Talk:Intimate partner violence/Archive 2

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology
This is a recent, high-quality source that could be useful for establishing the relative weight of different facets of the topic, but full-text access requires a subscription. Posting the citation here for any interested editors:



—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS
, seems like you are gaming the rules to remove a single source (an article from the Psychology of Men and Masculinity) from an article of which's reference list is full of similar journals. The content isn't even close to the core what is meant with WP:MEDRS's biomedical information but rather social effects of seeking help for IPV-related PTSD. So why this source problematic for men's experience related to IPV, but the reference #33 (Journal of Family Violence) from the previous sentece isn't problematic for describing women's experiences from IPV? Do you want to minimize the coverage IPV against men or what is the gist? --Pudeo (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The material places undue weight on "intimate terrorism" against men, which sources agree is minor compared to controlling violence perpetrated by men against women. There is already an article on Domestic violence against men – that would be a more appropriate place for this information, although primary sources such as research papers should be used with caution, since results are often not replicated by later studies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Sewblon, regarding this and this, we've been over this type of thing at the Domestic violence article and the Domestic violence against men article. We are not to give WP:Undue weight to matters, such as a single study that conflicts with what the literature generally states. In the adolescent case, for example, sources more often report on adolescent boys and girls (in heterosexual relationships) engaging in IPV at about equal rates than they do on girls perpetrating more IPV. And, as has been stated before, we should typically avoid WP:Primary sources for domestic violence material. WP:MEDRS is clear. No, I should not add primary-sourced material to counter your primary-sourced material. No, I shouldn't add review material to counter your primary-sourced material. Your primary-sourced material does not get to go up against review material. You keep trying to make it seem like men and women commit domestic violence at equal rates, when quality sources on the topic and the general literature are clear that the "equal rates" aspect, when found, only applies to "minor partner violence" (and, for adolescent couples, girls are also more likely to use less dangerous forms of physical violence), which is why a number of quality sources dispute the idea of gender symmetry. As for the "motives of women" material you added, I changed it to wording we use in the main article. But, really, that section (in this article) is about gender symmetry. It should not be going off on a tangent about how women define self-defense...to try to counter material about men and women equally committing intimate partner violence, in part, due to women frequently engaging in violent resistance as a means of self-defense against their violent male partners (except for maybe mentioning retaliation being difficult to distinguish from self-defense, which I added). Also, your wording of "the way women define self-defense is inconsistent from study to study" was misleading since research consistently shows that women state that their use of self-defense was out of protection or fear, regardless of their idea of protection sometimes differing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 Reborn "In the adolescent case, for example, sources more often report on adolescent boys and girls (in heterosexual relationships) engaging in IPV at about equal rates than they do on girls ::perpetrating more IPV. And, as has been stated before, we should typically avoid WP:Primary sources" Ok. I am sorry I tried to use a primary source. But where are the reliable secondary sources that contradict it? I can't ::find them. " You keep trying to make it seem like men and women commit domestic violence at equal rates, when quality sources on the topic and the general literature are clear that the "equal rates" aspect, when found, only ::applies to "minor partner violence" (and, for adolescent couples, girls are also more likely to use less dangerous forms of physical violence)" Just from the Bair-Merret source: "Studies report that women use as much or more ::physical intimate partner violence (IPV) as men." Sewblon (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sewblon, we have reliable sources on the matter, such as this one, in the Domestic violence article. With regard to girls committing more IPV, sources on IPV among adolescents more commonly report or focus on boys and girls committing near equal rates of IPV while also noting that the boys are likelier to use more serious or severe forms of IPV and that the girls are likelier to need more medical attention (physical and/or mental) in those cases. Yes, that source I just pointed to says that some studies report that girls are likelier to engage greater physical and/or psychological aggression than males, but the keyword there is "some studies," and the source also clearly reports on the equal rates aspect and girls suffering more. You, however, used a primary source to only report on one aspect of the literature -- girls committing more IPV. It's easy enough to locate sources on Google Books that make it clear that girls, just like women, are more likely than boys to use less dangerous forms of physical violence in heterosexual relationships and that girls, just like women, suffer from more serious injuries from IPV in heterosexual relationships. No one should be adding false balance to these domestic violence articles. See the quality sources I cited on this topic? The literature is very clear that women are significantly more impacted/suffer significantly more than men do from intimate partner violence, and that the idea of gender symmetry is questionable because of this. Single studies, even if mentioned in a review, don't trump what the literature generally states. This is why the WP:Due weight policy is so important. With this edit, you added a report to the Domestic violence in same-sex relationships article about "gay men [being] close to two times (1.7) more likely to require medical attention and 16 times more likely to suffer injury as compared to individuals who did not identify as gay men." Well, since the partners are male, it's not surprising that they are likelier to suffer injury than female same-sex couples. After all, men generally being physically stronger than women and/or using more violent/serious forms of physical violence, is why women are likelier than men to suffer physical injury or die from IPV in heterosexual relationships. But that piece you added is a single report. You, none of us, should be relying on a single report for domestic violence/intimate partner violence information. And as for this piece you recently added to the Intimate partner violence article, there is no need to state that "disagreement remains about gender a/symmetry in conjugal violence"; this is evident. Also, scholars are in agreement on some things (as the section notes), such as women usually suffering more injuries or being more likely to die from IPV in heterosexual relationships. I'll remove the "disagreement remains about gender a/symmetry in conjugal violence" part. On a side note: Since this article is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be pinged for replies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I am giving undue weight to these sources. the source from Razera was a systemic review published in 2017. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/pusf/v22n3/2175-3563-pusf-22-03-401.pdf The report I cited was based on 1700 peer-reviewed studies. https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/ So I think that these sources accurately reflect the current state of knowledge. So, I feel that my edits should be restored. Sewblon (talk) 00:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, its not some random report. Its sponsored by the journal of Partner Abuse. http://www.springerpub.com/partner-abuse.html Sewblon (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding this and edits you've made similar to that one at domestic violence articles, you are giving undue weight since edits like those are focusing on single studies or single reports and the literature generally does not state that women commit more IPV than men; it generally states the opposite. Do you not understand WP:Due weight? And there is not as much support in the literature for gender symmetry as there is for gender asymmetry. I did not remove your Razera addition. I cut your unnecessary "disagreement remains about gender a/symmetry in conjugal violence" sentence. The section in question is already clear that a gender symmetry debate exists, but, like the section also states, "research on gender symmetry acknowledges asymmetrical aspects of IPV, which show that men use more violent and often deadly means of IPV." If you were trying to state that gender asymmetry is debated in the sense that some sources state that women commit more IPV than men, that is not what the vast majority of sources on IPV state, and I don't see that the Razera source states that either. What either of us feels reflects current knowledge means nothing on Wikipedia. And domesticviolenceresearch.org is not a WP:Reliable source for this information; so it's best that you don't cite it in arguments on Wikipedia. And "sponsored by" means nothing. Hamel has been misused times before. In the Domestic violence article, we cite a review by Hamel appropriately. Furthermore, aspects of Hamel's research are contradicted by later reviews or overviews mentioned in the section, and that addition doesn't even fit with that paragraph. And it's also best to not use abridged versions of sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for sighting the PDF of domestic violence at a glance. I see that citing an abridged version of a document from a .org is not acceptable for biomedical information. However, the source from Hamel and Russel I cited was an academic book from Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-5871-5_10 It isn't abridged. It seems reliable. So why can't I cite it? Sewblon (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding this, it's redundant to the review/text I added, and the review/text I added better summarizes the matter. Hamel mainly finds gender symmetry "in the prevalence of physical abuse and most types of emotional abuse and control" when partner abuse is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first. Otherwise, Hamel is clear that it's asymmetrical. Have you not read enough of Hamel's research, or are you just focusing on aspects you like without thinking of giving it proper context? