Talk:Domestic violence against men/Archive 1

Disputes and Concerns
Question: Why is male on male domestic violence unmentioned in this article? If nothing else, I believe it would be helpful to mention male-on-male violence, even if just putting a reference to an article on homosexual relationships. FrozenPurpleCube 04:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I share FrozenPurpleCube's concern about the absence of any mention of domestic violence in male homosexual relationships. I think it's a serious problem with the article.  Additionally, I'd like to see citations, or at least named sources, for the statistics given throughout the article.  I include "the following is a brief list of the primary reasons" as one of those, since if those are in fact reported as the 3 primary reasons, that conclusion must be based on some sort of study (survey, interviews, a focus group with men who are abused in their relationships, etc.), and that's citable.  Besides, the folk who did that study deserve credit.  Next, the third bullet (this entry needs reformatting, by the way) in "Characteristics" makes a paragraph's worth of assertions without citing any source to suggest that they're fact, or even just the hypothesis/theory, right or wrong, of a non-original-researcher.  Add to that that reading it, I found the language indistinguishable from someone grinding an ax, and I felt I was justified in tagging it as I did. The Literate Engineer 04:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Statistics are difficult for such a minority group. Among the Otago Longitudinal Study cohort, the percentage of men declaring same sex attraction was around 5%, or 50 in 1000. In the New Zealand Family Violence Review Committee Report, there were no deaths from partner violence among homosexual men, but there was one from homosexual women, but homosexuality among women is much more prevalent than among men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.251.200.199 (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Copyrights
A large portion of this article appears to have been copied verbatim from. I'm replacing some of the sections with non-copyrighted content, and attempting to add additional sources to the article, but the copyrighted content concerns me. --HarmonicFeather 01:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Domestic Vice against men
I suggest another article. Women use sex, love and 'affection' to take men to the cleaners. Women also use relational aggression, misandrous shame and other covert, cunning and clever tactics to rape men inside and outside marriages. We need to show how women use and abuse female forms of power to control, coerce and ultimately 'collect' (to take unearned power from) men. Marriage in a fascist-feminist legal, and social and sexual context is a terrible deal for most men because there is no acknowlegement about much less legal sanction against female forms of domestic aggression which often involve covert (and legal) 'uses' rather than overt abuses. Anacapa 03:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To imagine that men and women use the SAME forms of domestic, sexual, social, political or legal aggression as men do seems absurd given how different the sexes indeed are. I suggest a new article showing common forms of vice in domestic situations. Domestic vice occurs when wives use sex for power and control purposes rather than for 'love'. I suggest the Iranian documentary feature film Ten for a classic conversation between a married woman and a street prostitute. In essence after being shamed for being a prostitute (how could you!?) by the 'nice' married woman, the prostitute regains her composure and says "I just do retail what you do wholesale"...and successfully turns the tables on her shamer. To me, Domestic Vice is a potent but covert form of domestic aggression that often provokes but DOES NOT CAUSE domestic violence in men. I believe we need to show how female domestic violence and vice differs from male forms here and/or in a separate article on Domestic Vice.Anacapa 03:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Misandry, Man-hating and Violence/Vice against men
I added a piece I wrote up from the Misandry article. I think it might explain why so many men are hesistant to speak up about abuses by women and other men too. Could someone adapt this content to the article? Anacapa 03:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Please discuss the merger of this article into the parent Domestic violence article over at Talk:Domestic violence. (or here, but split discussions can be confusing)--Andrew c 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think merging is a good idea. Much of this article is relevant for the cases of both male and female victims.  --Coppertwig 03:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Should also merge 'violence against women'-page into domestic violence in order to avoid double standards. 86.50.88.16 (talk) 20:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Until the 'violence against women' article is agreed to be merged with the domestic violence article, this one will remain separate. 124.148.224.120 (talk) 02:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Sutter Cane

deleted PENIS
Maybe the link PENIS used to point to something else, but at the moment it simply redirected to an article on the male sex organ, so it seemed out of context and I deleted it. --Coppertwig 03:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am having trouble with
this piece of the lede.
 * " Similar to a hate crime, this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive."

For example, in domestic violence, the violence does not necessarily occur because of the male's gender. It occurs because a couple (let's stick to one man one woman for now) has a fight or something. I think this phrase is problematic and should go and I will remove it if someone doesn't show up to explain it. Carptrash (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is definitely problematic, for the reasons you state, and it is unsourced. I'd support its removal, unless it can be reliably sourced. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For the record, I did remove it once and the editor who had added it put it back. I have been cautioned (appropriately) for being uncivil towards other editors around here, so I am being cautious about getting into an edit war without troops behind me.  Since, unlike some of the other editors, I don't drag all my friends along, I try to rely on folks who are already here.  Such as yourself. The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance. Carptrash (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Carptrash. It's quite dubious to say that domestic violence (against men or women) is similar to a hate crime and primarily motivated by the victim's gender. Kaldari (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * see which discusses this, and the context of the VAWA act, which opens the door to hate crimes prosecution, even in cases of domestic violence, if it can be shown that gender was a motivating factor. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is this OK: "Violence against women (VAW) is, collectively, violent acts that are primarily or exclusively committed against women. Sometimes considered a hate crime,[1][2][3] this type of violence targets a specific group with the victim's gender as a primary motive." on Violence against women but not OK for this page to say the same of domestic violence against men? --anonymous

Why does the article say the following? "Furthermore, the NIJ contends that national surveys supported by NIJ, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics that examine more serious assaults do not support the conclusion of similar rates of male and female spousal assaults." That's actually the exact opposite of what the CDC concludes in the NISVS. In fact, there are a number of such statements in this article that are just factually incorrect. Seems like there is a bit of a pattern of claims that are in fact not true, and even some of the references footnoted on this page actually contract what they're suppose to be footnoting. This is just one example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.124.50 (talk) 04:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Unbalanced?
Would the editor who tagged this article as Unbalanced care to indicate specifically the offending bits, and we'll see what can do to fix it. Otherwise I'll remove the tag. JQ (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please remove the tag. I did not see any bias, just straightforward, well documented findings of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.76.110 (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Gender Symmetry
A good article so far. Could more references to gender symmetry be added? Specifically, Fiebert et.al. discuss gender symmetry to a degree not seen in many other publications, and Straus points to gender symmetry systematically being weeded out of historic studies, despite the actual raw findings confirming gender symmetry in relational violence. References here: https://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Straus_Thirty-Years-Denying-Evidence-PV_10.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.32.206 (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fortuitous timing! I'm actually working on an overhaul of the entire article at the moment in which, amongst other things, I greatly expand the section on gender symmetry, both in terms of scholars who argue for it (such as Fiebert, Straus, Archer, Cook, Dutton etc) and those who argue against it (such as Kimmel, Dobash & Dobash, Yllö, Worcester etc). I've added a lot of references to the section, expanded the controversy surrounding the CTS and included info on implications for treatment. I should be good to go in a week or so. Bertaut (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It strikes me rather strange that gender symmetry is presented somehow as a "controversial" issue in the United States, as it seems it's one of the only countries in the western world where it's considered "controversial". The same way I find it strange that studies, even from the U.S are discarded and texts are removed from the article. CDC stated already in 2010 that men suffer equally much of IPV as women do, if not more. Studies from the Most Gender Equal AND Least Corrupted Countries in the world show beyond a doubt the numbers are very similar and in support of Gender Symmetry when in comes to IPV in Iceland, Finland , Sweden , Norway and Denmark . Similar results from USA & Canada . Results from Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany can easily be googled. All the aforementioned European countries confirm the validity of Gender Symmetry when it comes to IPV. The studies tend to be in the national languages, so I will not use them as sources in the article, but I added a couple of links to U.S CDC and ResearchGate.Prefixcaz (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * what is the deal with wanting to add content on symmetry? why the need to compare at all?   It smacks of carrying an agenda into WP.  Just discuss the relevant data and let it speak for itself. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above, the article text says "highly disputed" giving a completely wrong and biased picture of domestic violence against men. It seems to be "highly disputed" only in the U.S. Above I have provided links to studies from several countries and you are bluntly discarding them. Would you care to explain why? I truly hope we get some objective observers for certain articles on Wikipedia. I'm afraid campaigns like this [] could be one of the reasons for the bias. One of the main pillars of Wikipedia is to give a neutral point of view, but it seems when it comes to domestic violence, it is highly biased and the articles do not reflect the consensus of the scientific community, even in the Western World.Prefixcaz (talk) 01:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * i am dealing with the actual edit you made. This page is for discussing the article, and it is not a forum for general discussion of the topic. Here are the problems with your edit:
 * 1) you are adding content and sources to the lead that is not found in the body.  per WP:LEAD, the lead is just a summary of the article.
 * 2) The Hoff paper is a WP:PRIMARY source and advocacy piece, by a well-known advocate. This is not the kind of thing you should reach for in a controversial topic.
 * 3) and i cannot even parse your 2nd reference, which is "" The citation for the CDC article to which you link is "Breiding, M.J., Chen J., & Black, M.C. (2014). Intimate Partner Violence in the United States — 2010. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." per the document itself  - see the 2nd page of the pdf.   this source does not make the point you seem to want to make.  You don't provide a page number so I don't know where in the source you believe your content is verified. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) There are numerous articles in Wikipedia, where the lead is accepted as the full article is allowed only to subscribers. The lead in this case states the essential.
 * 2) This was removed after your unnecessary revert. You should have come to the talk page FIRST before reverting. Like I did. Please see the time for my first comment above. You replied nothing, just decided to revert.
 * 3) You reverted AGAIN whilst I was still editing, so obviously all the correct numbering was not there yet. Still, the Hoff paper refers to the CDC study and all the info the Hoff paper refers to can be found in the CDC report, but you decided to start en editing war instead. You engaged in censorship, failed to comment on my post on the Talk-page before reverting and misused your admin rights by giving me a warning after TWO reverts, when Wikipedia rule says 3.
 * 4) I sincerely hope we will have some help from objective observers, as I am perfectly capable and willing to show that the issue of gender symmetry is NOT "highly disputed" except perhaps in certain ideological groups with biases. It it WIDELY ACCEPTED in family policy for instance in the Most Gender Equal countries in the world. I will be more than happy to provide more evidence for this claim.Prefixcaz (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I can only guess what you might mean in your #1.  What "subscribers" are you talking about?  Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * What subscribers? Oh, ok. I was under the impression that you are familiar with research pages in general. My mistake. Certain publications are not open for public, but only the lead can be read. The full article is only available to "subscribers","members" or whatever that publisher wants to call the ones who have access to the full data. But the lead is usually a summary of the study and covers the essential findings. There are several examples of that kind of leads being accepted as sources on Wikipedia, as long as the source is considered credible. I am under the impression that ResearchGate is a credible source and the University of Florida (2012) agrees with me. I am a bit surprised that you have been accepted as an admin if you were not familiar with this. In the "old days" this was a given for all of us, not only for the admins.Prefixcaz (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * of course i am familiar with research papers. When I was referring to the "lead" i was referring to the first section of the Wikipedia article we are discussing - the part above the table of contents. I even provided you a link to the guideline that describes what needs to go there.  I will do it again: WP:LEAD.  This is what I have been trying to say to you.  you don't understand how this place works, and you are making fierce arguments that are just babble because you don't understand what was said to you.  Please slow down. If somebody provides you a link to a policy or guideline, please read it and then come back and read what the person said.  Things will start to make more and more sense, the more you do that. Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is the second time you use ad hominem. Maybe I should give you a warning. The lead already contains a referral to a study done in Ireland. Please explain me how a study in Ireland can be there, but a study from U.S. CNC cannot. I advice you to stop with any personal remarks and stay respectful.Prefixcaz (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You're fighting a losing battle here Prefixcaz. As someone who has conducted a great deal of research into gender symmetry in several western countries (USA, UK, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Germany), to say it's accepted as fact in the western world is simply inaccurate. Perhaps it's accepted as fact in Scandanavia, but certainly not elsewhere. That's why, when I was writing the gender symmetry section of this article, I was very careful to a) make sure to acknowledge the controversial nature of the topic, b) include sources providing empirical data for both sides of the argument, and c) make sure to point out that even researchers who argue for gender symmetry (such as Straus and Archer for example) acknowledge that violence against women is a more serious and immediate problem. If you don't believe me, or if you are unwilling to accept the argument that gender symmetry is controversial, go ahead and email Murray A. Straus. Just Google him, and you'll get his email address. He's very happy to talk to people researching the subject. As regards your CDC source, you're correct in saying it reveals men experienced more IPV in 2010 than women. But it also says women experience considerably more IPV over their lifetimes, something which would need to be acknowledged if the data from the survey is to be included (and Jytdog is correct about not including it in the lede). And finally, Jytdog isn't an admin. Bertaut (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks bertaut. the layers of dealing with the misconceptions of a passionate new editor who will not learn....Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Third time going against a person. Now I strongly suggest you stick to the issue, not to a person. And as you see, I'm not exactly a "new editor". But passionate, yes for sure. I have a passion for neutral and scientific point of view, without ideologies. Prefixcaz (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Bertaut, I'm sure you can provide extraordinary evidence to such an extraordinary claim about gender symmetry and a "loosing battle". Please forgive me if I sound rude, but your statement of having "conducted a great deal of research" is not a valid argument. I'm sure you agree, if you have done any sort of research. I have provided studies from the Most Gender Equal Countries in the world, given examples from others and you would like me to discard all of them and just take your word for it? There are people who are disputing the issue, but the reasons for this "dispute" has been explained widely []. Let's stick to the scientific method and skip the empty talk. Please provide something to back up your words. Well, now knowing that Jytdog is not an admin, it explains what seems to me like difficulties in following the elemental pillars of Wikipedia.Prefixcaz (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Bolding in the lead
Apologies if I trod on toes by unbolding Gender Symmetry in the lead. I was pointed to a talk page consensus but I can't see it if it exists. Could someone point it out to me or give a brief reason why it should be bolded amid the 4th paragraph of the lead because on first read I genuinely thought it was a typo that was aiming for italics.SPACKlick (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As you've no doubt noticed by now, you've wandered into the middle of an edit war. Your edit was, I believe, correct, so I've restored it, independently of everything else that's going on. Bertaut (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * SPACKlick, back in January of this year, I was the one who bolded "gender symmetry." I did so per WP:Alternative title. "Battered husband syndrome" redirects to the Battered person syndrome article, so it should be linked in the lead, not bolded. "Bidirectional IPV" should also redirect to the Domestic violence against men article, and be bolded in the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 00:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

