WP:SECONDARY analysis being provided. Generalrelative (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Other sources say that men and women are victimized equally" -- which sources say that? The study in Sweden had a one-year lookback period and was isolated to a single population. Like @Generalrelative said, if you are going to make this assertion, you have a lot of work to do. It will take more than 6 sources, and even these are not sufficient in isolation. AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

RFC on "Worldwide, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women"
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 views on the debate? Remove the "overwhelming"?

This idea is known as gender symmetry. 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 completely omit the fact that it is under debate. See Domestic violence against men and Intimate partner violence.

One of the sources is a literature review of 1,700 studies on domestic violence, and it suggested that the genders are equal. Completely ignoring this perspective is a massive WP:NPOV violation.

Apologies for having seperate threads, I wasn't aware about how RfC is supposed to be formatted.

Panamitsu (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging participants of the previous discussions: . –– Formal Dude  (talk)  00:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks FormalDude, but this is not a real RfC question. I've already reverted OP once and asked them to read WP:RFC, but they apparently missed the part about how the statement needs to be clear, neutral, and self-contained (EDIT: here is the version I'm referring to in this comment, i.e. before the statement was altered by OP). I'd also encourage them to take on board 's comment that although consensus can change, a major shift in attitude on this key issue seems unlikely to occur any time soon. As noted, attempting to gauge it on, say, an annual basis is probably foolhardy and is almost certain to turn into a timesink, with the predictable result of the consensus almost certain to remain unchanged, anyway. Generalrelative (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Generalrelative Do you think it is better now? I have improved it a bit. If not, please let me know as my intention is to improve Wikipedia rather than waste people's time. Panamitsu (talk) 21:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you really haven't taken on board what is stated in either WP:RFCBRIEF or WP:RFCBEFORE, nor do you appear to have considered El_C's advice. I ask that you remove the RfC tag, try to make a clear and source-based case for your views in a new section, and if you're unable to persuade anyone (either here or at FTN, where you've also weighed in) consider simply dropping the stick. Generalrelative (talk) 17:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think its time to drop the stick AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will remove the RfC and create another section at request. But please don't accuse me of forum shopping again. Panamitsu (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't need to create another section. The above one is still good. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Procedural close, bad RfC. This is not a proper RfC, didn't follow WP:RFCBEFORE, and doesn't include a clear, neutral statement. Looks like Panamitsu found nobody who agreed with their initial concerns and is now WP:FORUMSHOPPING. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  00:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually I raised RfC because there are no responses. The one response I did get was someone who thought I misinterpreted the source. I do think that it should be formatted correctly however, how should that be done? Can I edit it? Panamitsu (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * we've already commented on your response to this clause of the article many times. you have sought a small handful of literature that is contradictory to the mainstream consensus that women are the majority of domestic violence victims. search "Confirmation Bias" AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I mentioned on the second one that on that one I did my homework. On the first one I did find those sources you mentioned, but on my second one, I made a completely different analysis. Panamitsu (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What about the two responses you received here?
 * And you can edit it, but as I said I think this is a poor RfC that should be closed on procedure. "Should this change?" is too vague of a question to pose to the community, and it hasn't been thoroughly discussed enough beforehand to warrant an RfC. You need to allow more than four days for people to address your concerns. –– Formal Dude  (talk)  01:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1807166?casa_token=XBXQ33e-OfAAAAAA:EdICOreenVpNjTYtJzmAYRKDxatWsB_UiX-xVjWzGtn7rCKTcFB365KlppqFiVMNi7bdjP3IZ9B4OfQ
 * https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2708121
 * NEJM and JAMA both iterate the point that incidence is dramatically higher in women. I am going to add as sources to hopefully shut this down permanently AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what you said to me about 'confirmation bias'. You cannot list sources that say x to "shut down permanently". Panamitsu (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I have looked through both sources and they exclusively focus on the United States and would therefore be more suited for Domestic violence in the United States. Having them on this article to represent the worldwide victimisation of women is not appropriate. Panamitsu (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the second one I made a completely new analysis. The sources I listed on the first one, I didn't use on my second one. Panamitsu (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * its over; i will not engage with you further AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural close, bad RfC, per above. Generalrelative (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

On the "overwhelming" victimisation of women in the lede
Note: There is a parallel discussion, but I have created a new one as I have now done my homework.

I propose to either make "Worldwide, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women" gender equal, or remove the "overwhelmingly". There are sources that either show that the domestic violence gender victims are equal, or debunk the idea that they are overwhelmingly women. I will get to these later.

Analysing previous discussions
Before I provide any sources, I must provide an analysis of previous discussions and consensus. That way I can make sure that I add more to the table rather than repeating information. These include this (1), this (2) and this (3), kindly listed by Generalrelative.