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The source that you mentioned didn't mention "impact on children and the family system." or "the prevalence of physical stalking and sexual coercion." So I don't think its redundant. So why not cite both sources? Sewblon (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's redundant when it comes to the asymmetrical aspect. The only difference in that regard is that your addition went into specific detail (like stalking) instead of summarizing with "physically harmed" and "psychological problems." The wording of "physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, and experiences subsequent psychological problems" takes care of all that you added with regard to the asymmetrical aspect for women. The only reason you added the piece you did is because you want to give the impression of gender symmetry. You added, "Russel found that partner abuse is gender symmetrical in the prevalence of physical abuse and most types of emotional abuse and control." And yet the review text I added is clear that stuff like this is typically found when partner abuse is defined broadly and that partner abuse is otherwise asymmetrical in that women suffer more. Intimate terrorism, for example (which is also noted above), is something that men do significantly more than women. The research is consistent on the fact that men are more controlling. Your addition of "emerging research also suggests that abuse is symmetrical in the impact that emotional abuse has on partners" is contradicted by most of the literature being clear that women suffer more emotional/psychological issues from IPV. Even the text you added stated that it is asymmetrical for women with regard to fear. As for "its impact on children and the family system," what were you trying to state? That partner abuse is symmetrical in terms of how it affects children? I noted before (above) that the general literature is clear that the "equal rates" aspect is related to "minor partner violence." It's also related to defining IPV broadly. Like this source I cited at the Domestic violence article talk page states, "Although some U.S. studies have suggested that IPV is perpetrated equally by men and women, a deeper exploration of the facts reveals that this is simply untrue. There may be equal rates of conflict instigated by men and women, but when it comes to violence that rises to the level of criminal activity, offenders are overwhelmingly male." Context is important. The text I added in place of yours gives important context by stating "when defined broadly." On your talk page, you noted just reading the abstract for a source. I'm certain that you generally do this when adding study or review material and that you actually aren't familiar with most of or all of what these sources state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "when it comes to violence that rises to the level of criminal activity, offenders are overwhelmingly male." Factually incorrect. It doesn't matter how badly you hurt someone. Hitting someone when it isn't in self-defense is still assault. Most of the sources that I can find indicate that when you look at all physical attacks, women and men hit each other at about equal rates. See "Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence and implications for prevention and treatment." by Murray A. Straus "The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project: Implications for Law Enforcement Responses to Domestic Violence." by John Hamel and Brenda L. Russel, A 2007 study of over 2,400 Spanish high school students found that girls are substantially more likely than boys to exhibit physical aggression (41.9% vs. 31.7%), including higher rates of hitting/kicking (13.4% vs 5.3%), slapping (12.4% vs 3.1%) and shoving/grabbing (22.5% vs 11.9%). See Munoz-Rivas, M. J., Grana, J. L., O'Leary, K. D., & Gonzalez, M. P. (2007). Aggression in adolescent dating relationships: prevalence, justification, and health consequences. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 298–304.
 * A 2000 meta analysis found that men inflict 65% of domestic injuries, but women are more likely (d=-.05) to use any act of violence or aggression. See Archer, J. (2000)."Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review". Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680. and Bair-Merritt, Megan H.; Crowne, Sarah Shea; Thompson, Darcy A.; Sibinga, Erica; Trent, Maria; Campbell, Jacquelyn (October 2010). "Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women's motivations". Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Sage. 11 (4): 178–189. doi:10.1177/1524838010379003. PMC 2994556. PMID 20823071. Sewblon (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about those extra colons. Not sure where those came from. Sewblon (talk) 04:23, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Your "factually incorrect" argument misses the point of what those authors are stating. You surely know what they mean -- that women are harmed significantly more than men are from IPV and that men are charged for more serious forms of IPV. Women are known to slap more than men, but a slap is not given anywhere close to the same weight in law as strangling (sometimes called "choking") is. Strangling is commonly considered an attempt on one's life, or something that is likely to result in severe harm or death, and it is more characteristic of males. In any case, the literature is consistent in stating that women are significantly more impacted by/suffer significantly more than men do from intimate partner violence. The literature is consistent in stating that IPV disproportionately affects women. Editors recently went over this at the Domestic violence talk page and the consensus is clear there that this is what the literature generally states. Your "when you look at all physical attacks, women and men hit each other at about equal rates" argument is something I've already addressed above by noting "minor partner violence" and "defined broadly." It's why I noted that context matters and that the idea of gender symmetry is debated. Your argument about adolescent girls is also something I already addressed above. We do not go by things like "A 2007 study of over 2,400 Spanish high school students." A different editor explained this type of thing to you at your talk page, and you indicated that you understood. It seems to me that you either do not understand or don't care; so you keep referring to single studies like that one. Straus and Archer's research is significantly debated. The "Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women's motivations" source is cited in both the Domestic violence article and in this one. In the Domestic violence article, we state, "A 2010 systematic review of the literature on women's perpetration of IPV found that anger, self-defense and retaliation were common motivations but that distinguishing between self-defense and retaliation was difficult." In the Intimate partner violence article, we state, "A 2010 systematic review published in the journal of Trauma Violence Abuse found that the common motives for female on male IPV were anger, a need for attention, or as a response to their partner's violence." We also state, "A 2010 systematic review of the literature on women's perpetration of IPV, however, found that distinguishing between self-defense and retaliation was difficult." So I'm not sure why you cited that review above. The research is still consistent in reporting that self-defense is a big or a main motive for why women commit IPV and that women are likelier than men to use IPV for self-defense. Self-defense is given consideration in law for valid reasons. A person hitting someone to be controlling is obviously not the same thing as a person hitting someone to protect oneself from physical harm. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the problem is that we need to distinguish between symmetry and asymmetry in frequency and symmetry and asymmetry in effect. I agree with you that the effect of intimate partner violence mostly falls on women. Straus and Hamel both pointed this out in their research. But if you just go by frequency of assaults, women strike men at the same rate or higher rate than men. Bair, Merrit confirmed this. There are more studies that show women using violence in self-defense than men. But for both men and women, intimate partner violence in self-defense is much less frequent than violence not in self-defense. So that shouldn't affect  the way we present the issue too much. See Hamel and Russel for that. My point in all this is the fact that women are more likely to be injured or killed by intimate partner violence is not a reason to ignore or hide the fact that women hit men at the same rate, or more, than men hit women. Sewblon (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The term I take issue with is "criminal activity." Criminal law is less about results than it is about intent. If I punch you in the face, its a crime whether I manage to put you in the hospital or not. The fact that men are more likely to injure women is irrelevant to the legal side of things. The legal side of things cares about who hits whom with intent to harm and how frequently. Sewblon (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What we need to do, and what we do at Wikipedia, is follow the literature with WP:Due weight. I've noted above that the literature is clear that women are significantly more impacted by/suffer significantly more than men do from intimate partner violence. That should not be undermined with information about the highly debated idea of gender symmetry, and certainly not with single study information to support the idea of gender symmetry. Gender symmetry should get its due weight in the domestic violence articles, but it should not be given equal weight; it should not get the same weight as the sources stating that there is no equality in IPV when comparing men and women in heterosexual relationships because of the overwhelming asymmetrical aspects. It shouldn't get weight in a way that implies that men are as affected by IPV as women are. Sources (like Hamel) stating that men and women commit IPV at equal rates have been known to qualify that aspect, or other sources often qualify that aspect, with the statement that equal rates are found in terms of minor partner violence. Outside of that (minor partner violence), IPV is not equal among the sexes. And some sources challenge any equal aspect among the sexes. No editor should be trying to challenge the asymmetrical aspects with a mention of gender symmetry as if the gender symmetry aspect has no "but" factor to it; that is the problem I have with your edits at domestic violence articles. You look for ways to create false balance on the topic and make it seem as though men and women are equally affected by IPV, or that women are just as much of a problem or more of a problem with regard to IPV in heterosexual relationships. They aren't. Even among adolescents, it's girls who suffer far more (like I noted above). Painting boys as more so the victims, especially given the sources reporting on research indicating that boys and girls commit IPV at equals rates, but that girls suffer significantly more, is misleading.