discretionary sanctions?
is this article subject to discretionary sanctions per Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate? Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's subject to Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Flyer22 (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contribution Flyer22. Would you kindly explain me how the above mentioned section is applicable, as 1) I have repeatedly told you that I am not supporting either men's rights movements nor any feminist movements and 2) I have provided you reliable studies and nobody has yet brought any newer studies to counter them. Plenty of claims and personal attacks, but no valid argumentation IMO. Our conversation can be found here []. I have also agreed to your proposition of objective outside help and promised to provide more evidence for my claims if so requested. I'm completely open to the idea of discussing this e.g. with your professor.Prefixcaz (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Whether you are or are not a men's rights editor, Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation is clear that it applies to all men's rights pages and all men's rights-related pages. Like Jytdog stated to you, it seems that you never read the Wikipedia rule pages that you are pointed to. I have not referred you to any professor. Flyer22 (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I read the pages very carefully. The issue is I don't agree with your interpretations of them. I have also repeatedly agreed to objective outside  observers. Your claim of me breaking a guideline is not equivalent to me breaking a guideline. I'm sure you understand the difference. Thank you for your answer on the first point. Would you please also answer the more important second point I made, as that is about the actual issue. Why would you even try to prohibit any editor from referring to reliable studies, if they have not been disputed with newer studies?Prefixcaz (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a waste of time for me to discuss anything with you on the topic of domestic violence and/or Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As Jytdog and I have been explicitly clear about, you do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines...and you are not showing that you are willing to understand them. The aforementioned discussion you had with me at the Intimate partner violence talk page, the discussion you had with Jytdog in the section above, the discussion you had with Jytdog on your talk page, the message you left on Jytdog's user page and then talk page (as seen here and here), all of it speaks volumes about your inexperience with editing Wikipedia. I am not interested in discussing a thing with a WP:Newbie who shows no improvement. Keep violating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and you will learn soon enough that you are the only one misinterpreting them. Flyer22 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, this and this say everything there is to know about your willingness to learn. And before you state anything to me about not being a WP:Newbie simply because of the years you've been registered with Wikipedia, I reiterate that you are indeed a WP:Newbie. Before coming back to Wikipedia on January 28, 2015, you edited Wikipedia twice in 2009 and sparingly in the years before that. You have a lot of catching up to do, even if you edited as an IP at times. Flyer22 (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You keep saying I don't understand Wikipedia's guidelines, yet you fail to answer me why we should not write neutral articles, but instead use biased texts, when several international studies say differently. How do you justify certain Wikipedia articles being acceptable only from a feminist research point of view, when family researchers around the world have different results, their studies are exceeding the feminist studies in numbers (and keep on doing so) and certainly the most advanced countries regarding gender equality agree? Would you consider it to be according to Wikipedia's principles if creationist "scientists" were the only ones allowed to write Wikipedia articles about evolution and if an actual biologist tried to write an article, creationist people would attack that writer's person? How about trying to answer the questions instead of trying to blame me for defending Wikipedia's fundamental pillars? Do you remember them?[]:


 * 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
 * 2) Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view
 * 3) Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute
 * 4) Editors should treat each other with respect and civility
 * 5) Wikipedia has no firm rules, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines


 * You both fail to answer why you want to go so far that you'd like me to be sanctioned, yet you have not been able to dispute the validity of ANY of the studies I have brought forth? Instead you give me a thinly veiled threat for defending a neutral point of view. What do you want to do? Gather people who agree with you and sanction me for bringing up studies that you don't like and that you can't dispute? I hope it's not because of ideological censorship, because Wikipedia is about OPEN and VALID information. What should I assume, since neither you, Jytdog nor anyone else is not answering the questions nor proving the studies wrong and still you want to sanction me for bringing them up? What pillar of Wikipedia is that supporting? I have already agreed to bring in outside observers to help us solve the issue on several occasions. So I kindly ask you to stop all threats and personal attacks and instead try to concentrate on the actual content. Dispute the content on factual basis. If you can't/won't, then it is a wiser option to follow the Wikipedia principles, regardless of whether scientific results fit in your personal world view or not. Prefixcaz (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So you started out very argumentative, with a strong POV and no grounding in PAG, and now you are making the same arguments clothed in a veneer of PAG. This is what we call "wikilawyering", where a new user grabs a couple of lines from policy and uses them as prooftexts. No more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * note., changing a comment after someone has responded is bad form. Please read WP:TPG Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no control over when you are answering. If I am correcting my last comment whilst you're writing yours, it's not bad form, it's an unfortunate coincidence. Again, you have a right to your opinion about me, I have no problems with that. Still, that's not the issue and as an argumentation it's not valid. Do you notice that you're still talking about my person and not the issue? The issue being, why in your opinion reliable scientific results, that are widely accepted in a big part of the democratic world, should NOT be shown in Wikipedia articles, that deal with the issue? How is it a neutral point of view, if the only acceptable results are the ones that reflect one side of the issue? A side that is a minority even in the scientific community. Loud, but still a minority. Would you care to explain how that supports the Wikipedia pillars? PS. Did you remove the warning you got from your personal pages? THAT is intentional and bad form. Prefixcaz (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned about how the legitimate research and questions Prefixcaz has brought to the table are being ignored. Responses to this editor are highly charged and inflammatory, and seem to be against the editor and not the editors arguments. I support reaching a consensus based on the research, including what was posted above (and then effectively ignored).

2600:1008:B125:9CFB:0:7:3D8A:8301 (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Violence against men
in 2013 there was a discussion to redirect Violence against men to Domestic violence against men. I would like to have a new discussion in 2015. I propose that Violence against men should be a separate article that includes other forms of violence and not just domestic. Violence against women is a stand alone article and it's not clear to me why Violence against men is limited to "domestic." For example, according to American Society of Criminology, violence is "directed primarily at other males," and "men were the victims in almost four out of five homicides." I personally think this topic needs its own article. What do you think? USchick (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to a Violence against men article, as long as it does not become a WP:Redundant fork for domestic violence against men. The vast majority of domestic violence against men material should be in the Domestic violence against men article. The WP:AfD discussion that you linked to above is clear why the Violence against men article was redirected to the Domestic violence against men article (the new title) -- the vast majority of its sources were about domestic violence against men. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, note the redundancy and WP:Original research arguments made in the WP:AfD discussion you linked to. With regard to women, the violence is often specifically because the people are women. With regard to violence against men, it is not so much the case that it is because the people are men. Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that domestic violence needs to stay where it is. I'm not committed to creating an entire new article, only an outline. If people find it useful, they can fill it in, but considering the potential controversy, I want to make sure it won't be immediately deleted, so I'm asking to gauge interest. As far as violence specifically against men, there's been a lot of new discussion in recent years. USchick (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The article would likely be redirected again; for example, in that WP:AfD you noted above, UseTheCommandLine stated, "Strong Delete with bias against recreation This has already been deleted twice. It reeks of a political agenda. The subject is so broad as to be meaningless. It is not a term of art in any extant body of scholarship. further, the points raised in the article, particularly those frequently cited by other keep-voters (cf. Violence against women) are all covered in other articles (such as Domestic violence, which largely avoids specifying genders)." Similarly, Zetrock argued, "Delete. Each of the issues brought up in this article would be better suited to the main articles on those subjects. For example, there is already a discussion of domestic violence against men in the domestic violence article. Combining subsections of various articles into a single article based on gender is not only odd, but reeks of a political agenda, and is therefore lacking in NPOV. Contributors should instead address these issues within the context of each article, e.g., sexual slavery, domestic violence, prison sentencing differences, etc."


