Talk:Intimate partner violence

More recent research pointing toward symmetry of violence
I never edited before so I am not sure about it but couldn't the following links be added into the symmetry section?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3100370/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275599262_Domestic_violence_is_most_commonly_reciprocal
 * The article says, "The most common but less injurious form of intimate partner violence is situational couple violence (also known as situational violence), which is conducted by men and women nearly equally,[6][4][7] and is more likely to occur among younger couples, including adolescents (see teen dating violence) and those of college age.[7][15] Another form of violence, in which both partners in the relationship engage in controlling and violent behavior, is called mutual violent control."
 * So this is already covered. SangXurWan (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Lesbian and gay relationships
There seems to be no mention of the statistics regarding IPV in lesbian and in gay relationships. I would like to add a section on this important population in communities. Any thoughts? Harrow1234 (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as you have at least one reliable WP:SECONDARY source to discuss I don't see why not. Generalrelative (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say be careful allowing this, Generalrelative. Certain factions like to use IPV information on lesbians to make gender symmetry claims about how women are just as violent as men are. The information on gay and lesbian IPV isn't even consistent. There are more challenges to researching it than there are for researching heterosexual IPV. Nowearskirts (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If mentioned it should be noted that the rates reported are of lifetime violence. Much of lesbian IPV is precious male partners. PlainJaneAgain (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

When to focus on a single country
I don't think the top of the article is the place to focus on a single country. So I removed the content focused on the United States from the top. The two users who were in dispute over the content are both no longer available for comment. SangXurWan (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Politics in research
Editors needed on this subject to clarify and elaborate on intimate partner violence subtypes and their relative probability.

Mutually coercive control and situational couple violence are not confirmed subtypes, nor is there a consensus on their existence.

Significant issues have been reported in almost all studies with self reports.

Cannot confirm sources with no links, some referencing texts are suspicious. PlainJaneAgain (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Disputed edits
I ask to discuss their preferred edits here rather than edit warring. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Adding balanced factual information from the relevant view points is necessary to understand the topic and prevent incorrect statements/interpretations from occurring. Risky texter (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * These edits did not appear (to me) to comply with our policy on WP:NPOV, nor did they appear (to me) to be encyclopedic in WP:TONE. Would you please click on those policy/guideline links and give them a read? Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Lacking the possible and not-infrequent experiences of 50% of the population is not neutral. How would you like to word it so that this information can be added? Risky texter (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It is simply disruptive for other editors to remove content with the reason "It is not encyclopaediac in tone. Read WP:TONE." without explaining how the text displays such issue, so I am sorry that you got that.
 * The reason that the content isn't properly worded is that it says in wikivoice that the duluth model is sexist. The reason this isn't good is because many people believe that it isn't, so saying outright that it is sexist does not adequately represent all views on the topic. The best way to improve the content would be to say something such as "(blank) criticises the Duluth model, saying that ..." instead of "the Duluth model is sexist". —Panamitsu (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You mention a, to me, very important subject, and I like your supplied wording a lot more actually, I'll reform it tomorrow.
 * P.S. something like "many people believe that it isn't, so saying outright that it is sexist does not adequately represent all views on the topic" isn't mentioned in the WP:TONE, because the flat earthers would disagree with the intro to the subject on flat earth ;) Risky texter (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's would be in WP:NPOV. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Difference under gender symmetry not clear
"women's physical violence is more likely than men's violence to be motivated by self-defense and fear, whereas men's physical violence is more likely than women's to be driven by control motives"

This doesn't really seem to establish a clear difference. Self-defence out of fear can be a control motive/a control motive can be looked at as self-defence out of fear. Can this be clarified or is this all the source provides? Ybllaw (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)