 * You stated, "But for both men and women, intimate partner violence in self-defense is much less frequent than violence not in self-defense." I have read much of the research, and not just or mostly abstracts, and I have not seen that to be the case for women. I don't look at single studies on the matter. I look at secondary sources and tertiary sources, and some of those include reviews. The research shows that self-defense is often the primary motive or one of the top motives for women who commit IPV, but that some women define self-defense differently (for example, the retaliation aspect or the preemptive aspect). Fear is the other big motive, and that fear is often intertwined with self-defense or the belief that the act of IPV is self-defense. Men commit IPV for control and to physically harm far more than women do. Many or most boys and men who are hit by girls or women in these relationships express no fear at the situation. They often don't feel that the girls or women were trying to harm them by, say, a slap to the arm. They commonly shrug off the acts. It's not the same for girls and women. Of course, there are men who are in danger from their female intimate partners with regard to IPV and deal with similar abuse that women deal with. Or they aren't in danger, but it's the woman who is the truly abusive one while the man either just takes the abuse or engages in IPV for protection, but they are in the significant minority. Going by WP:Due weight is not hiding anything. See how this section started off? With talk of intimate terrorism against men? It happens to men, yes, but significantly less than it happens to women.


 * As for criminal activity, self-defense is an important aspect of intent when it comes to hitting someone. If a man punched a woman in the face just because (for whatever controlling reason he had), and the woman punched the man in the face for self-defense, that matters to the law and to the general public. So does slapping someone vs. strangling someone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not cherry-picking sources to create a false-balance. The sources that state that women hit men at equal rates that men hit women are a systemic review from Straus, a meta-analyses from Bair-Merrit, and an academic book from Hamel. All reliable secondary sources. The thing about both men and women committing IPV not in self-defense more commonly than they do it in self-defense is from Straus and Hamel. The most recent review of the literature I could find, the one from 2017 from Razera states that the literature does not agree on whether violence is gender-symmetrical or asymmetrical. You are making it look more cut and dried than it is. and Yes, I have actually read these sources all the way through. I haven't just been reading abstracts. Sources: 1. Josiane Razera, Icaro Bonamigo, Denise Falcke. "Intimate Partner Violence and Gender A/Symmetry: An Integrative Literature Review." Psico-USF, Bragança Paulista, v. 22, n. 3, p. 401-412, set./dez. 2017. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/pusf/v22n3/2175-3563-pusf-22-03-401.pdf. 2. "The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge Project: Implications for Law Enforcement Responses to Domestic Violence" By Hamel and Russel. Chapter 10. 3. "Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence and implications for prevention and treatment." by Murray A. Straus. 4. Bair-Merritt, Megan H.; Crowne, Sarah Shea; Thompson, Darcy A.; Sibinga, Erica; Trent, Maria; Campbell, Jacquelyn (October 2010). "Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women's motivations". Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Sage. 11 (4): 178–189. doi:10.1177/1524838010379003. PMC 2994556. PMID 20823071.Sewblon (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You are cherry-picking sources to create a false balance. See this edit where you added a primary source about a single study focused on adolescents, which you used to paint boys as more so the victims, even though there are sources reporting on research indicating that boys and girls commit IPV at equals rates...but that girls suffer significantly more? See this message that Jytdog left for you on your talk page about a source, noting to you that it is not secondary? See the "A 2007 study of over 2,400 Spanish high school students" source you pointed to above to try and argue your point? Like I stated, you look for ways to create false balance on the topic and make it seem as though men and women are equally affected by IPV, or that women are just as much of a problem or more of a problem with regard to IPV in heterosexual relationships. You are never about presenting what the literature states as a whole. For you, it is always about men as victims and trying to "balance" material by adding whatever about women supposedly being just as much the problem or more so the problem. If it wasn't about this for you, you would not have, for example, added this or that adolescent study.


 * As for the rest of your latest comment, I do not see why I should repeat myself. The literature is consistent in stating that self-defense is often the primary motive or one of the top motives for women who commit IPV (with some sources noting that some women define self-defense differently). Straus or Hamel deviating from such reports does not change that. We go by WP:Due weight. Straus's research on IPV, because it's based on the highly criticized conflict tactics scale, is very much debated. You know that. And yet you keep citing or pointing to Straus as though Straus's research is without much criticism. Hamel is in the article, but with appropriate context. Hamel is clear that the "equal rates" assertion only applies when IPV is defined broadly, without important context (like why the person hit the other), which is the same issue many have had with the conflict tactics scale. Razera stating that the literature does not agree on whether violence is gender symmetrical or asymmetrical is not a new statement in the field of IPV, given that a gender symmetry debate exists, which the article notes. But the scholars (including those reporting on gender symmetry) are very clear that there is no gender symmetry for most aspects of IPV. Hamel makes that very clear as well by noting that if one examines who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, and experiences subsequent psychological problems, domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims. I doubt that Razera's statement applies to those unequal aspects. And if it does, Razera is wrong; the literature does not agree that IPV is symmetrical across the board; in fact, it's explicit in saying that it isn't. In the article, it's currently stated that "The theory that women perpetrate intimate partner violence (IPV) at roughly the same rate as men has been termed 'gender symmetry.' " Well, if going by that definition of gender symmetry, Razera surely is not speaking of the asymmetrical aspects being symmetrical. And again, I do not see why you are pointing to "Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women's motivations." We've already been over that. You may not have just been reading the abstracts, but I doubt that you've been reading the full source most of the time. I don't see what there is left for me to state to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that both physical and psychological harm of domestic violence disproportionately falls on women. I speak only of the rates at which men and women commit it. Every reliable secondary source states that if you just count the strikes, men and women hit each other at about the same rate. "The literature is consistent in stating that self-defense is often the primary motive or one of the top motives for women who commit IPV (with some sources noting that some women define self-defense differently)." This is false. Like Hamel said, for both men and women, most IPV that they commit is not in self-defense. Sewblon (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "You are cherry-picking sources to create a false balance. See this edit where you added a primary source about a single study focused on adolescents, which you used to paint boys as more so the victims, even though there are sources reporting on research indicating that boys and girls commit IPV at equals rates...but that girls suffer significantly more? See this message that Jytdog left for you on your talk page about a source, noting to you that it is not secondary? See the "A 2007 study of over 2,400 Spanish high school students" source you pointed to above to try and argue your point? Like I stated, you look for ways to create false balance on the topic and make it seem as though men and women are equally affected by IPV, or that women are just as much of a problem or more of a problem with regard to IPV in heterosexual relationships. You are never about presenting what the literature states as a whole. For you, it is always about men as victims and trying to "balance" material by adding whatever about women supposedly being just as much the problem or more so the problem. If it wasn't about this for you, you would not have, for example, added this or that adolescent study." I am sorry that I used primary sources. But I didn't know of any secondary sources that contradicted them. So from my perspective that was all acting in good faith. You can accuse me of cherry-picking data and creating a false balance all you want. I believe that you believe that. But it won't convince me of anything because I know that I was trying to accurately present the facts. Sewblon (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * " I doubt that Razera's statement applies to those unequal aspects. And if it does, Razera is wrong; the literature does not agree that IPV is symmetrical across the board; in fact, it's explicit in saying that it isn't. In the article, it's currently stated that "The theory that women perpetrate intimate partner violence (IPV) at roughly the same rate as men has been termed 'gender symmetry.' " Well, if going by that definition of gender symmetry, Razera surely is not speaking of the asymmetrical aspects being symmetrical. And again, I do not see why you are pointing to "Why do women use intimate partner violence? A systematic review of women's motivations." We've already been over that. You may not have just been reading the abstracts, but I doubt that you've been reading the full source most of the time. I don't see what there is left for me to state to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)" The Razera source was a meta-analyses and its the most recent one I could find. I read the entire thing. If you think that I have misinterpreted it. Or that they are wrong, then the burden of proof is on you. The most recent scholarship is the most reliable scholarship. The interpretation of the actual author of a meta-analysis trumps the interpretation of an editor. Sewblon (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This is degenerating into a general discussion of the topic. What is the edit you want to make, related to what you are discussing here? Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I would like for the page to say that, as per Hamel and Russel, most IPV committed by both men and women is not in self-defense. https://web.archive.org/web/20181011031800/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287265042_The_Partner_Abuse_State_of_Knowledge_Project_Implications_for_Law_Enforcement_Responses_to_Domestic_Violence. Also, I would like for it to say that some literature finds symmetry, some finds asymmetry, and other literature finds that men commit more sexual coercion whereas women commit more psychological violence, as per Razera: "Intimate Partner Violence and Gender A/Symmetry: An Integrative Literature Review." Psico-USF, Bragança Paulista, v. 22, n. 3, p. 401-412, set./dez. 2017. Sewblon (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sewblon, what I've stated about self-defense is not false. Nothing I have stated about the research is false. Not every overview or review agrees with everything Hamel has stated on the topic of IPV. Unlike you, I don't just look at what one source (including what one review) states, and automatically hold it up as undisputed fact, especially since sources (including reviews) may disagree with each other. I look at the literature as a whole. If the source is consistent with what the literature generally reports (as made clear by a number of overviews and reviews), then it's safe for me to hold it up as fact or at least as something that has general support and should get more weight than significantly less supported research. You say that you "didn't know of any secondary sources that contradicted them." What? That is because you are too busy looking for certain sources to present a certain narrative. I already told you above that it's easy enough to locate sources on Google Books. Google Books has academic sources that go over the literature. And given all the data out there about teen dating violence, you must be looking in limited places to only come up with something like "A 10 year study of teens in British Columbia found that boys experience greater rates of dating violence victimization than girls.", and to then conclude, from just that one study, that there is no research out there stating otherwise. Again, you were told on your talk page by a different editor (I'll go ahead and name him this time: Grayfell) that you should not be looking at a source about a specific region of the world, like Mexico (or in this case, British Columbia), to present data in a general way or as though it adds anything except telling us about a matter in that specific region. And even in that case, it's just one study and there are no doubt other studies that state differently, which is why we look to overviews and reviews so that we can present data accurately. There was no excuse to use that "A 10 year study of teens" source. You do stuff like this, stating that you didn't know of any other research, and you expect me to believe that you are well-read on the topic of IPV and that you are not focused on presenting a certain narrative? Well, I don't.