 * But you can certainly try recreation of the article, especially since the majority of people in the WP:AfD felt that Wikipedia can have a valid article on this topic. As far as violence specifically against men, I know that there has been more research in recent years. But it still stands that violence against men is not usually because they are men. That they are men is usually inconsequential to the violence. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to see the article that was deleted. Is there a way to do that? USchick (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, ask a WP:Administrator to temporarily WP:Userfy that version for you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! USchick (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, regarding the aforementioned WP:AfD discussion, instead of the previous WP:AfD discussions, you can see what the article looked like with this edit. Remember, the Violence against men article was moved to Domestic violence against men, and then "Violence against men" became a redirect to it. Flyer22 (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thank you very much! USchick (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to agree with Flyer22. Although I disagree with the notion that creating a page on Violence against men is necessarily politically motivated, I think the two quotes she uses above are pretty illustrative of the problem one would encounter in creating such a page - namely that it would need to detail violence against men which is specifically perpetrated against them because they are men, just as the violence against women article does. Violence against men is usually just 'equal opportunities' violence (to use a very simplistic example, look at war. The majority of victims of most wars are men, but obviously no one is going to argue that war can be classified as "violence against men"). Violence against women, on the other hand, is often gender motivated. Having said that, however, I do agree with USchick that violence against men redirecting to domestic violence against men is a little reductionist. However, I'm not sure what would be a more appropriate article to which to redirect it. Bertaut (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See what you think. Meaningful discussion is most welcome. USchick (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: USchick's recreation of the article has been nominated for deletion: Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination). Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I´m new, and I´m from Argentina, so please be patient. I want to add that the nomination for deletion end in a Non consensus decisión. DanielLZIraldo (talk) 00:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're new. And, anyway, editors can click on that link and see how the nomination ended. Flyer22 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In fact I´m new as editor of Wikipedia. And I wish to thank you for your comment about clicking on the link, I didn´t realize it was link. You make me learn sth.DanielLZIraldo (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is the last time I'm replying to you; well, at this article anyway unless you make edits to it that need reverting: I don't believe that you are new to editing Wikipedia, and nothing will make me believe that you are new to editing Wikipedia since your editing style indicates to me that you are not new to editing Wikipedia (well, except for marking this edit as WP:Minor). But let's say that you actually "didn´t realize it was [a] link." If that's the case, how did you find out what the outcome of the debate was? Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources?
I recently edited the page in order to write that not all the gender symmetry promoters say that injuries are not symmetrical, and in doing so I quoted the passage in which they said it. Another user deleted my work saying I was using primary sources, but if you see the article, it's ALL based on primary sources, I mean papers from academic journals. So I found it a very strange objection. Instead, it could be possible to say that it's better to explain what the papers say without quoting passages, but it's a different objection, it's not the same as saying that I have to use secondary sources, and also in the CTS paragraph there are quotes from primary sources (aka journals) exactly like the ones I tried to insert (see for example: "Linda Kelly states that etc. etc."). So why this objection, if I can ask? - Iamwho (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This article has come to contain many primary sources reporting on sociological/epidemiological data (which is bad editing).  Not all the sources are PRIMARY.   And in any case, just because there has been some bad editing doesn't mean there should be more.  Every content policy we have calls us to use secondary sources.  For scientific content (which is what this content is) that means review articles, that summarize the primary literature and assign weight to the various conclusions reported in the primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok: 1) if you mean to use systematic reviews, we had to delete all the article sources but the Archer 2000 paper; 2) it is a controversy, I don't say it is totally accepted. In controversies I think primary sources are accepted, no? 3) if you mean reviews that are not meta-analysys, Dutton 2010 that I quoted was a secondary source, so why did you delete it? 4) the absurd with this is that I quoted George 2003 that IS QUOTED IN OTHER PARAGRAPHS TOO, so why if I quote it it's wrong while in other paragraphs it's not? O.o 5) If we need to use secondary sources I can, but they redirect to some of the articles I quoted, so it's like putting the same thing again, just without having the accuracy there was in quoting the original papers (just like everybody else did, btw, because as you can see it's full of primary sources). - Iamwho (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * systematic reviews or literature reviews, yes. it is worse to use primary sources on controversial articles. Here is the reason, as I noted above, all the content guidelines call us to use secondary sources and warn, strongly, against adding any kind of editorializing commentary on primary sources.  What you get into in controversial articles, is that people select primary sources to discuss and give WEIGHT to, that make points that they already want  to make, then other people cherry pick yet other primary sources and give WEIGHT to them. And you end up with stupid tit-for-tat content.  The best way to edit on controversial articles is to raise source quality.  The best way to edit is to get your hands on all the highest quality sources you can find, read them, and summarize what they say.  (remember that per WP:NOT, the mission of Wikipedia is to provide articles that describe accepted knowledge.  Not cutting edge knowledge, not "frank said blah blah blah", but what accepted knowledge is, in the given field. Thanks for talking.Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Iamwho, your edits are an example of synthesis, which is not permitted in Wikipedia articles. Quoting from WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research." You are combining 5 primary sources to construct an original argument (largely implied) against gender symmetry in injuries. Instead you should find secondary sources that state such a conclusion (if such sources exist). It should also be noted that some of the studies you cite are limited to people admitted to emergency rooms or arrested for domestic violence, which is not a representative sample. Kaldari (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

These edits are not OR or SYNTH, and they are not primary sources. The refs are peer reviewed journals. Please stop removing the sourced material. Minor4th  18:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * These sources are no more primary source, OR, or SYNTH than any of the other peer-reviewed sources cited in this article. GregJackP   Boomer!   18:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Minor4th and GregJackP, following Jytdog here from different articles and a WP:ANI discussion where you both are actively trying to sanction him can be seen as a form of WP:Hounding. Jytdog knows what he is talking about on this matter and what sources should be used for this topic, per WP:MEDRS. Peer review is not the same thing as literature review or systematic review; WP:MEDRS prefers the latter two. And that is why I reverted here and here. Well, that and because of Minor4th's assertion of balance. Wikipedia is not supposed to give false balance. Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We can also bring WP:Med into this for wider input. Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * is an attorney who has written on domestic violence against men and found this article on her own. I was checking her edits, not Jyt's, although the same could have been said about him following Praeceptor around being harassment. In my own case, I have a double major in political science and sociology for undergrad, prior to my law degree, and I have over 20 years of experience in dealing with domestic violence on the streets. So while I am not diminishing Jyt's knowledge in this field, neither will I accept his background over mine or Minor4th's. If he wants to compare real life credentials, I would be happy to do so, but that's not really necessary, nor, in my opinion, desirable.


 * As to the sources, this is not strictly speaking a WP:MEDRS article. The studies cited are sociological studies, not studies that deal with "biomedical" information. As a matter of fact, the first paragraph of the lede focuses on the criminal/legal aspects of the subject, not biomedical issues. And WP:MOSLAW does allow for primary sources, as does Wikipedia itself. Indeed, MOSLAW states that in articles dealing with legal subjects, such as this article, if there is a discrepancy between a secondary and a primary source, then the primary source should have precedence.


 * Finally, we can bring both WP:MED and WP:Law into this for wider input also, as it affects the legal community, not just the medical one. I've gone ahead and added this to Wikiproject Law's articles. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * From what I see, you two have followed Jytdog here via the aforementioned disputes. And the text in question concerns health; that text should absolutely be sourced to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. It is biomedical content, which is why epidemiology is a part of WP:MEDMOS. As has been discussed in the, and  sections above, inappropriate weight should not be given to supposed gender symmetry or the notion that men suffer domestic violence at or near the same level as women do. They don't. False balance is completely inappropriate. And so because of all of that, I disagree with this revert you made. You can contact WP:Law; I'll contact WP:Med. Flyer22 (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Contacted. Flyer22 (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you point out what specific biomedical subject this deals with? MEDRS does not apply to non-medical topics. And this article doesn't deal with "health," it deals with the actions of people in society and the socio-legal issues involved. MEDRS is designed for the hard-sciences. Pharmacology, real medicine (as opposed to alt-med or other loony-tune ideas), anatomy, etc. Someone beating the hell out of someone else is not a medical issue, although the victim oft-times needs medical treatment for injuries. Second, what basis do you claim that domestic violence is one sided? It's not, and that is from both personal experience on the street and what the academic/research material states.   GregJackP   Boomer!   20:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See my reply to Minor4th below. Claiming that the Domestic violence against men article is not a medical topic is like claiming that the Domestic violence and Violence against women articles are not medical topics. They are, which is why the health aspects in them should be WP:MERDS-compliant and is why they are watched by medical editors. I don't understand your rationale on this at all. And I never stated that domestic violence is one-sided. But to state, or imply with editing, that men are affected by domestic violence to the same degree that women are affected by it is false. Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, can you point to a specific biomedical topic? "Health" is not a specific medical topic as it can cover medical health (MEDRS) or spiritual health (not MEDRS). Domestic violence in fact, is not a medical topic any more than rape is a sexual act (it's not, it is about power and control, not sexual gratification). So if you want to apply MEDRS to what is a socio-legal topic, you are going to have to come up with a specific biomedical topic. By your standard, I could apply MOSLAW to religious articles (since they deal with canonical law), to science (scientific laws), etc.


 * And again, current research shows that women are just physically aggressive as men are, it points this out in the article itself (see also Martin S. Fiebert, References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: An annotated bibliography, 8 140 (Summer-Fall 2004).)  GregJackP   Boomer!   21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see what I need to point to in this article to show that this article is a medical topic, as also echoed by Doc James below. Stating that "Domestic violence in fact, is not a medical topic" is simply false. We have the Domestic violence article adhere to WP:MEDRS for the very fact that it is a medical topic; this topic is no different. Is domestic violence solely a medical topic? No. But to state that it is not a medical topic is arguing with the World Health Organization (WHO) and a variety of other medical sources. As for your research, it is faulty. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You may not see the need, but you are making the claim that it is a medical article. The burden is on the person making the claim. The article itself states in the first paragraph that it is a social and legal issue. There is not a single claim in the article that it is a "health" issue.

