Talk:Domestic violence in the United Kingdom

Article of potential interest
Unsure where it would fit into the current structure, but the NYT ran an article on a notable miss the Lincolnshire Police had on a domestic violence case that ended in a death: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/10/world/europe/uk-domestic-abuse.html SnowFire (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject banners
This article was inexplicably removed from the Crime WikiProject, on 11 August 2021, so I have added back the WikiProject Crime banner in addition to the WikiProject British crime banner. I notice that there are quality statistics for Crime-related articles but none for British crime-related articles, which is considered inactive for statistical purposes. What this means is that unless a British crime-related article also has a WikiProject Crime banner it will NOT be counted or assessed as a crime-related article. Inclusion in one project does not confer membership of the other project. Consequently, the two projects should be seen as entirely separate and unrelated. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Was just a mistake, feel free to just mention it in the edit summary if you want to revert that kind of stuff in the future. I will say that the British Crime Wikiproject seems like it should probably be turned into a task force based off a quick look at the discussion there, but that's beyond the scope of this article of course.  SnowFire (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the confirmation. I have previously had my edits reverted without an explanation of what I got wrong, so felt I ought explain myself, too. I was also following the guideline for the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, since I had reverted your edit, I wanted to also explain my thinking in more detail, since I didn't know if a simple mistake had been made, if there was a misunderstanding about what effects the project banners have, or if removal from the Crime WikiProject was intentional. I, for one, am still unclear about which "Crime" banners contribute to the Crime-related quality metrics, and which don't. The existing documentation is not very clear about this, unfortunately. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Revisionism
A little moaning, because I feel compelled to moan. But some of the history seems a little "revisionist". I'm just reading a book by a historic law scholar now and it seems like the rule of thumb was dead by at least 1750 and men were being arrested to prevent beatings from 1500. I'm updating it, and that's fine, and this is wikipedia working... but it's a little annoying that activist groups are rewritting history - probably through a sort of "supporting historical evidence chinese whispers" and then this leaks onto wikipedia as fact.

The gist I'm getting is that such abuse was always disapproved of but was allowed for economic reasons (the mother being dependent on the father) or through different notions of authority (e.g. the father being the authority responsible for this family) or the church being responsible for family affairs. In this framing reduction in domestic abuse is more the result of increasing wealth - and perhaps the reduction in the role of the authoritative role of the church ad the family - which may have occurred for cultural reasons or merely because it was less "necessary" in the light of this wealth. There seems to be an odd rewriting going on where everyonne thought violence was okay until feminist activists in the 1970s realised it wasn't. I'm sure they did some good but so did the entirity of the rest of society.

Anyway, this is getting into WP:FORUM territory, so I shall "shut up and edit". I suppose the only valid point is to bear in mind that there is a strand of historic revisionism emanating from activist feminist literature (and no doubt reinforced by the interplay between activism and scholarship in this area) that we should watch for. Talpedia (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Shelters section
The section reads like an attack piece, so I have flagged the specific issues to ease rectification. Some more diverse sources in the section would probably help to resolve the issue a bit too. I haven't just fixed it as I'm not very familiar with the topic area, and don't feel comfortable with my abilities of actually rewriting those sections neutrally. I also removed a bit of unnecessary "poor men" stuff from the end, which looked like WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 03:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)