 * As for the Razera source and your suggested material, I do not understand what you are talking about with regard to Razera. All I relayed is that Razera "stating that the literature does not agree on whether violence is gender symmetrical or asymmetrical is not a new statement in the field of IPV, given that a gender symmetry debate exists, which the article notes." So there is no point in adding that statement by Razera. The only reason that I see that you want to add that Razera statement is to give the impression that the literature is in disagreement on whether or not IPV is symmetrical across the board. It's not, and Razera does not state that it is. I read the source these past hours I was away from Wikipedia. Furthermore, there are reviews and overviews in the article that make it clear that IPV is not symmetrical across the board. Let me be very clear to you on this about reviews and meta-analyses: One review or meta-analysis, no matter how new it is, does not trump what the overall literature states. Like WP:MEDDATE makes clear, "While the most-recent reviews include later research results, this does not automatically give more weight to the most recent review (see recentism)." Reviews and meta-analyses do not always agree with each other, and authoritative organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) can disagree with a review or meta-analysis in some aspects. We go by WP:Due weight on this site, something you repeatedly fail to understand. You can see at the Domestic violence article that we do not simply state that "Murray A. Straus concluded that most IPV perpetrated by women against men is not motivated by self-defense"; we report on different conclusions on the self-defense aspect, including on what the literature most often finds. As for your suggestion that we state "some literature finds symmetry, some finds asymmetry," why should we state that when the beginning of this section is already clear on that? So I disagree with including that redundancy. It also appears that you want to add such a piece to make it seem like reports on gender symmetry and gender asymmetry are about even. It's your false balance thing again, which is why you suggested "some." If we note that "other literature finds that men commit more sexual coercion whereas women commit more psychological violence," I question stating that in Wikipedia's voice since the literature on IPV has more often stated that men engage in more psychological violence than women; intimate terrorism is an aspect of that. See WP:YESPOV. We'll see what Jytdog states.


 * On a side note: There is no need to quote me so extensively when replying to me; it only makes the discussion cluttered/more lengthy. If you must quote me extensively, then consider using Template:tq. It's clearer than what you do. When I quote you, you can see I do something like what I did at the beginning of the second paragraph with my "10:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)" post. A brief snippet, with italics and quotation marks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You keep saying "the literature as a whole." How do you know what the literature as a whole states? Do you just go by google books? Why not google scholar where I found the Rezera source? Or Research Gate, where I found the Hamel source? To be fair, I found a book on Google Books from 2018 that affirmed your position. That IPV is a gendered issue that disproportionately affects women. But since they didn't differentiate between symmetry/asymmetry in effect, like scholars do in the peer-reviewed literature that I can find, or address the arguments for gender-symmetry that show up in the peer-reviewed literature that I can find, indicates to me that those really are not the best sources for discussing the symmetry/asymmetry question. Sewblon (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if you want stuff from google books that supports my position, there is "Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse, Second Edition." by Hamel. Sewblon (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've explained how I go by "the literature as a whole." I stated, "If the source is consistent with what the literature generally reports (as made clear by a number of overviews and reviews), then it's safe for me to hold it up as fact or at least as something that has general support and should get more weight than significantly less supported research." Yes, I look at Google Scholar as well, but Google Scholar has more primary sourced material than material that summarizes the literature. Also, as you know, the material on Google Scholar is not as easy to access because of its paywall; see WP:PAYWALL. I will pay to read the material myself or go to an acquaintance for the material (which is sent to me via email). As for you finding "a book on Google Books from 2018 that affirmed [my] position. That IPV is a gendered issue that disproportionately affects women." That is not my position. It's what the literature overwhelmingly states. Hamel included. How many times must I point to all of these quality sources making it explicitly clear that IPV is a gendered issue that disproportionately affects women? That is not an opinion. It is a fact, a fact that the WHO also reports. The books I am talking about are the ones that summarize the literature. Like WP:TERTIARY states, "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." Of course, it also notes that "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some entries may be more reliable than others." But my point is sources that summarize the literature, and consistency among sources. A review or meta-analysis that is at conflict with what the literature consistently states is not treated as more authoritative simply because it's newer. Hamel even notes (in the aforementioned "Gender-Inclusive Treatment of Intimate Partner Abuse, Second Edition" source) that his research takes a "broad inclusive approach" and that he and his team are not mainstream and that the "gendered paradigm" is mainstream. Notice how he states "until the first edition of this book"? Also, peer review is not the same thing as literature review. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that the paywall is a problem. As is all the primary sources. But the sources that I am citing are not behind a pay-wall. Nor are they primary. So it isn't really relevant in this particular case. I want to be clear, I agree with you that most of the effects of IPV fall on women. my disagreement is with sheer rates of perpetuation. That may seem like a pedantic and trivial thing to get hung up on. But remember, in the eyes of the law, actual harm isn't necessary to constitute criminal activity. Only intended harm is necessary. You have many sources to back up the claim that the effects of intimate partner violence disproportionately fall on women. But I have many sources that back up my claim that women commit IPV against men at the same or higher rates: A systemic review from Bair-Merret, retrieved from the national library of medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2994556/. One that confirms that men cause more injuries, but women are more likely to commit acts of violence or aggression. Archer, J. (2000)."Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review". Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680. Chapter 10 out of "Perceptions of Female Offenders." Affirming that most aspects of IPV are symmetrical and that most violence is not in self-defense in the case of both men and women. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287265042_The_Partner_Abuse_State_of_Knowledge_Project_Implications_for_Law_Enforcement_Responses_to_Domestic_Violence. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-5871-5_10. And of course, the disputed paper from Strauss affirming that women hit men about as often as men hit women, in both cases it isn't usually in self-defense, yet actual injuries from IPV are more likely to happen to women. "Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: Empirical evidence and implications for prevention and treatment."
 * Murray A. Strauss. The "until the first edition of this book" from Hammel implies that things have changed since then. If you just allow me to make the distinction between rates of perpetuation, and proportionality of effects, then I think that we can reconcile all of this. Yes, I am aware of the distinction between peer-review and literature review. Stop asking. Sewblon (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The argument of "implies that things have changed since then" is not what we go by. Unless you have a source specifically stating that gender symmetry is as accepted as the gender asymmetrical aspects reported on by scholars, we won't be stating that and we should not be making it out as true. And any in case, whether you agreed with me or not, the quality sources I've pointed to are explicitly clear that IPV is overwhelmingly gender asymmetrical with regard to women more so being the victims in heterosexual relationships. What I have been trying to tell you repeatedly is that, per WP:Due weight, we are supposed to give most of our weight to that aspect. It is exactly why this section started off with an editor rightfully noting that we are not going to give as much weight to intimate terrorism against men in this article. As for the rest, one of the issues with you is that you latch onto one source and hold it up as fact. Above, you cited a source stating that women are more likely to commit acts of violence or aggression. There are quality sources I pointed to on the Domestic violence talk page and in this article that disagree with that statement. So I don't see why you think we should prioritize that source over the many other sources stating the opposite or something different. Well, I know why, given your POV, but still. I've already been over WP:Due weight, newer sources (per WP:Due weight) not automatically getting prioritized, and WP:YESPOV. Do keep these rules in mind; it seems that you don't care about them.

My issue is not with noting that some research indicates that men and women commit IPV at equal rates. We already note that in the article; we state the following in the article, "Although men and women commit equivalent rates of unreported minor violence via situational altercation, more severe perpetration and domestic battery tends to be committed by men." My issue is you wanting to add material on "equivalent rates" that make it out as though men are as much the victims as women are because of supposed equivalent rates, that men are psychologically harmed more even though the literature consistently reports that it's women who are, that women are more violent even though the literature is consistent that men (and males throughout the animal kingdom) are generally more violent than women (and females throughout the animal kingdom) are, you adding redundancy, and you adding information without important context. If your point is "commit more acts of violence" rather than "are more violent," it's still an issue. For example, we all know that people usually think of "physical violence" when they think of "violence." The literature on aggression and violence in general is clear that it's men who are more aggressive (like this Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology source notes) and who commit more physical violence. Same applies to IPV, depending on how "violence" or "physical violence" is defined. And if "violence" is defined broadly to include all types of violence, it's still asymmetrical in terms of what women endure. You can see that the aforementioned piece we include in the article states "minor violence via situational altercation" with regard to "equivalent rates." It's not about men and women committing "equivalent rates" for all types of violence. The Hamel content in the article also gives this important context. Context is important.