As for claiming the research is faulty? One, it is not "my" research, and two, I'm supposed to accept your word that it is faulty? I don't think so. That's like saying my dad is smarter than your dad. It also shows that you have a confirmation bias. GregJackP  Boomer!   22:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:Burden does not apply when it comes to my not seeing the need to point the obvious to you. I'm not interested in debating an editor claiming that a medical topic is not a medical topic, especially when it is a topic cited in various medical sources as a medical topic and/or a major health issue for women (as is clear by various WHO sources). I'm not interested in debating an editor citing a poor source from 2004, or any poor source, to claim that women are just as aggressive and/or violent as men. They are, are they? Well, then someone might want to inform all of the researchers who look into sex differences in crime of this matter so that they don't consistently find that men are largely more aggressive than women and are generally more violent than women. But I guess researchers continually replicating that data are suffering from confirmation bias. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * the sources (indicated by Flyer22) must comply with Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ozzie, this is not a biomed article, so I don't know why MEDRS is brought up. In any event, the sources that  keeps trying to remove do comply with MEDRS, even though this article does not have to meet that requirement.  Minor4th  20:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * any article that has medical content be it- the entire article, a section, a sub-section or a single sentence with one reference, must comply with MEDRS. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, from the link you posted above This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine. Sources for all other types of content—including all non-medical information in medicine-related articles—are covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources rather than this specific guideline. Arkon (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ozzie10aaaa is specifically talking about the health content, not all of the content. Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you Flyer22...Arkon the link is clear, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You said any article that has medical content be it- the entire article, a section, a sub-section or a single sentence with one reference, must comply with MEDRS, this implies the entire article must, not just specific content, please be more specific, or clear as you say. Arkon (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I see, this article has no bearing on WP:MED.  This is a sociology issue.  And I did not follow Jdog - I was actually surprised to see that he had edited here, as this seems somewhat outside of his typical topic for editing.  I don't know that there is a need for wider input (although I'm not opposed to it) - it is quite simple to actually read the sources that are cited, look at their dates and determine whether or not the articles say what they are cited for and whether they have been supplanted or affected by subsequent research (also cited in the article).   I encourage you to do that, and there's only one conclusion you can reach.


 * Let's address the elephant in the room rather than talking around it. This article is riddled with feminist POV content -- while it's purportedly about domestic violence against men, most of the content is aimed at convincing the reader that it's not a big deal and all attention should be focused on domestic violence against women.  That is certainly not encyclopedic and runs afoul of a variety of Wiki policies.


 * Finally, I would say I'm somewhat of an "expert" in this narrow field. I have written articles on the subject and conducted a great deal of research on the issues presented in the article.  It is controversial because there are very clear political agendas associated with it.  I'm simply striving for a more neutral and factual article based on historic research as well as more current notable research and discussions on the issue. <b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 20:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Since we don't see eye-to-eye on the "following people around" angle, I'm going to put that aside for now. Your arguments that "this article has no bearing on WP:MED. This is a sociology issue." and "This article is riddled with feminist POV content" is similar to what men's rights editors, and similar-minded editors, have argued at the Domestic violence article, which is another article that Jytdog and I edit (the other medical editor of that article is Doc James). Violence concerns health. To argue that domestic violence again men is not a medical topic makes no sense to me, considering the biomedical content it covers. The rate of domestic violence is also a medical topic; I already pointed to epidemiology above. Just like at the Domestic violence article, we have a few editors at the Domestic violence against men article unwilling to accept that the vast majority of the literature on domestic violence concerns women, and cites that women are victims of domestic violence far more than men are, and that we should therefore adhere to WP:Due weight in that regard. I pointed to WP:Valid (false balance) for a reason, because there are always editors complaining about some feminist agenda clouding an article that is covering a topic where women are known to be the majority of victims, when that article is simply reflecting what the vast majority of the literature on that topic states. This includes the Sexism article, where male and female editors have been clear with POV-pushing "men suffer too" and/or "men suffer more" editors time and time again that sexism is especially documented as affecting girls and women; that is why the Sexism article focuses so much on females. Similarly, that domestic violence is especially documented as affecting girls and women is why so much of the Domestic violence article focuses on females, and is why the Domestic violence against men article is so much about debating the topic of gender symmetry. You speak of "run[ning] afoul of a variety of Wiki policies." I see none of that when it comes to your feminist claims. I am not interested in arguments that would have us give false balance; giving false balance is running afoul of a variety of Wiki policies, and is exactly why this article is a Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation matter. Flyer22 (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes we learn about domestic violence during medical school. There are efforts to encourage all docs to ask all women about it at every visit. Among males it is also an issue and is discussed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That in no way makes this a biomedical article. There are no medical facts discussed in this article that require medical expertise or knowledge to understand. And your comments above clearly show your POV/agenda in this area. You are acting as a gatekeeper to keep out current research that does not agree with your conclusion that most DV is committed by men and women are injured more or more severely. You recitation about women being more victimized than men is outdated. The reliable sources that have been added do not give a "false balance," they give the mainstream and majority view of domestic violence and gender.<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , we learn about domestic violence during medical school - I learned about medical malpractice during law school. Does that make medicine a legal topic? GregJackP   Boomer!   21:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes medical malpractice a legal topic definately. This of course does not mean this is not also a legal topic. And of course regardless of how it is classified medical content needs medical refs. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it doesn't make all of medicine a legal topic. Nor, does discussing domestic violence in the context of medicine make it a medical topic. It is still of concern to medical professionals such as yourself, but it is not a purely medical topic. It remains primarily a socio-legal topic. We must use good sources, but I would think that you would agree that domestic violence cannot be considered to be in the realm of the hard sciences, like medicine, pharmacology, or mathematics. It instead belongs to the "soft" or social sciences, of sociology and the like. Regards, GregJackP   Boomer!   21:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes agree it is only partly medical and it is mostly a socio-legal topic. Only the medical parts need medical sources. The part of medicine that is psychiatry is often a softer science. Medicine is not a hard science like physics or math. We are sort of in the middle IMO. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Minor4th, your idea of what a medical topic is makes no sense in this case. As for your claims about my POV, I follow WP:Neutral, including its WP:Due weight section, appropriately. Clearly, you do not. Also, there is no need to WP:Ping me to this talk page since it is on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Your "outdated" claims are also false. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly we disagree :) <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a "MEDRS article."  MEDRS applies to health content, in whatever articles it appears. "Health" includes "public health", which includes domestic violence. (see here for example. GregJackP, please take Trypto's advice at ANI and steer clear, instead of coming after me. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content, not the contributor. I didn't follow you here. I followed Minor4th here. Also, there is not an interaction ban, and I'm not attacking you, I'm discussing the article, which is in a field that Minor4th is a SME. MEDRS applies to biomedical issues, not general article content. Plus, domestic violence is not a medical issue, but is a socio-legal issue. If it is medical, what is the treatment regimen? What prescription or OTC drugs should be prescribed? What is the hard science about the issue? You don't to apply MEDRS to non-medical issues, any more than I get to apply MOSLAW to non-legal issues. Thus far no one has addressed exactly what biomedical issue is involved. It's sad, really. GregJackP   Boomer!   22:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:GANG -The two of sure travel as a pair don't you.  Minorth's first edit here was reverting me.  Instead of wikilawyering, please follow the spirit of what Trypto suggested.  Thanks  Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content, not the contributor. As noted below, this isn't the right place for that discussion.  GregJackP   Boomer!   15:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In the same section. advised not responding. Just let the accusation lay there with no replies, and bring it up at ANI if you feel that you must respond somewhere. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Current research
At some point when I have time, I would like to do a major rewrite of sections of this article. For the most part, the references are very old and are somewhat contrary to more current research. I am gathering sources to include in a rewrite and leaving them here for now - feel free to comment on the quality of the sources or their content. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 21:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Time magazine as a source? While Time is a reputable source, using news sources for this type of material is not a good idea; this is due to reasons noted at Identifying reliable sources and WP:MEDRS (and, yes, we know that you don't think that WP:MEDRS applies to this article). With respect to Bertaut stating that he doesn't want to get involved in this dispute, I'm certain that I'll much prefer his rewrite of the article to yours...considering your statements in the section. Like he stated in the  section, "As someone who has conducted a great deal of research into gender symmetry in several western countries (USA, UK, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Germany), to say it's accepted as fact in the western world is simply inaccurate. Perhaps it's accepted as fact in Scandanavia, but certainly not elsewhere. That's why, when I was writing the gender symmetry section of this article, I was very careful to a) make sure to acknowledge the controversial nature of the topic, b) include sources providing empirical data for both sides of the argument, and c) make sure to point out that even researchers who argue for gender symmetry (such as Straus and Archer for example) acknowledge that violence against women is a more serious and immediate problem. If you don't believe me, or if you are unwilling to accept the argument that gender symmetry is controversial, go ahead and email Murray A. Straus. Just Google him, and you'll get his email address. He's very happy to talk to people researching the subject. As regards your CDC source, you're correct in saying it reveals men experienced more IPV in 2010 than women. But it also says women experience considerably more IPV over their lifetimes, something which would need to be acknowledged if the data from the survey is to be included (and Jytdog is correct about not including it in the lede)."


 * You keep going on about the current research, when, for example, the 2013 review (actual source here) that men's rights activists like to cite acknowledges that its definition of domestic violence is not the mainstream view, since it defines partner abuse broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first. It examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence. Its authors stated that if one looks at who is physically harmed and how seriously, who expresses more fear, who has psychological problems following abuse, domestic violence is significantly gendered and women suffer the most; however, going by their broader paradigm, "partner abuse can no longer be conceived as merely a gender problem, but also (and perhaps primarily) as a human and relational problem, and should be framed as such by everyone concerned." Besides the gender symmetry side even stating that it's usually women, as opposed to men, who are physically hurt more severely during domestic abuse, various recent scholarly sources report that domestic violence disproportionately affects women and that women are more severely hurt by domestic violence. You can try to discredit those sources as political and/or feminist in nature, but that doesn't cut it. So, yes, your assertion that I am "acting as a gatekeeper to keep out current research that does not agree with [my] conclusion that most DV is committed by men and women are injured more or more severely" makes no sense. Neither does your assertion that "women being more victimized than men is outdated" and that the "reliable sources that have been added do not give a 'false balance,' they give the mainstream and majority view of domestic violence and gender." Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, Time can be a source, as this is not an article that requires MEDRS. Domestic violence is not a medical issue, but is a socio-legal issue. If it is medical, what is the treatment regimen? What prescription or OTC drugs should be prescribed? What is the hard science about the issue? Again, what is the biomedical issue? "Health" doesn't cut it.


 * Also, I don't know if you are aware of it, but you just admitted that what Minor4th has been saying is true in your statement above. You also admitted that the you do not have evidence that the studies she cited are not valid, and direct her to contact someone who is conducting research into the matter. That begs the question, have you contacted him and are you involved in any manner in collecting or providing evidence in the area of domestic violence? It's OK if you have, but it could be considered a COI which would need to be declared. GregJackP   Boomer!   03:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding the sourcing of this article, you are wrong for reasons stated by medical editors in the section and by me in the  section below. Using Time or other news sources for this article is only appropriate in the cases of history material or society and culture material that is not asserting anything about the current knowledge of health concerning domestic violence.