Please note that I have skimmed a bit through the discussions, so if I have missed something out, please do correct me

(1)
The nomination appears to focus on women using domestic violence as a defense rather than what I am proposing, but it does mention it. The nomination takes mention of undue weight, and the responses basically say that the proposal was incorrect as sources say that women are overwhelming victims. No sources were provided within this discussion, so there was mention WP:OR, emotions, WP:FALSEBALANCE. Conensus was not to perform the proposed changes.

(2)
This discussion is much more relevant as it specially focusses on what I am also proposing (removing the "overwhelming"). It provided a few sources, but was closed with WP:DIDN'THEARTHAT due to previous (summarised) consensus (1) on keeping the "overwhelming" wording, and a mention of WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES. Also a mention that a few individual sources state that they are equal, but most sources say that women are overwhelming victims. There was also mention that the wording "overwhelming" victims is a bit bold/excessive, that even if women are a majority of victims, "overwhelming" suggests that they are 95% of victims, which no sources provide evidence of. Someone countered by saying that there is a lot of the use "overwhelming" in literature, but I cannot find any evidence of that, so I do ask for people to provide evidence of this.

Afterwards, there was some talk about "x amount of women every year are victims of IPV", which does not resolve the conflict, as we are interested in the percentage.

(3)
This was a largely small discussion that doesn't seem to have much basis in policy or sources. The proposor claimed that the article is biassed and is a POV, and downplays violence against men. They did not appear to have provided adequate sources, however, and the discussion ended.

Summary
In the discussions there were essentially no adequate sources provided. Proposers seem to have been using emotion rather than policy or sources supporting a proper argument. There was also no fact checking/verification of the currently used source.

My argument
Now that I have summarised previous discussions so that I do not repeat anything, it is time for my argument on why the lede should change.

The current citation used for the claim in question ("Worldwide, the victims of domestic violence are overwhelmingly women") does not support what the statement in the lede says (unless I have read it wrong). Completely contradicting the lede, it actually says that the genders are victimised at the same rates, or even that males are victimised more than females. Edit: Citation was broken and fixed now.

What the source does say is that male perpetrated sexual violence was higher than female perpetration, but sexual violence is not the only form of violence. The source says that female perpetrated physical violence was higher or equal to male perpetrated violence.

A few scholars have also claimed that studies claiming that women who are "overwhelming" victims of domestic violence are ficticious and filled with errors, but that is beside the point. The study that this article cited failed verification, and I think that we should either change it to make it gender neutral, or remove the "overwhelming". Panamitsu (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The McQuigg citation was broken in some vandalism from March, and is now fixed. The points you're quoting don't come from McQuigg, but from Esquivel-Santoveña. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Are we able to get a few more opinions? Responses seem to be non-existent. Panamitsu (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at it and I still can't seem to find the quote in the citation, "the available research suggests that domestic violence is overwhelmingly directed by men against women" (Searching through the pdf). I've requested a page number.
 * Also, the study that I've sourced is  available research, so we might have to just ignore the claim about there being no research as it appears to be outdated.
 * Edit: As you pointed out, there is infact a page number, and I have now found the quote. Apologies, however my point on it being outdated stil stands.

Panamitsu (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I also think you're misinterpreting those Esquivel-Santoveña quotes. They're presenting counts of studies, not analyzing overall rates of violence. I might find that 14 of the 16 studies I collect show that the participants prefer cats to dogs, but that is not direct evidence that cats are globally preferred. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree, because we're dealing with what genders are affected the most worldwide. Because each country is unique, we must collect studies from all the different countries and count the results, which is what Esquivel-Santoveña did. (ie, we cannot collect data uniquely from the United States and extrapolate onto other countries) Panamitsu (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What matters is the results by country not the number of studies. If we have 10 studies of Monaco which showed symmetry, 4 studies that showed symmetry in the Vatican; 1 study that showed it overwhelmingly affected women in several countries in Asia with about 3 million people, and 1 study showing it overwhelming affected women in the countries surveyed (mostly in Europe and the Americas with some other places including some limited overlap with the Asian study) without about 1.2 million people; then the evidence suggests it overwhelming affects women worldwide. Adding those 14 studies doesn't change this. Even if the 14 studies were for Monaco, the Vatican, San Marino, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Malta, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Switzerland, Liechtenstein; and the other two were for India and sub-Saharan Africa, the evidence is still that it overwhelming affects women albeit you have big holes in your data. If you only have studies for Monaco, the Vatican, San Marino, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, Malta, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, and the United States then while adding all these together is slightly better than just using the US one, it's still very limited. Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Very good point! Thank you for the explanation! Panamitsu (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)