Razera (published by SciELO) even states, "Studies show that both men and women can be perpetrators in situations of violence, however levels differ depending on the subtypes of violence. [...] Gender symmetry is found, as believes Chan (2011), especially in cases in which contexts, reasons and consequences of violence are not evaluated." Wording you've added (except for a bit on Hamel pointing out disproportionate aspects) or wording you've proposed is without that context. We've already been over harm, intent and self-defense. I stated above, "The research shows that self-defense is often the primary motive or one of the top motives for women who commit IPV, but that some women define self-defense differently (for example, the retaliation aspect or the preemptive aspect). Fear is the other big motive, and that fear is often intertwined with self-defense or the belief that the act of IPV is self-defense. Men commit IPV for control and to physically harm far more than women do." There are quality sources on the Domestic violence talk page that agree with that statement. The idea that women do not usually or at least often hit men in self-defense or for overall self-protection (what some sources call "reactive," and which is also often entangled in retaliation, in part, because retaliation is often viewed as self-defense or other self-protection by women, researchers or law enforcement) is not supported by the general literature, which is why you keep citing Straus for the statement that women's use of IPV is not usually for self-defense. It's good that you acknowledged that the Straus statement is disputed. I've also noted that Archer's research is disputed in some respects. But even Archer qualifies the matter by stating women are slightly more likely than men to use one or more acts of physical aggression and to commit such acts more frequently. And then there are sources noting that women committing just as much or more acts of violence or physical aggression (which can also be defined as violence) is due to overall self-protection and/or fear. Furthermore, most of the research is from the United States or some other western areas, while the WHO focuses on IPV globally and finds that women are more so the victims, who often commit IPV in self-defense, and that men are more violent overall. I didn't ask you about the distinction between peer review and literature review, by the way; I stated that there is a difference, and I did so because you keep talking about peer review.

You state that you have "many sources that back up [your] claim that women commit IPV against men at the same or higher rates." Consider why you keep citing the same sources, some of which Hamel already cited...like Archer...and which are not many. This is because the literature on female-perpetrated IPV is significantly less than the literature on male-perpetrated IPV and it is not as supportive of the "women commit IPV against men at the same or higher rates" statement as you are making it out to be. It's not known as an undisputed fact, and it often comes with qualifiers even when stated. The literature is, however, more so in agreement in stating that women are more often the victims/survivors than perpetrators, and is very intent on noting women hitting men for self-protection, even if that self-protection might not legally be self-defense in some cases. So while I have no issue with noting some "equal rates" and gender symmetry material in the article, and stating something like "Most research indicates that men commit more [so and so] violence than women do. A 2017 review, however, indicates women commit more [so and so] violence than men do.", if the statement is actually about the general literature rather than a single study, I don't agree to you "balancing" this article in a way that makes it seem as though there is general agreement with what you want to add. What you want to add is debated, and some of it is redundant because the article already states it (except with context). When Razera reports on men committing significantly more sexual coercion, while women perpetrate more psychological violence, Razera is reporting on a 2016 study by Razera, Mosmann and Falcke. It is not a statement on what the overall literature has found. So adding that "A 2017 review, however, indicates women commit more psychological violence than men do." is misleading. It's a primary source that indicates that, not the general literature as far as psychological violence is concerned. See the sources below on self-defense, other self-protection, aggression, and on who is more violent.

1. This 2008 "A Review of Research on Women’s Use of Violence With Male Intimate Partners" source, published in Violence & Victims, states, "Studies have consistently found that the majority of domestically violent women also have experienced violence from their male partners. [...] Thus, many domestically violent women—especially those who are involved with the criminal justice system—are not the sole perpetrators of violence. The victimization they have experienced from their male partners is an important contextual factor in understanding their motivations for violence. Some women who have been adjudicated for a domestic violence offense are, in fact, battered women who fought back. [...] Women who engage in intimate partner violence commonly report using violence to defend themselves from their partners (Babcock, Miller, & Siard, 2003), and several studies have found that women cite self-defense as a motivation for violence more frequently than men do (e.g., Barnett, Lee, & Thelen, 1997; Hamberger, 2005; Makepeace, 1986; but for an exception see Kernsmith, 2005). In an analysis of women’s motivations for violence (Swan & Snow, 2003), self-defense was the most frequently endorsed motive, with 75% of participants stating that they had used violence to defend themselves. In Stuart et al.’s (2006) sample of women who were arrested for intimate partner violence, women’s violence was motivated by self-defense 39% of the time."

2. This 2010 "Why Do Women Use Intimate Partner Violence? A Systematic Review of Women’s Motivations" source, published in Trauma Violence Abuse, states, "Self-defense was listed as a motivation for women’s use of IPV in all of the included articles, except three, one of which administered a questionnaire that did not ask about self-defense (Archer & Graham-Kevan, 2003; Rosen, Stith, Few et al., 2005; Weston, Marshall, & Coker, 2007). Of the 14 studies that ranked or compared motivations based on frequency of endorsement, (Barnett, Lee, & Thelen, 1997; Carrado, George, Loxam et al., 1996; Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Hamberger, 1997; Hamberger & Guse, 2005; Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005; Kernsmith, 2005; O'Leary & Slep, 2006; Olson & Lloyd, 2005; Saunders, 1986; Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007; Stuart, Moore, Hellmuth et al., 2006; Swan & Snow, 2003; Ward & Muldoon, 2007), four (Hamberger, 1997; Henning, Jones, & Holdford, 2005; Saunders, 1986; Swan & Snow, 2003) found that self-defense was women’s primary motivation (46–79%) for using IPV, with one additional study reporting self-defense as the second most common motivation (39%) (Stuart, Moore, Hellmuth et al., 2006). Self-defense was defined differently between studies. Most women described self-defense as using IPV to avert their partner’s physical injury (Downs, Rindels, & Atkinson, 2007; Flemke & Allen, 2008; Miller & Meloy, 2006; Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007; Ward & Muldoon, 2007); '''some used IPV after their partner had struck, while others initiated IPV because of fear of imminent danger. Other women reciprocated their partner’s physical abuse to protect their emotional health (Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007)." The source also notes that retaliation was a listed motivation in 15 studies, but that only "one study document[ed] this as women’s primary motivation (Kernsmith, 2005)." The source additionally states, "Disentangling self-defense and retaliation was difficult in some studies. Hamberger & Guse (2005) grouped self-defense and retaliation as one motivation. O’Leary& Slep (2006) reported that women most frequently used IPV 'in response to their partner’s aggression,' which could incorporate either'''. Weston, Marshall & Coker did not list self-defense as a motivation, but hypothesized that 'women [may] perceive self-protective actions as more retaliatory than self-defensive' (p.1063). [...] '''This review demonstrates the difficulty in defining and measuring self-defense and retaliation. Many women discussed using physical aggression after their partner’s IPV to minimize personal injury (Downs, Rindels, & Atkinson, 2007; Flemke & Allen, 2008; Miller & Meloy, 2006; Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007; Ward & Muldoon, 2007). All would agree this is self-defense (Wimberly, 2007). Women also described using IPV because they did not want to internalize images of themselves as victims (Seamans, Rubin, & Stabb, 2007). Although these women were arguably using IPV to protect their emotional health, this does not meet the legal definition of self-defense (Wimberly, 2007). Whether this should fall into a more conceptual definition of self-defense or whether it is more consistent with retaliation is controversial.'''"

3. This 2013 "Social Work and Intimate Partner Violence" source, from Routledge, page 47, which analyzes the literature on the gender symmetry debate (keyword "debate") states, "This chapter has explored the current debate about whether women in intimate relationships are as violent to men as some research has suggested. It should be clear from the research presented above that '''while a small number [of] women are abusive, their form of abuse is different, they are not intending to control their partners (for the most part), and do not engender as many injuries or fear in their partners. Awareness of this research is important for professionals to understand, as many abusive men will blame their partners for the abuse they themselves are inflicting on their female partners."

4. This 2013 "Motivations for Men and Women's Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: A Comprehensive Review" source, published in "Partner Abuse, Volume 3, Number 4," states, "It is necessary to note that literature reviews related to this topic have been conducted previously. For example, in 2003, Malloy, McCloskey, Grigsby, and Gardner conducted a qualitative review of women's use of violence within their intimate relationships. These authors located the question of whether there are differences between men's and women's motivations for violence under the larger issue of whether or not there is 'gender symmetry' in intimate violence perpetration. In essence, gender differences in motivations such that men use violence to control or coerce their partner, whereas women primarily use violence in self-defense would provide evidence that disputes the notion of gender symmetry in perpetration (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, &Daly, 1992; Pence & Paymar, 1993). Conversely, more similarity in men and women's motives for perpetrating IPV would tend to support the gender symmetry position." And "In the Malloy et al. (2003) review, two empirical articles that focused on motivations were highlighted. Specifically, in 1999, Dasgupta interviewed 32 women who had been court ordered to treatment as a result of their perpetration of IPV. Using transcriptions of the interviews that were conducted, motives for perpetrating IPV were coded. Dasgupta (1999) reported that several motivations for these women's perpetration emerged in her analysis. However, according to her coding of the transcribed interviews, the most common reason self-reported by these women was that they used violence to end their own abuse (i.e., in self-defense). [...] Then, in 2008, a second review of the literature was conducted. [...] Swan et al. used these data to infer that women are more motivated than men to perpetrate violence to protect themselves and their children." [...] It also states that "both the Swan et al. (2008) and Malloy et al. (2003) literature reviews appear not to be comprehensive in nature," however. It notes that "few of the existing studies have data that directly compare motivations for the perpetration of men's versus women's violence" and that they expected "that most of the existing studies would be obtained from university/school samples rather than large population, smaller community, clinical, or justice/legal samples" and that the "existing empirical studies would primarily focus on control/dominance and self-defense as motivations for men's versus women's violence, respectively (i.e., Shorey et al., 2010)." It notes that "further work needs to be done to distinguish between self-defense and retaliation for previously experienced violence because these motives were difficult to separate in many of the papers included in this review." It also states, among many other things, "Taken as a whole, however, the ﬁndings gleaned from this review suggest that this area of the IPV ﬁeld is in its infancy. Researchers have employed different measurement tools, focused on different motives (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2011), reported ﬁndings in different ways, made use of different informants, differed in whether or not they measured both men and women, and used different samples. Moreover, although this review sought to be comprehensive in nature, it is possible that some important papers in the ﬁeld have been overlooked. [...] '''In summary, much work remains to understand the motives underlying both men's and women's perpetration of IPV. The types of motives that are measured need to be theoretically based and consistent across samples to facilitate comparisons.'''"