 * I did not admit to anything regarding Minor4th. You need to re-read what Minor4th stated and what I stated (including the fact that I am quoting a different editor and quoting researchers of a review that men's rights editors love to cite). Minor4th, for example, stated that I am "acting as a gatekeeper to keep out current research that does not agree with [my] conclusion that most DV is committed by men and women are injured more or more severely." The current research, as I pointed to above in this section, does support the conclusion that "most DV is committed by men and women are injured more or more severely." It is not my conclusion. Minor4th stated that "women being more victimized than men is outdated." The current research shows that this is not outdated; it still states that "domestic violence disproportionately affects women and that women are more severely hurt by domestic violence." It is still the majority view, and you and Minor4th are trying to undermine that majority view. I really don't see that there is anything else I need to state to you on these matters. Oh, and you should keep your WP:COI speculation to yourself, or try to report me in that regard and see how that plays out. Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

___

Wikipedia policy
I am a neutral third party who is at this time purposely refraining from expressing any opinion on this content dispute, but I do have some comments about Wikipedia policy.


 * WP:MEDRS specifically applies to "biomedical information in all types of articles". Domestic violence against men is not biomedical information. If a claim touches on biomedical information (a drug that is purported to increase or decrease domestic violence, for example), then WP:MEDRS applies to that specific claim.


 * "Following someone around" may or may not be a violation of policy, depending on several factors. See WP:WIKIHOUNDING for details. (I am not saying anyone did or did not follow anyone around. I am just explaining the policy.) What is clear from policy, however, is that article talk pages are the wrong place to discuss this. Everyone here needs to stop making accusations (true or not) about editor behavior, stop responding to such accusations (no matter how invalid or unfair you think they are) and take such issues to dispute resolution. WP:DRR is a good place to start.

Again, please do not interpret anything I wave written here as implying that the actions of any editors are or are not against policy. I am only discussing what are, in my opinion, certain incorrect interpretations of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon, I appreciate more editors weighing in on this. But we really do need more medical editors commenting on this matter. WP:MEDRS is not policy; it is a guideline. And domestic violence (whether it's against women or men) is a health topic and biomedical topic, which is why three medical editors so far (me, Jytdog, and Doc James) have stated that it is in the section above. A fourth medical editor, CFCF, seems to agree. That domestic violence is a medical topic is also why medical editor FloNight was clear about that here and here at the Intimate partner violence talk page. It's also why the Domestic violence and Intimate partner violence talk pages are currently tagged with WP:Med tags (seen here and here), and are tagged with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles. The Domestic violence against men talk page should also have those tags. WP:MEDRS is clear that it does not just pertain to biomedical information, but to health information. Not all health information, such as commentary on the history or social aspects (including law). But a person being physically and/or emotionally harmed is health material and biomedical material. Domestic violence concerns people being physically harmed, emotionally harmed, and the effects and rates of all of that. And all of that should be sourced to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, unless it is about history or how society and culture deals with domestic violence (such as laws, or people in general). I don't understand how anyone cannot see that the prevalence and causes of domestic violence against men falls under epidemiology, which is "the science that studies the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease conditions in defined populations." So, yes, epidemiology should be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, which is why it is a part of WP:MEDMOS. Domestic violence is not solely a medical topic, but is partly a medical topic, which is why it is noted as a health/medical topic in various health/medical sources.


 * On a side note: I think that this section you started should be a subsection of the #Primary sources? section so that editors are not discussing these aspect in two separate places. Flyer22 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You mentioned that you have had three editors support using MEDRS, with a fourth possible. While this is not a vote, there have been four editors, with a fifth possible, indicate that MEDRS is not required. This, as Guy has stated, is not a biomedical subject. I'm happy to ask exactly what biomedical process covers this issue. Perhaps he can explain what hard science is involved, because I have repeatedly asked and neither you nor anyone else have even attempted to answer.


 * I'm also curious at your claims of "medical editor" for several that you have mentioned. I'm aware of Doc James credentials, and FloNight's as well (although she has not commented here, and the diffs you provided are not directly on point). I am not aware of your credentials, nor Jytdog's that would give your opinion any more weight that any other editor. You also have a SME (Minor4th) and another legal editor telling you that it is a socio-legal subject, not requiring MEDRS. Like you said, Domestic violence is not solely a medical topic - and MEDRS is only required for "biomedical" subjects. You have not identified what biomedical subject this is covered by.


 * Finally, as I asked earlier, "are you involved in any manner in collecting or providing evidence in the area of domestic violence?" Do you have a COI in this area (based on your recommendations to directly contact researchers in the field)? GregJackP   Boomer!   20:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Editors who don't understand what is and is not a health/medical topic are not the best editors to weigh in on whether or not domestic violence is a health/medical topic. As for my credentials... As various editors know, I don't comment on my credentials on Wikipedia. I also made it clear that you should keep your WP:COI claims to yourself, especially since such claims can apply to you and Minor4th as well. That is, if we are to believe you on your credential claims. Trying to create a chilling effect won't work here. As for everything else, I've already addressed you on that; for example, your claim not to understand how domestic violence falls under "biomedical information." I've been clear that physical and emotional harm is biomedical information. I've also been clear that epidemiology material is a medical aspect. Physical harm is biomedical for obvious reasons; I should not have to explain that to you. And emotional harm is biomedical information because of how it affects brain chemistry and a person's health. Suicide, for example, is a health/biomedical topic for both its physical and emotional harm aspects, and so is domestic violence. Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Editors who don't understand what is and is not a biomedical topic are not the best editors... (nah, forget that, I don't play the ad hominem fallacy game). I have made no WP:COI claims, I have used the same questions as Jytdog has asked, which is merely if you had a COI or not. There is not one place where I have made a claim that you have a COI, I have merely asked. The reason I asked is because you said that Strauss talks freely to "researchers," which inferred a personal knowledge of his talking to researchers. That begs the question on whether you have a COI or not. A simple "no" would have sufficed, but instead you have refused to answer the question. Most people without a COI don't dodge a question like that, but it's not something that I will pursue, I merely asked a question. You do have the right not to answer it. Second, no one is trying to create a chilling effect, unless it is perhaps you—using the term "medical editors" implies a "special-type" of knowledge and since you were claiming that for yourself, it is fair to ask. You are free not to believe me on my credential claims, however the ArbCom committee members know my real identity, so if you want, pick one and I can send them proof of my credentials. Or, if is willing to keep my real identity confidential, I can send him the information. You brought up the special type of editor issue, not me. In any event, "health" in general and "domestic violence" in particular is not a biomedical topic. Guy Macon does a good job of explaining that.  GregJackP   Boomer!   01:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Wrong on all of that as far as it concerns what I think, intended or said. Your claim that I "said that Strauss talks freely to 'researchers'" is incorrect; like Bertaut already told you below, I was quoting something Bertaut stated. Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, I didn't want to point a finger at anyone, but the claim that "domestic violence is a biomedical medical topic" is, quite simply, wrong. I am still not expressing any opinion on whether you are right or wrong about what the content of the article should be, but that particular claim is so far outside of reality that I have to say something. Biomedicine is defined as medicine based on the application of the principles of the natural sciences and especially biology and biochemistry. And natural science is defined as any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * first I don't view you as neutral in this matter. If you were really neutral, you would be advising GregJackP and Minor4h to step away from this article, since their arrival is clearly BATTLEGROUND/HOUNDING and against what we were advised to do at ANI.  Instead you are taking their side.  Please consider that.  Secondly, the first line of MEDRS reads "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information."  The lead also says "biomedical information" and simply "medical", and if you review the archives of WT:MEDRS you will see that this was done intentionally to avoid the kind of wikilawyering argument that has been made here.  Third, every content policy we have emphasizes using secondary sources - we should do. Finally, this is arguably a "controversial article" and per our essay on that (which is widely cited) editors working on controversial articles are advised (yes just  advised) to raise source quality.  We really don't want to get into "battling primary sources" on an article like this.  Review articles and statements by major bodies (like the CDC) provide the high level view of where a given field stands - what is "accepted knowledge", as WP:NOT describes as our goal to present.  But more than anything, really - I wish you would act in a really neutral fashion here. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please discuss content, not contributors. GregJackP   Boomer!   01:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you are wrong about my neutrality. If I were to express an opinion on whether GregJackP and Minor4h are wikihounding, that would be taking sides. I refuse to say whether I think they are or are not. Take it to ANI if you think your evidence is strong enough. I will say, however, that you accusing them of wikihounding on an article talk page is a clear violation of policy, as is GregJackP's "do you have a COI?" question, Jytdog's "you are making fierce arguments that are just babble" and "it seems that you never read the Wikipedia rule pages that you are pointed to" comments, Prefixcaz's "That is the second time you use ad hominem" comment, and I am sure I missed a bunch more of the same. So can we all agree to stop talking about other editors and stick to talking about article content, sourcing and Wikipedia policies? Including not responding when someone else starts talking about other editors? I really don't want to have to go to WP:ANI and ask an admin top give out a bunch of warnings followed by blocks for those who don't comply. Can you all please just do this because I asked nicely? Or at least some of you so I have fewer editors to report? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon, feel free to point a finger at me. Your assertion that I'm wrong is quite simply wrong. I should know, since I am well-versed in medical topics, am at WP:Med often enough and/or read/participate in WP:MEDRS discussions often enough. Like I just told GregJackP, "I've been clear that physical and emotional harm is biomedical information. I've also been clear that epidemiology material is a medical aspect. Physical harm is biomedical for obvious reasons; I should not have to explain that to you. And emotional harm is biomedical information because of how it affects brain chemistry and a person's health. Suicide, for example, is a health/biomedical topic for both its physical and emotional harm aspects, and so is domestic violence."


 * Since you are pointing to dictionary sources to try to prove your point, how many scholarly sources should I point to in order to prove mine that domestic violence is a health/medical topic? Flyer22 (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've no real intention in getting involved in this debate, but I do have to mention this point., you've twice asked if she has a COI because of her "recommendations to directly contact researchers in the field." Did you actually read what she said? She didn't recommend anybody contact anybody. I suggested to another user months ago who was making ludicrous statements about gender symmetry not being controversial to contact Murray Straus, who would indeed confirm that it is a controversial area. Flyer was quoting what I said. And before you ask, yes, I have spoken to many researchers in this area. Many of whom believe domestic violence against men is a very serious issue (people such as Straus, Fiebert, Archer, Kelly, George, Dutton etc) and many who believe it isn't (Dobash & Dobash, Kimmel, Kersti etc) And never once in our many conversations do I ever remember this article being mentioned. I was speaking to them as part of research for a play I am writing. Bertaut (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