5. This 2014 "Domestic Abuse, Homicide and Gender: Strategies for Policy and Practice" source, from Springer, starting on page 30, states, "What we know is that female and male use of violence and abuse is different, cannot be easily compared, and has different repercussions and outcomes. The biggest problem, universally acknowledged and evidenced based, is that women are the group who are most often the victims of serious, long term, life challenging domestic abuse (Hester 2013a, Stark 2013, 2007, Websdale 1999). [...] When we look at the problem nationally, internationally and globally it is overwhelmingly women who are the predominant group suffering homicide, violence, and life altering control. Even if it were the case, which it is not, that men were suffering equal seriousness of abuse at the hands of women, and dying in similar numbers, it would not reduce the problem of violence against women. It would still be the problem it currently is. In fact, the highest risk factor by far in domestic homicide and everyday terrorism, is being female. [...] '''It is also our experience that the arguments which assert that women are the predominant victims are often automatically labelled as coming from a particular feminist perspective. [...] Feminist arguments are often considered biased, political and anti-men, which is, of course, in accurate.''' This has an effect of reducing the status of the argument. [...] There is simply no global epidemic of female violence against men. [...] [There are] arguments which seek to undermine the fact that women are predominantly the victims."

6. This 2015 Intimate partner abuse: identifying, caring for and helping women in healthcare settings. review (full link to the article here), states, "IPA is a major public health issue, with serious social, economic and health consequences. It has been found to pose at least as high a health risk to women of child bearing age as raised blood pressure, tobacco use and obesity, and is a leading contributor to death, disability and illness for women in this age group [...] Research has found that only 12–20% of women report being asked by their doctor about IPA, with barriers to inquiry including clinician uncertainty about how to ask, lack of knowledge and training about IPA, and insufficient time [17–19]. Barriers to disclosure by women include both internal factors (shame, normalization and minimization) and external factors (perception that others cannot help, judgmental attitudes, previous negative responses from health professionals). Additionally, women are not always at a point where they feel comfortable to disclose. [...] Although it is acknowledged that men may also experience IPA, the power disparities present in most cases of IPA mean that women are more often survivors than perpetrators, and that the community health and economic burdens of IPA lie primarily with women as a group."

7. This 2015 (reprint) "Family Violence: Explanations and Evidence-Based Clinical Practice" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 73, states that "the NVAW [National Violence Against Women] surveys indicated that IPV against women was more often accompanied by psychological abuse, controlling behavior, and fear of injury or death than IPV against men. Thus, some suggest using both quantitative (e.g., CTS) and qualitative (e.g., victim's interviews) assessment methods (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2001) for a more balanced and context-based assessment. It also notes that, back in the 1990s, "Straus acknowledged that his research has focused on physical assault and not the context for IPV. Although he supports research that focuses on context and effects of IPV, he argued against including these variables with studies on violent acts. He also acknowledged [in 2009] that women, on average, experience more frequent and more severe results of IPV (e.g., physical injury, economic loss, and psychological symptoms) than men. In addition, he stated his focus on physical assault is for legal, social policy, and ethical reasons. Even a 'minor' defensive assault by women places them and their children in danger of severe retribution by men."

8. This 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" source, from Sage Publications, page 80, states, "Generally, men have been documented as the more aggressive perpetrators in IPV. Much of the literature documents women perpetrating in retaliation, but recent research and further examination of older studies suggest that women initiate violence as well. Men, however, are more likely to use perpetration to control their partners, whereas women are more reactive in their use of violence. Men also tend to use more severe forms of violence, such as throwing a larger or more damaging object, than a woman might. [...] Many studies have been conducted to examine rates of IPV and to determine primary victimization. However, more conclusive research needs to be done to examine issues of symmetry and whether or not there is equality in perpetration. Also, studies show that men are more aggressive than women in general, so more work should be done to learn about this connection."

9. This 2018 "The Psychology of Sex and Gender" source, from Sage Publications, page 485, states, "Even today, researchers direct most of their attention toward violence against women in heterosexual relationships. [...] Some data indicate that women and men are roughly equally likely to be victims of intimate partner violence. However, the issue of sex differences in intimate partner violence is hotly debated." It goes on to examine both sides of the debate and suggests maybe the gender symmetry viewpoint better explains situational couple violence, which it states is more common than intimate terrorism, and that gender asymmetry better explains intimate terrorism.

10. Extra: As for psychological violence specifically, which may at times mean the same thing as emotional abuse or is sometimes noted as a subset of emotional abuse, there is less IPV research on it than physical and sexual violence. Sources usually either state that men commit more psychological violence or that men and women commit equal rates of psychological violence, or rates of psychological violence are similar between men and women. Men's use of psychological violence is noted as more severe, however, which is one reason why women express significantly more fear than men do with regard to IPV in heterosexual relationships. When psychological violence essentially means "emotional abuse" or is noted as a subset of it, though, the literature states that women receive more emotional abuse than men do with regard to IPV in heterosexual relationships, or that there is more data out there about women receiving emotional abuse. Like this 2013 study, which I'm citing because it looks at the literature, states, "There have been various studies investigating emotional and physical abuse against women, while research on emotional abuse against men is quite limited." Of course, the study also states, "that men's overall risk of emotional abuse may be increasing while women's risk may be decreasing." But it's not presented as fact. It notes that "the results can be interpreted through multiple theoretical paradigms."

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was wrong about gender-symmetry. I wasn't taking into account the difference in the percentage of the male and female population that sufferers it from the government sources, or that the studies that find gender symmetry are mostly based on the U.S., whereas the government studies are based on 10 different countries. However, where are you getting this stuff about the primary motivation for female-perpetrated IPV being self-defense? on Google books I found 2 books that point to the self-defense explanation, and 3 books that say it isn't warrented. In support of self-defense: 1.The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America: By Wilbur R. Miller. 2. Fundamentals of Family Medicine: The Family Medicine Clerkship Textbook By Robert B. Taylor, A.K. David, D.M. Phillips. Against self-defense: 1. Intimate Partner Violence: Societal, Medical, Legal, and Individual Responses
 * By Sana Loue. 2. The Dark Side of Close Relationships II edited by William R. Cupach, Brian H. Spitzberg. 3. Female Offenders of Intimate Partner Violence: Current Controversies edited by Lisa M. Conradi, Robert Geffner. For :literature reviews, we have the source from Bair-merret that says women commonly use IPV in response to their partner's violence, but says that detangling self-defense from retaliation is difficult. Then you have the review from :Hamby that rejects the self-defense explanation. Hamby, S. (2009). The gender debate about intimate partner violence: Solutions and dead ends. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 1(1), 24-34. And of :course, it was also examined and rejected in the review by Strauss and "perceptions of female offenders" by Hamel and Russel. So, I think we should point out that the self-defense explanation for female perpetrated IPV is disputed. Because most of the sources I can find don't back it up. Sewblon (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Where am I getting the stuff about the primary motivation for female-perpetrated IPV being self-defense? From the sources you see above and other sources. Not only does the WHO state "often in self-defense," there are obviously two reviews (the first two) in the collapse box above relaying that the primary or a main motive for female-perpetrated IPV is for self-defense or other self-protection. Notice the word or in my previous sentence. Those two reviews are later than Archer's meta-analysis. And going back to gender symmetry, Hamby (2014) relays, "Contrary to statements that are sometimes seen in published scholarship, 'most' data do not show gender symmetry. Far from it. The total n for all of the data included in the Archer meta-analysis (2000) is surpassed by one year's worth of NCVS data alone, and that data has been collected every year for more than four decades. [...] Archer obtained his well-known result of gender parity by systematically excluding these huge data-bases. There is no reason to privilege the data on small convenience samples of college students over these nationally representative or population-based data sets that are collected by the Federal government. It would be like surveying your class about winter flu symptoms and claiming your data is better than that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)." In 2009, she also stated, "In the Archer meta-analysis on IPV (2000), the majority of studies were based on college student samples. Although samples that include older adults also ﬁnd gender parity in reported IPV rates (e.g., Straus & Gelles, 1990), most forms of misbehavior are more common among the young, and so it is important to see how IPV compares to other youth behavior." Anyway, yes, newer sources do not always automatically get prioritized over older sources, but the literature repeatedly states that female-perpetrated IPV is often or primarily done as a means for self-defense or other self-protection. Also keep in mind that "other self-protection" is considered self-defense, in a way, by some of these women and researchers. I essentially noted this above, and so does the aforementioned second source in the collapse box (with regard to women using IPV for other self-protection, which may not legally be self-defense). Why are you ignoring these sources when almost every editor who weighed in on the RfC on the Domestic violence talk page did not ignore them and agreed that the literature reports that self-defense is often the main, or one of the main, reasons that women engage in intimate partner violence? Of course, the self-defense angle has been analyzed. The aforementioned second review does that, and it reports that self-defense was often the main or a primary reason that women gave for engaging in IPV. It also states, with regard to women who also described using IPV because they did not want to internalize images of themselves as victims, "Although these women were arguably using IPV to protect their emotional health, this does not meet the legal definition of self-defense (Wimberly, 2007). Whether this should fall into a more conceptual definition of self-defense or whether it is more consistent with retaliation is controversial."


 * The fourth source in the collapse box was critical of the second source and previous research that found that women mainly commit IPV for self-defense, but it obviously notes that the literature has found this and that "few of the existing studies have data that directly compare motivations for the perpetration of men's versus women's violence" and that the "existing empirical studies would primarily focus on control/dominance and self-defense as motivations for men's versus women's violence." Similar to the second source, it notes that "further work needs to be done to distinguish between self-defense and retaliation for previously experienced violence because these motives were difficult to separate in many of the papers included in this review." The eighth source above states, "Men, however, are more likely to use perpetration to control their partners, whereas women are more reactive in their use of violence." The word reactive often covers self-defense in the IPV literature. And I stated above that "reactive" is often entangled in retaliation, in part, because retaliation is often viewed as self-defense or other self-protection by women, researchers or law enforcement. In that 2009 source, Hamby does state that "not according to self-report" on the topic of whether female-perpetrated IPV is primarily motivated by self-defense and that "the most commonly reported IPV motives for both men and women are anger, reacting to a verbal or emotional insult, or to 'get through to' the partner," but she mostly (except for one study) points to 1990s research for that statement and is critical of "self-defense and retaliation [being] uttered together as if they are similarly mitigating motives for violence." Of course, women have other motivations for committing IPV (this Wikipedia article notes that), but self-defense is commonly cited as a primary or top reason that women give for committing IPV. It's why Hamby addressed it. I mean, to repeat, even the WHO states "often in self-defense." So, per WP:Due weight, the most I'd agree to add for those like Straus arguing the opposite is what we do in the Domestic violence article or something similar to that. In the Domestic violence article, after noting that the main or a primary motive for female-perpetrated IPV in heterosexual relationships is self-defense or other self-protection, we state, "Family violence research by Murray A. Straus concluded that most IPV perpetrated by women against men is not motivated by self-defense. This has been criticized by scholars for using narrow definitions of self-defense." I'd replace the source that is used for the "this has been criticized" sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with Hamby's argument is that it rests on the assumption that the arrest data, the victimization data, and the CTS data are all directly comparable, and the assumption that all the other data can disprove the CTS data. These assumptions are wrong. See "Critical Review of Hamby’s (2014) Article Titled ‘‘Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Research, Scientific Progress, Scientific Challenges, and Gender’’ by Zeev Winstok. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.4906&rep=rep1&type=pdf pages 4-5. and Yes, Winstock also confirms that there is insufficient empirical basis for the self-defense theory of female IPV. (page 6). Sewblon (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion of Hamby's argument. She doesn't state that, and I'm not aware of any source that says she's wrong about Archer's meta-analysis. I told you that Archer's meta-analysis had been challenged, and what Hamby states about it is why. My quoting of Hamby above concerns Archer's meta-analysis (not the CTS data), and it concerns her statement about self-defense. As for the CTS data, it's been challenged times over. It's not like Hamby is the first to criticize it. As for self-defense and other-self-protection, I don't have much more to state on the matter. At least much that would not be redundant. The two reviews above, the WHO, and other research is clear -- a common reason that women give for engaging in IPV is for self-defense and/or other-self-protection. The literature states that women often either cite it as the sole reason for committing IPV or as a top reason. It is not generally called a theory. Hamby is always reanalyzing the literature and reassessing her previous arguments. As seen in this 2014 "Battered Women's Protective Strategies: Stronger Than You Know" source, from OUP USA, page 100, she states, "Despite being arrested as perpetrators of assault, the high rates of self defense suggest that some of these women would not have been arrested if a careful application of laws regarding self-defense had been followed." Notice that she states "high rates of self defense" and is citing later research. In that source, she goes on to note other meanings of self-defense, ones that have been studied less, and she delves into the complex issues of fighting back, including the difficulty in discerning how much of the fighting back among women is self-defense and how much is retaliatory. She does go back to her original most common motive argument of anger, etc., citing the same old sources, but she gives more insight on the matter by stating "in studies asking people to endorse one motive from a list of possible motives for aggressive behavior." When citing later research, such as Stuart et al., 2006, she notes that more than one in three women said they were acting in self-defense. Other reasons that women commit IPV are included in both this article and the Domestic violence article. So is the fact that distinguishing between self-defense and retaliation for female-perpetrated IPV is difficult. And again, although there are other reasons that women engage in IPV, like the aforementioned fourth source in the collapse box states, the "'existing empirical studies" mainly "focus on control/dominance and self-defense as motivations for men's versus women's violence."


 * I've already noted the most weight I'd be willing to give with regard to challenging the self-defense aspect in this article. It's the same weight we give to challenging it in the Domestic violence article. I'd rather not have to conduct yet another RfC concerning women's use of self-defense, but I will if you keep insisting that we challenge the self-defense aspect more than it should be challenged in this article. Noting that Straus and/or some other researcher has challenged it, and that Straus's self defense argument has been challenged for using a narrow definition of self-defense, is enough. For example, after the self-defense statement in the beginning of the "By gender" section, we could state, "Family violence research by Murray A. Straus, however, concluded that most IPV perpetrated by women against men is not motivated by self-defense; this has been criticized by scholars for using narrow definitions of self-defense. Researcher Sherry Hamby stated that 'when asking people whether their physically forceful acts were motivated by self-defense, substantial numbers describe their behavior as self-defense, but on confidential surveys, many also endorse other less noble motives.' She said, 'when people are asked to endorse one motive from a list of possible motives for aggressive behavior, self-defense is seldom the most commonly named.' " Or, since (despite Hamby stating "as noted above") I'm not sure if the "their physically forceful acts were motivated by self-defense" sentence is about IPV or hitting in general considering that, right before that line, Hamby talks about hitting back being a common response among all ages (from toddlers to elders) to getting hit, we can go with the following: "Family violence research by Murray A. Straus, however, concluded that most IPV perpetrated by women against men is not motivated by self-defense; this has been criticized by scholars for using narrow definitions of self-defense. Researcher Sherry Hamby stated that 'when people are asked to endorse one motive from a list of possible motives for aggressive behavior, self-defense is seldom the most commonly named.' " Do you agree with adding this as a compromise? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

2010 review
The text "anger and not being able to get a partner’s attention were pervasive themes"

Does not relate to gender symmetry. So moved up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"Aggression in Women: Behavior, Brain and Hormones" review
Sewblon, regarding this, this, this,this and this, the source is not even about IPV or domestic violence, although it touches on it. So for one to look to such a source just to relay what you are always looking to relay about women and IPV? That's something. Anyway, the review is about aggression in women. If we are going to include it, we should include the fact that it says that compared to the literature on men's aggression, "relatively little is known about women's aggression." We should include the fact that it's clear that men are more violent than women are and that the aggressive behavior these women are typically engaging in is non-violent aggression, such as indirect aggression. Otherwise, we mislead readers into thinking that women are just as violent as men are and engage in the same type of aggression as men. Otherwise, the source is just redundant. I mean, I appreciate you changing the text to this, but the "large scale studies find men and women committing IPV at similar rates" and "but that men commit more severe IPV acts than women" piece is already covered in the "Gender asymmetry" section, where we state, "Although men and women commit equivalent rates of unreported minor violence via situational altercation, more severe perpetration and domestic battery tends to be committed by men." The section also states, "A 2008 systematic review published in journal of Violence and Victims found that despite less serious altercation or violence being equal among both genders, more serious and violent abuse was perpetrated by men." So the piece you added is redundant if it's not going to report on anything new. It's also without the "minor violence" aspect. The review is reporting on the same flawed studies that have been criticized for not making things like "equal rates for minor violence" clear. The only new thing you included is where it states that there are more similarities than differences in the motivations and risk factors in intimate partner violence between men and women. So I could support adding that only, and/or something else from the review that the article doesn't already mention.