, yes I did read exactly what she said here, where she said If you don't believe me,. . . go ahead and email Murray A. Straus. Just Google him, and you'll get his email address. He's very happy to talk to people researching the subject. That is a recommendation to contact Strauss by Flyer22, not you. I have no interest in whether you have contacted him or not, you have not been involved in the conversation. GregJackP  Boomer!   00:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Incorrect; that is me quoting Bertaut. Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether WP:MEDRS applies, the article should not be relying heavily on primary sources. That's just basic WP:RS. Kaldari (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I agree with that, but primary sources are not prohibited. Indeed, in WP:LAW articles, MOS:LAW discusses the use of both secondary and primary sources, and states that both may be used. This is an article on a socio-legal issue, not a biomedical one. The majority of the article should (and does) use secondary sources. GregJackP   Boomer!   02:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You repeatedly state that this is not a biomedical topic. You are wrong, no matter how much you state that this article doesn't concern WP:MEDRS. WP:MEDRS covers health topics, not just biomedical topics, as you've been told by editors who work on medical articles, helped shape WP:MEDRS, and know that domestic violence is a well-established part of medical literature. If it were not, do you think so many medical sources would be covering it? Do you think that the Domestic violence article would have a Template:Infobox disease (now known as Template:Infobox medical condition) at its top, with eMedicine, Patient UK and MeSH listing domestic violence as a medical matter (as seen here, here and here)? Claiming that domestic violence is not a medical matter to keep this article from being sourced the way it should be sourced is silly. Flyer22 (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * How you or anyone else fathoms that a topic that largely concerns physical and mental health is not a medical/biomedical topic is beyond me. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It has been explained. Currently there is no consensus on this page that MEDRS applies to the entire article, which it clearly does not. Regardless of how you feel, this project works on consensus. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No one ever stated that WP:MEDRS applies to the entire article. It applies to what WP:MEDRS is clear about it applying to; that means physical and mental health. Exemptions to WP:MEDRS are the socio-cultural aspects that do not make claims about the health aspects that should clearly be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. This project works on WP:Policies and guidelines and WP:Common sense. Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

What Flyer22 says is completely correct, but in either case we need to abide by WP:RS and not provide primary sources anywhere in the article. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 12:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what WP:RS says CFCF, Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.. I agree, broadly, with Flyer 22 that there are medical aspects to this article which require the higher standard of MEDRS and there are social, legal and political aspects which do not. In the latter categories, the best possible sources should be sought but this is not to the exclusion of primary sources where they are used with adequate caution per WP:RS. The real question will arise when there is dispute as to whether a specific piece of content falls on which side of the MED line where only primary sourcing exists for it. In any such case I would likely advocate caution, that is disinclusion, without specific consensus.SPACKlick (talk) 13:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , WP:RS does not prohibit the use of WP:PRIMARY sources. Policy states Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. In addition, this is a socio-legal article falling under WP:LAW (see banner, above), and MOS:LAW specifically states that Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both. Indeed, the sources that you are trying to add to the article include such primary sources, such as the Vivian article in Violence and Victims. It is disingenuous to condemn the use of primary sources while at the same time you are adding them to the article to support a particular POV. GregJackP   Boomer!   14:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it says that primary sources should not be used when there is better secondary source information available. There is, end of discussion. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 18:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is, end of discussion. ROTFL, not hardly bucko. This, as Doc James agree[d] it is only partly medical and it is mostly a socio-legal topic. (emphasis added). As a "socio-legal" article, MOS:LAW applies, and, as noted above, primary sources should be used along with secondary sources. Nice try though. GregJackP   Boomer!   20:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Data regarding sub-populations at greatest risk for domestic violence is a significant public health issue. To suggest such content be exempted from WP:MEDRS does not seem reasonable.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:MEDRS has a stated purpose:
 * "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."
 * Data regarding sub-populations at greatest risk for domestic violence is not medical advice, nor is it any Wikipedia article on domestic violence a widely-used source of health information. To suggest that such content be subject to WP:MEDRS does not seem reasonable. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree, per above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are well aware that that isn't what the guidelines states:
 * The issues are epidemiological in nature and thus covered by MEDRS, that is extremely clear. CFCF  💌 📧 15:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The issues are epidemiological in nature and thus covered by MEDRS, that is extremely clear. CFCF  💌 📧 15:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon is exactly right.See Doc James' comments above - that there is some medical/health content in this article but that it is mostly socio-legal. The prevalence and demographics of domestic violence are not epidemiological of any disease process or biological condition - to suggest otherwise is unreasonable - and therefore, there is no need to cite MEDRS for this information. We'll use the best available sources, period. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:100%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 17:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is entirely wrong. Also I have never stated that MEDRS applies to all content in the article, but it does to quite a substantial amount, including epidemiology. CFCF   💌 📧 18:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have opened a section at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents regarding 's statement above. Rhoark (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Legal secondary sources for article information
Quotes:


 * Perhaps the most frequently recited and best known statistic regarding domestic violence is that “a woman is battered every 15 seconds.” Perhaps the least frequently recited and best buried statistic regarding domestic violence is that “a man is battered every 14 seconds.” Both of these statistics were derived from a study, published in 1986, which revealed that “[w]hile 1.8 million women annually suffered one or more assaults from a husband or boyfriend, 2 million men were assaulted by a wife or girlfriend.” The study also found that 54% of “severe” violence was perpetrated by women.
 * This duty to specifically address the problem of domestic violence against men is not only a logical duty, stemming from the general need to prevent violence in the home, but a legal duty, for if state and local governments continue to discriminate against male victims of domestic violence in their application of domestic violence laws, state and local governments will be leaving themselves vulnerable to Section 1983 lawsuits which could result in the elimination of domestic violence remedies altogether.
 * People's judgments in the studies conducted by Feather, Harris and Cook, and Seealu and Seelau are consistent with gender-role stereotypes of women as weak and vulnerable and men as dominant and threatening. Female victims were perceived to be in greater need of assistance than male victims and male perpetrators were seen as more threatening than female perpetrators. This research suggests that the criminal justice system should be concerned about the potential for male victims of domestic violence to be treated inequitably as a result of gender-role stereotypes. Although the victims' actual injuries did not vary within each study, “people perceived that men had been less seriously harmed than women.”
 * In 1980, a great controversy was sparked when Murray Straus and his colleagues published a study which found that men and women are at equal risk of being physically assaulted by their spouses. Since that time, more than 100 other studies have been published showing approximately equal assault rates among men and women and thus supporting Straus' initial findings.
 * Most interesting, however, were the statistics regarding violence used by wives against their husbands. The overall rate of violence engaged in by wives toward their husbands increased from 116 out of 1,000 couples in 1975 to 121 in 1985, making the overall violence rate in 1985 higher for wives than for husbands.
 * Thus, with the publication of this comparative study, Straus and his colleagues were able to confirm the highly controversial finding of the 1975 study that women are about as violent as men within the family. These findings also indicated that women engaged in severe violence at a rate equal to, if not greater than, the rate at which men engaged in severe violence.
 * Richard B. Felson has twice concluded in the past five years, first in a review and analysis of the literature regarding violence and gender, and more recently in a journal article, that there is not a significant difference between the likelihoods of men and women being victims of domestic violence at the hands of their opposite-sex partners.
 * In addition, some groups portray domestic violence against men as a domestic violence victim, the woman, acting in self-defense, and this stereotype ignores the reality that some studies show that men and women are equally likely to initiate physical violence, and that past Department of Justice estimates have said that men are almost as likely as women to be domestic violence victims.
 * Erin Pizzey, founder of the first battered women's shelter in 1972, believes that the shelter movement has been “hijacked” by feminists. Because gender feminists focus their attention on the oppression and victimization of women, it is very difficult for them to acknowledge domestic violence against men, especially since the importance of providing services to abused women would possibly be de-emphasized. This could threaten the budgets allocated for women's shelters and services. The troubling aspect of the domestic violence movement, Fontes says, is that it has “become a feminist political movement more than an agency for helping all victims of domestic violence equally and with the same concern. Although feminists have indeed helped many women, they have done so at the expense of men who are also victims of abuse.
 * Although intimate partner violence tends to have a more specific focus, perhaps the numbers on domestic violence in general are more telling. Another Department of Justice study indicates men are victims of domestic violence thirty-nine percent of the time, or 834,732 men are victims each year. Based on these national numbers, a battered men's group in Washington estimates that as many as 25,473 men in Washington suffer abuse each year. These statistics show battered and abused men do exist and are a legitimate *1044 group, even if they are not in the majority. It also directly contradicts the popular statistic quoted in the Washington State Domestic Violence Judge's Manual that ninety-five percent of victims of domestic violence are women. Even if men do not represent the majority of domestic violence victims, those who suffer abuse are still in need of protection. Denying the fact that heterosexual men are in need of protection results in a blatant disregard for a large number of abused people.

I will add to this section as I find more information, please feel free to add other legal references. GregJackP  Boomer!   07:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's identify the specific areas of dispute
A quick look at the article history reveals an embarrassing number of reverts over the last few days, despite ongoing discussion on the talk pages. In an effort to get past this gridlock, I propose we specifically identify the disputes and work to fix them through consensus. As I see it, these are the underlying disputes that are leading to edit warring and battleground editing:

1. Application of WP:MEDRS - from looking at recent comments, I think we all now agree that MEDRS does not generally apply to every part of the article, but issues directly related to health and medical information should be sourced according to the guideline.

2.  Use of primary sources  - I keep getting reverted with a justification that primary sources aren't allowed. But it is not just the material I'm trying to keep in that is primarily sourced. Most of the article is cited to primary sources; specifically, journals including research studies and statistics. There should be no blanket directive that the article contain no primary sources -- that is not WP policy. But if there is going to be a strong opposition to their use then the entire article needs to be examined and rewritten with quality secondary sources.

3.  Neutrality  - This article is about domestic violence against men; this article is not about domestic violence against women. This should not be a zero sum issue - the article should be able to discuss domestic violence against men without having to reference domestic violence against women for every point. Some of you might disagree, but let's discuss it.

4.  Weight/balance  - there has been a complaint by Flyer22 that the material in dispute gives undue weight to a minority view. Currently there are statements that scholars and researchers generally agree that there is no symmetry in injuries to women vs. men as a result of DV ...this issue is in contention however because the historical "majority view" has been challenged by some recent studies. We should be able to write the article in a way that gives appropriate weight to the various research studies and conclusions. In any event, quality sources should not be wholesale removed from the article in order to present a preferred POV.

Discuss. <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 14:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, taking them one by one.
 * 1. Application of WP:MEDRS - If you modify the statement to state what the policy states, that WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical information, not all information. If it is not a biomedical subject, MEDRS does not apply. Biomedical is narrowly defined by the guideline.


 * 2.  Use of primary sources  - The use of primary sources is specifically allowed by WP:RS and MOS:LAW. For the very narrow points of the article that involve biomedical information, primary sources should be limited per MEDRS.


 * 3.  Neutrality  - The article does not currently present a neutral view of the material, but argues against any acceptance that violence against men is a problem. As noted, this is not a zero sum game. Violence against anyone is wrong, I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue that it's OK so long as it is against men, which seems to be the argument here.


 * 4.  Weight/balance  - The WP:UNDUE argument by Flyer22 is simply not valid. There is a vibrant discussion in the community about violence against men, with research on both sides. There is a majority view and a minority view, but this is not a hard science, it is about a socio-legal issue. In law, you have states that follow a "majority-rule," such as felony murder, where the majority-rule is that a defendant is not responsible for murder if the co-defendant is killed by the victim; and states that follow a "minority-rule," that a defendant is responsible for murder if anyone dies. Using the approach advocated by Flyer22 would completely ignore the minority-rule states in an article on felony murder. You explain both sides and which is the majority view, but you don't eliminate the minority view, nor minimize it to the point of WP:FRINGE when it has substantial support and research behind it.
 * GregJackP  Boomer!   15:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I hope to respond more later when have time, but it seems the concern isn't simply the use of primary sources, which can be appropriate at times, but rather the giving of undue weight to primary sources with the repeated attempts to add such lengthy text passages which also appear POV.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Undue has been addressed above. The problem is that the deletion of the material (which is sourced) creates an inappropriate POV. GregJackP   Boomer!   19:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I really don't see what more there is for me to state on this matter, other than what I stated in the, and  sections above. GregJackP's repeated strict application of "biomedical" (despite editors of WP:Med and WP:MEDRS telling him that he is wrong on that strict application) and his repeated insistence that WP:MEDRS does apply to this article are ludicrous for the reasons I stated with this edit (follow up here), where I pointed to medical sources quite clearly defining domestic violence as a medical topic. And because I'm tired of such insistence and it is wasting time (is a needless distraction), I am likely to pull together various medical and/or scholarly sources showing just what a medical topic domestic violence is, and then I will likely put the "Is it a medical topic? Does any part of it pertain to WP:MEDRS?" dispute through a well-advertised WP:Dispute resolution process in a couple of days or so. Domestic violence against men is still domestic violence, and anyone with a bit of common sense knows that it pertains to physical and mental health, which makes WP:MEDRS-compliant sources ideal for such material. Like Template:Reliable sources for medical articles (which this talk page will eventually be tagged with), states, "Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles." It states "health content," and so does WP:MEDRS. I've already been clear with GregJackP, as seen in the aforementioned followup edit, that "No one ever stated that WP:MEDRS applies to the entire article. It applies to what WP:MEDRS is clear about it applying to; that means physical and mental health. Exemptions to WP:MEDRS are the socio-cultural aspects that do not make claims about the health aspects that should clearly be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources."


 * As for WP:Due weight; WP:Due weight and its subsections are policy, and they are clear that we give most of our weight to the majority viewpoint; it is also clear that even in articles that are about the minority viewpoint, we should note the majority viewpoint. We don't frame that majority viewpoint as a historical matter based on a few new opposing studies, especially primary studies. That is WP:Recentism and giving WP:Undue weight to the minority viewpoint. WP:Recentism is a WP:Essay, yes, but it has valid points; the WP:Due weight policy and WP:MEDRS guideline also mention recentism. I never stated that the minority viewpoint should not be covered in this article; this is the Domestic violence against men article, after all, which is largely about "gender symmetry." I've essentially stated that we should not give WP:Undue weight to the minority viewpoint, or use recent primary sources to combat the majority viewpoint that is still being reported in recent, scholarly secondary sources. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * On a side note/personal note: I want to be explicitly clear here that I do not doubt that domestic violence against men is real; my eldest brother (I'm the eldest of my four siblings) experienced domestic violence from a previous girlfriend. And because he was taught that boys don't hit girls/men don't hit women, all he did to physically defend himself while his girlfriend hit him was dodge her hits and occasionally restrain her, such as hold her down. When the cops got there, she was the one who went to jail, not my brother, because of the bruises on him. I know that it's often the other way around, and that it's usually the man taken to jail even if he was simply defending himself. I don't doubt at all that women can be aggressive and be the physically violent one in the relationship. I'm simply stating what I have already stated on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Flyer22 summed up the problems with the attempted bold changes well. It seems wp:undue and a case of wp:recentism to delete longstanding article content regarding domestic violence being a more severe problem for female victims, due to greater incidence of severe injury or death, with content that says the opposite, that males are just as likely if not more likely to be severely injured via domestic violence, based on primary sources. As an aside, I also agree that domestic violence against men is a serious issue, and I don't discount the possibility that quality review studies could one day show the problem is more symmetrical than currently believed, but the current bold changes attempt to present that it is now clear that males are just as likely to be severely injured, if not more so, than females, making this a comparable public health concern for both genders. This can only be achieved by stressing primary sources over secondary sources. Domestic violence is obviously a health related issue, so I agree WP:MEDRS sourcing should apply with respect to Wikipedia discussing populations at greatest risk for intimate partner violence.  We should not stress primary sources over secondary sources in this regard.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing, WP:BRD & discretionary sanctions
Looking over the edit history it appears there have been multiple attempts to delete the last paragraph of the Gender Symmetry section and replace it with primary sourced content. The deleted longstanding content stated that domestic violence is considered a more severe public health problem for females, as they are more likely to be severely injured or killed via intimate partner violence than vice versa. Above discussion clearly shows no consensus for deleting that longstanding content and replacing it with primary sourced content that states the opposite -that males are just as likely if not more likely to suffer severe injury at the hands of females via domestic violence. This appears to be a fringe theory that would need solid secondary sourcing to be stressed in this manner in Wikipedia's voice. I have placed notice of this discussion at WP:FT/N. It appears this was all started by a new account who has since left the scene, but that two editors, GregJackP and Minor4th have been repeatedly attempting to reintroduce these bold changes into the article in what appears to be a violation of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS, considering that four different editors have already attempted to restore the stable version of the article and it appears even more than four have raised various objection regarding these desired changes on talk page. At this point, consensus appears clearly against the desired changes. Instead of continued edit warring on an article under discretionary sanctions, perhaps dispute resolution or an RfC could be considered by those desiring the changes, to see if at some point consensus can be attained for these bold changes, but clearly these changes should not be continued to be made absent consensus. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I could easily point out edit warring by a few other editors who have multiple reverts - many without any discussion on the talk page. I made a good faith attempt to actually discuss the individual sources and work collaboratively to figure out how to include them (or not) in the article.  No one has taken me up on that.  Instead - there are bare reverts and bald claims of violations: MEDRS, primary sources and POV and UNDUE.  Clearly this article has devolved into a battleground of 2 opposing factions.


 * Since my proposal for discussion and consensus building has been fruitless, now I am going to work on the content of that section, giving due weight to different research conclusions and striving to eliminate POV phrasing and parsed quotes that are misleading. I think the result will be a much more readable, encyclopedic article.  As it is, this article is trash -- it is a hodgepodge of competing OR and statistics; it has no flow at all and does not summarize general knowledge on the topic in any coherent fashion.


 * Please give me a couple of days to get this done. I will attempt to use the "in use" tag. When I'm done, if there is still a group crying UNDUE, MEDRS, NO PRIMARY SOURCES -- then it's time for dispute resolution, probably RfC.


 * Note that in the course of this 2 week edit war, not a single editor has attempted to improve the article in any way other than reverting.  I will attempt to do that now.  <b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 23:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Minor4th, declaring an article created via consensus of multiple editors (which btw didn't include me - I'm new) to be simply "trash", and saying that you personally plan to undertake a major re-write in the midst of all of this conflict, and also predicting others will "cry" that your planned rewrite violates various Wikipedia policies, honestly doesn't good, and it seems perhaps not the way to go at this point on an article covered by DS. Honestly, it seems more fruitful to me and less disruptive to address specific clear concise RfC questions such as: "should the content regarding which gender is at greater risk for intimate partner violence require secondary sourcing?" or "Is this section (provide link to text) giving undue weight to primary sources"?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Neither of those questions are neutrally worded, nor specific, clear, or concise. In addition, when an article is crap, it is crap. The writing in this article is extremely poor, with spelling and grammar errors that were only recently corrected by Bertaut. A call not to edit an article smacks of ownership when the editor proposing to rewrite the material is a subject matter expert on the socio-legal issues involved. Finally, as she noted above, not a single editor has attempted to improve the article. None could be persuaded to comment on specific parts of the article, nor in many cases to comment at all until today. Reverting without participating in an on-going discussion is the epitome of disruptive editing. GregJackP   Boomer!   00:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * GregJackP, could you please suggest what you believe would serve as a more neutral and concise RfC question to address the conflict, if you find my above suggested questions inadequate.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. Rewriting a controversial article in the midst of a major content dispute is a terrible idea, especially when you're already operating on the assumption that the new content you will add will continue to be contested. For you own sake, I would recommend holding off on the rewrite until this is resolved. Perhaps do a draft of your new version of the article at your sandbox, and ask people to comment on it rather than trying to rewrite content that people are already disagreeing about. Bertaut (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Have you two read the article lately? Checked its sources?  This article is exactly as I described.  I don't intend to substantively change the content - but the article deserves better writing.  I will make sure the injury asymmetry info stays in and is cited properly, and I am also going to give a mention to studies that come to different conclusions, although it will not look like it did before with several paragraphs including a single quote each.


 * I assume you're not telling me not to improve the article. Bertaut, if you want to make these improvements, please go ahead but the article should not remain in the condition it is presently in.<b class="nounderlines" style="border:1px solid #999;background:#fff"><span style="font-family:papyrus,serif"><b style="color:#000;font-size:110%">Minor</b><b style="color:#f00;font-size:80%">4th</b> </b> 00:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV does not require citing every difference of opinion in an article, it requires that Wikipedia reflect viewpoints that are significantly represented in reliable secondary sources. Gender symmetry in DV rates is a significant viewpoint (although far more often found in primary sources than secondary). Gender symmetry in injury rates is a fringe viewpoint (even Fiebert doesn't support it). Creating a list of primary sources that show injury symmetry in specific studies is original research and a violation of both WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY. Kaldari (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Article restored to last stable version before edit war
I just WP:BOLDLY restored the 21:48, 28 May 2015 version (last stable version before edit war). This version was stable from at least 16 May 2015 to 8 July 2015.

Rather than further edit warring, please continue to discuss contentious material and edits on the talk page and on the noticeboards where the content of this page is being discussed. Feel free to make the sort of edits that nobody will disagree with, and if someone does disagree and reverts your edit, follow WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT rather than edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - though the article appears to have been pretty much stable during that time period, I see a massive overuse of quotations from non-free sources in the version you restored :/. I don't have access or time to read through several of the sources that have been quoted from extensively, but in general I would never accept this many quotes from a student of mine.  Having had a couple semesters of grad IP law, I don't think it falls on the wrong side of the fair use balancing test, but as someone who has taught across half a dozen departments, any paper with this many significant direct quotes we would at least significantly ding, and likely make the student do over.  I don't think it violates WP:COPYVIO, but it definitely violates best practices and Non-free_content, especially as anyone with easy access to the sources could accurately paraphrase their viewpoints.  I suspect it also presents significant issues of undue weight to give such huge chunks of text to the opinion of one author who, although decently pedigreed, is much less cited that any major author writing on the topic.  Unless I have time to dig up the full text of the sources used, as well as my DV books (I haven't unpacked from a move yet) and rewrite the article tomorrow to not break Non-free_content, I'm going to revert you in a day or so as a violation of  Non-free_content.  I'm also not too confident that it is not an actual copyvio, because looking at the way US courts evaluate fair use - the quotes as used are definitely not transformative (which is usually considered the biggest factor,) the second is in our favor (quoting from academic journals almost always is,) the third is I suspect not in our favor (amount&substantiality,) and the fourth is (since the original product is noncommercial.) To be clear, I'm focusing on NFC and CV issues here rather than NPOV/weight, because they are the most significant from a policy standpoint.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kevin Gorman makes some reasonable points, but I am reluctant to wade into am article on a subject I know almost nothing about and try to fix the problems. Would someone familiar with the page please give it a go, avoiding the conentious areas that the edit warring was about? Alternatively, does anyone have a suggestion as to a better version to revert to? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What edit-war are you referring to? The only thing I can see is a poorly explained revert from your side, restoring contentious content that has pretty strong policy reasons not to be included. Kevin Gorman's points are very reasonable, and even in the removal of content editors were clear that it could be summarized and reintroduced. CFCF   💌 📧 08:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Guy Macon, please don't revert back to an older version. I don't see consensus to revert back that far. QuackGuru ( talk ) 17:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

– You seem to have reverted using rollback, which is incorrect procedure, which I believe you are very well aware of. I am listing this here because it obscures the edit from watchlists, and the edit you made has already prompted controversy. I implore you to self-revert in liue of any rational whatsoever – even your edit summary contradicts your actions – reinserting contentious material while at the same time warning others not to do so. Ping, who may not have seen this edit. CFCF  💌 📧 17:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I just went to self-delete and found that another editor beat me too it.


 * You (CFCF) are one of the participants in the edit war that caused me to revert to the last stable version, and thus you should refrain from reverting. Leave it to editors such as QuackGuru, who recently reverted me and was not involved in the edit war. (I am not saying QuackGuru was correct -- I still think that reverting to a stable version from before the edit war is a better choice, and that we should discuss that decision -- but he clearly reverted as someone who was not involved in the edit war. You (CFCF) need to get out of the reverting business and get into the discussing and seek if ing consensus business. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is silly. The edits appear to have been made in good faith and for good reasons, and you described your own initial revert as BOLD. Accusations of edit-warring are premature and un-called for at this point. Do you have an actual (policy-based) argument for the revert? Fyddlestix (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The last edits I can see in the article history that can be described as an edit war are from July. Guy - regardless of who reverted you, with your initial revert going back to a version that there are legitimate copyright concerns with and that included reverting an apparently uncontroversial edit by Kaldari who I have confidence would've checked both sources that stated "removing claim that is directly contradicted by both sources cited for it," I don't get why you would've used rollback to revert CFCF.  Although it's hardly a mortal offense since your initial revert had already drawn multiple eyes to this page, there is a reason why rollback's use is restricted beyond just any edit you disagree with - the combined lack of edit summary and marking the edit as minor would've hidden the edit from many users' watchlists.  Given how significantly I've historically been involved in this and related articles there's no way I would take administrative action re: actions on this page unless someone, like, totally blanks the page with no rationale or something, but in all honesty if the situation had escalated further and I had been an uninvolved admin reviewing a 3rr report that stemmed from it, I don't think I would've taken action against CFCF even if he had reverted you six times.  The combined fact that your revert (a) restored material that is in violation of [Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text]] even after the concern was raised, and (b) restored material that had previously uncontentiously been removed as unsupported by sources made using rollback a bad choice, and especially since NFC concerns had already been raised, made reverting CFCF at all without further discussion a suboptimal choice. Although luckily it didn't escalate to that point, (a) would've been a blanket license to break 3rr if the patrolling admin agreed it was an issue, and (b) draws close enough to other 3rr exemptions that I think I probably would've considered the two to amount to acceptable reasons for someone reverting you even beyond the normal number of acceptable number of reverts.


 * As a "not trying to be a neutral party" note - rolling over edits like Kaldari's really sucks for anyone ever trying to improve this article or any article in the related suite. Every time I've reviewed whether or not the sources cited supported the claims made in an article like this if I haven't looked at the article in a while, normally at least 20% of the sources cited simply don't support the claims they are currently being used to make.  Even if you thought reverting to an earlier version was broadly a good idea, removing Kaldari's change in the middle wasn't, because very few people take the time to verify sources to make sure they still support the claims that're being made. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Too many sources at the end of the section
"Other explanations for both male and female perpetrated IPV include psychopathology, anger, revenge, skill deficiency, head injuries, biochemical imbalances, feelings of powerlessness, lack of resources, and frustration.[94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101]" I think maybe the dated sources can be removed. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Misinterpretations

 * 1) In the estimation difficulties section, this article currently reads, "a 1997 report by the United States Department of Justice on violence related injuries treated in emergency departments identified that significantly fewer men than women disclose the identity of their attacker.[21]" However, that 1997 DOJ report is irrelevant to this article, because it's about all violence-related injuries treated in hospital emergency departments, not just intimate partner violence. For almost 1/3 of patients, data on the victim-offender relationship were missing. It says that relationship was unknown more often for males than for females, but it doesn't say why that information wasn't collected. One can't make any reasonable assumptions about the implications of that missing data in regards to DV against men.
 * 2) I've seen some old comments in this talk section about this 2010 CDC report. A few people seem to have misinterpreted the findings because it definitely says more women than men were victims of DV in the past 12 months and over their lifetime (see tables 4.1 and 4.2 on page 38). I wanted to point that out since it came up a few times and I didn't see a resolution, but it doesn't seem like it made it into the article as far as I can tell. I've never edited wikipedia before, so I'm not sure if I should wait for anyone to respond before deleting the sentence I mentioned in my first point. I'll wait a bit to see if anyone sees this. Permstrump (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence in question per your comments. Kaldari (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Estimates of male victimization
just reverted one of my edits and wrote in the edit summary that on pages 28 and 46, the source does support this claim: 1


 * Another report in 2008 by the National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence on the general population´s attitudes to domestic abuse found that the higher the education status of an individual, the less likely they were to accept a male could be a victim of domestic violence by a female. The report concluded that since there is little research in the area of female on male domestic violence, then students are unlikely to become familiar with such aggression.

However I re-read those pages and, once again, I did not find anything supporting the claims made in this article. This is what the sources say:


 * The higher the respondents’ education, the more likely he or she is to respond that women suffer more and less likely to believe that the impact does not differ between males and females.

Most respondents believed women suffer greater harm from domestic violence. This does not imply that the respondents didn't accept the fact that men could be victims of domestic violence by a female. There weren't any questions on the survey that measured this. If anything, the results imply that respondents were fully aware and accepting of the fact that men could be victims of DV by a female. For example:


 * In terms of slapping, a large majority (72 per cent) think that it is equally serious whether a man slaps a woman or a woman slaps a man.
 * Similarly the majority (66 per cent) felt that punching a partner is equally serious whether the perpetrator is a man or a woman.

I'm inclined to restore my original edit, which was to remove the text I quoted above. Permstrump (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the proposed wording is unsupported by the source. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

History of men's shelters in the UK
This is worth covering, and for the time being this article is the best place for it.

Men's refuges seem to have been created by women's refuge groups at least some of the time. They do not advertise themselves, presumably for the same reason that women's shelters do not.

Facts are hard to come by but this suggests that there were eight refuges in the UK in 2012.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC).

Minor edit on feminist theory
The current text says:

if female-perpetrated IPV is accepted, much of the foundational feminist theory behind domestic violence in general, specifically that IPV is an extension of patriarchal dominance, would be no longer valid.

I believe the sentence should read:

if female-perpetrated IPV is accepted, much of the foundational feminist theory behind domestic violence in general, specifically that IPV is an extension of patriarchal dominance, would be shown to be invalid.

The difference is that reality is what it is. It is our perception that must change to fit the facts, and the facts don't fit it is not our perception has become invalid. Rather it was always incorrect, it is just that it was not known at the time. A minor point, but I think a valid one. Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Tony.wallace.nz, and given the research disputing gender symmetry, I found that edit by you to be POV-pushing, which is why I reverted. But the text reads like an argument either way. So your edit doesn't really make the matter come across as invalid. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And I see you restored the POV edit. Oh well. Like I stated, it doesn't negate the research disputing gender symmetry. So it's not helping your argument anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not a POV issue. Just an integrity one. I have read some of this so called research and a lot of it is highly unbalanced and just reflects the lack of integrity of the authors. I am surprised you give it so much weight. Now that is a POV comment. Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Tony.wallace.nz, gender symmetry is highly debated and WP:NPOV is a policy we are supposed to adhere to. Accept it. The conflict tactics scale, which gender symmetry is mostly based on, is highly unbalanced and well criticized for it. Arguing that gender symmetry is fact is an argument; nothing more. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The best research supports gender symmetry. This best research are the studies that have good sampling methodologies, not the ones taken in womens refuges, or exhibit all the fraud exposed by Straus.Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And, to be clearer, many good scholarly sources note that how one defines "gender symmetry" is a matter of debate. If we are talking about "equivalent rates of unreported minor violence via situational altercation," as noted in this section at the Intimate partner violence article, that is one thing. If we are talking about gender symmetry to the extent that many men's rights activists take the matter, that is something entirely different. Any editor I see violating the WP:NPOV policy is an editor I will very likely be reverting and reporting to WP:ANI if the misbehavior continues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Flyer I have been away at a meeting. I am disappointed that you saw it fit to remove my last post here, although it will be saved in the history. I had not thought there was any misunderstanding of the term "gender symmetry" in the terms of our discussion. But on reflection there are several ways it could be defined. Probably the fairest would be to say highly correlated data between genders. Researchers who find these highly correlated data still do find statistically significant, but generally minor gender differences in patterns of both perpetration and victimhood. I would suggest some of your comments also violate WP:NPOV, particularly in relation to the minor edit I made that you originally reverted. As I said and you removed, the best studies find this "gender symmetry", and probably the best of the lot is the Otago Longitudingal Study. My comments about feminists not being concerned about facts but more about ideology is supported by the Straus article in quoted in the main page, so I think those comments were probably fair but unwise. Please do not delete this comment or I will report you to WP:ANI. Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Where did I remove your last post? Provide a WP:Diff link showing that I did. As for my comments, none of them violate WP:NPOV. Furthermore, WP:NPOV is about what goes in the article. It is not about talk page arguments. Either way, you are wasting your time arguing with me about the existence of "gender symmetry." You will also be wasting your time reporting me, but feel free to try. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Women
Is this sentence relevant?: "Socio-cultural norms regarding the treatment of men by women, and women by men" The article is about male victims, not male perpetrators (whatever the sex of their victims) nor women. Apokrif (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I tried rewording it but...the statement is such a truism that it's almost meaningless, in addition to being half off topic. Literally every society related article could include the statement that norms differ geographically. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The article is about male victims, but it includes discussion of male perpetrators when the topic of gender symmetry and women committing domestic violence as a means of self-defense are discussed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Domestic violence against men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016110040/http://www.vawnet.org/assoc_files_vawnet/gendersymmetry.pdf to http://www.vawnet.org/assoc_files_vawnet/gendersymmetry.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19960507&slug=2327880

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)