Doc James was busy yesterday. So he may be able to weigh in today. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally Frontiers has been labeled predatory and really should not be used. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Doc James, we very briefly commented on Frontiers Media before. As noted in its Wikipedia article, there is controversy around the matter. Some disputed Frontiers Media being labeled predatory. At the WP:Med or WP:MEDRS talk page, do you think we should discuss whether or not to use Frontiers Media? As for the article, would you rather the text be trimmed to focus on the "there are more similarities than differences in the motivations and risk factors in intimate partner violence between men and women" part, something else, or would you rather we remove the source and its text? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally I would recommend finding a \ better source.
 * Also support keeping things concise. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Doc James, per above, I'm also about not about relaying redundant text, especially when it's without context such as the "minor violence" aspect when reporting on equal or similar rates. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fine with only mentioning the findings on motivation since that is the only novel information. If we need a better source, then we can use the source that Denson was citing. My preference would be to word it as "The meta-analyses found that the risk factors for male IPV and female IPV are more similar than they are different. The only risk factors that differ by gender for IPV are violence in family of origin, alcohol use, and male demand, female withdrawal communication patterns. The other 57 risk factors the meta-analyses looked at were unaffected by gender." to be as precise as possible. That being said, the Frontier's source did mention that severe IPV is mostly male on female. So I am not sure what flaws Flyer is talking about. Sewblon (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd rather that "The only risk factors that differ by gender for IPV are violence in family of origin, alcohol use, and male demand, female withdrawal communication patterns." piece state "The meta-analyses indicated that the only risk factors that differ by gender for IPV are violence in family of origin, alcohol use, male demand, and female withdrawal communication patterns." I'm not comfortable stating "the only risk factors that differ" without clearly attributing it to the source. Anyway, Doc James, what are your thoughts on the proposal?


 * As for what flaws I'm referring to, I'm referring to the source pointing to flawed studies such as Archer's research. We've been over how and why Archer's research is flawed. I've quoted reliable sources on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I find this wording acceptable. But as for the flaws in Archer's research, I remember you saying that the flaw was that these results are only found in the United States. That isn't true, a review of the literature from 2013 found that gender symmetry is also found in international samples. The other complaints that keeps coming up with the gender symmetry literature is not including effects or causes. As for effects, that is a fair point, everything that I can find indicates that women suffer more injuries from IPV than men do. AS for causes, the meta-analyses by Spencer says that there really isn't academic consenus on whether the risk factors for intimate partner violence differ meaningfully between men and women. So the criticism that the gender symmetry literature doesn't look at differences in the causes in IPV between men and women isn't really relevant, because we don't know that the causes are different in the first place. Sewblon (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not state that "the flaw was that these results are only found in the United States." What I stated, for example, is that Hamby (2014) relays, "Contrary to statements that are sometimes seen in published scholarship, 'most' data do not show gender symmetry. Far from it. The total n for all of the data included in the Archer meta-analysis (2000) is surpassed by one year's worth of NCVS data alone, and that data has been collected every year for more than four decades. [...] Archer obtained his well-known result of gender parity by systematically excluding these huge data-bases. There is no reason to privilege the data on small convenience samples of college students over these nationally representative or population-based data sets that are collected by the Federal government. It would be like surveying your class about winter flu symptoms and claiming your data is better than that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)." What I stated is that, in 2009, she said, "In the Archer meta-analysis on IPV (2000), the majority of studies were based on college student samples. Although samples that include older adults also ﬁnd gender parity in reported IPV rates (e.g., Straus & Gelles, 1990), most forms of misbehavior are more common among the young, and so it is important to see how IPV compares to other youth behavior." I stated that most of the research that finds gender symmetry concerns adolescent and college-age people, and minor partner violence. Those are true findings within the research, and it is despite the existence of whatever international research. All of what I stated is seen at Talk:Intimate partner violence/Archive 2 and Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 8 I am not going over all of this with you again.


 * As for "women suffer more injuries from IPV than men," the literature is also generally clear that they suffer more psychologically. As for causes, I'm not sure what you are speaking of, but sources commenting on causes is relevant. If you mean motives, despite what one or more outlier sources say, the literature is generally clear that male and female motivations for IPV differ. The control aspect, for example, is significantly attributed more to men than to women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I appear to have dragged us into a general discussion of the topic. Can we just edit the new section to use the Spencer source instead of the Denson source, since the Denson source was pubilshed in a predatory journal, and have it say "A meta analyses from 2016 found that out of 60 risk factors for intimate partner violence, men and women only differ on 3: witnessing intimate partner violence as a child, acohol consumption, and the demand-withdrawal communication pattern."? Sewblon (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for refocusing the discussion back on the matter at hand. I can agree to add your most recent proposal, but I would prefer that "found" be "reported" or "indicated." As I've mentioned to you before, I usually consider "found" or "showed" to be too definitive of a statement on matters like, where the literature conflicts. So I don't mind other uses of those in the article being changed. I also think we should be clear on what "demand-withdrawal communication pattern" means. I actually think that the previous proposed wording of this is better: "The meta-analyses indicated that the only risk factors that differ by gender for IPV are violence in family of origin, alcohol use, male demand, and female withdrawal communication patterns." We'd simply say "A 2016 meta analysis" in place of "The meta-analysis." There's also the matter of which section to place the material in. Does it really fit in either the "Gender asymmetry" subsection or the "Gender symmetry" subsection? This is not something that is argued as a "gender symmetry" aspect. Maybe it should go after the "Research has shown" sentence at the beginning of the "By gender" section.


 * Do you mind waiting until Doc James gives his opinion? He hasn't been on Wikipedia in days, but should be back sooner than later. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to waiting for Doc James to get back. Sewblon (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Sewblon, via email, Doc James agreed with trying the following after the "Research has shown" sentence at the beginning of the "By gender" section: "A 2016 meta-analysis indicated that the only risk factors that differ by gender for IPV are violence in family of origin, alcohol use, male demand, and female withdrawal communication patterns." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Can it also say that the meta-analyses found that seeking power or control over one's partner did not vary by gender as a risk factor for intimate partner violence? Sewblon (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Like I stated above, "The control aspect [...] is significantly attributed more to men than to women." Men dominating by control has been a significant issue with regard to the abuse of women and IPV, as made clear in the article. I do not think we should add "the meta-analysis found that seeking power or control over one's partner did not vary by gender as a risk factor for intimate partner violence" since it deviates from what the literature generally reports. I find that piece to be WP:Undue. And I'll state now I'm not interested in arguing with you about this. For example, if you then go and gather one or more sources to state that the power dynamic/control risk factor is the same for men and women or is not significant for either when it comes to IPV. Outlier reports in this regard don't trump what the literature generally states. I've been through similar with you on other matters, and do not want to go through the same thing with you on this matter, debating for weeks on end (to the point where I might even need to start an RfC). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your assessment of the literature. The review of the literature that I found indicates that men actually have higher victimization rates for coercive control than women (Mohr Carney and Barner. "Prevalence of Partner Abuse: Rates of Emotional Abuse and Control" Partner Abuse, Volume 3, Number 3, 2012. page 292.) "Recent findings from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) found that nearly half of the men and women surveyed reported experiencing some form of psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime, with 40% of women and 32% of men reporting expressive aggression and 41% of women and 43% of men reporting some form of coercive control." Granted, no singular article can tell you what the literature generally says. But this quote is from what is supposed to be a comprehensive review of the literature on the subject, and they didn't cite any other sources that contradict it.  But if you are not interested in discussing it, then I suppose that there isn't anything to be done about it. So that just puts us back to the proposed line: "A 2016 meta-analyses found that the only risk factors for intimate partner violence that vary by gender are alcohol use, male withdrawal female demand communication pattern, and witnessing intimate partner violence as a child." Sewblon (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Edited per what was agreed on. I know that you don't agree with my assessment of the literature. You rarely do. And then I have to list a bunch of sources commenting on the literature (indeed telling us what the literature generally says) and/or bring other editors into the matter, such as with an RfC. Those editors then agree that my assessment of the literature is correct. That is why I do not want to argue with you over the fact that the literature generally attributes control in IPV significantly more to men than to women. This is especially the case with regard to coercive controlling violence (also known as coercive control or intimate terrorism, and by other terms). That's why this 2013 "Cultural Sociology of Divorce: An Encyclopedia" source, from Sage Publications, page 397, that is used in the article, states what it states in its section on domestic violence. It's why this 2014 "Rosen's Emergency Medicine - Concepts and Clinical Practice E-Book" source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 875, that is used in the article, states what it states in its section about forms of intimate partner violence. The literature has consistently found that men use IPV for control significantly more than women do. As is clear by the "Rosen's Emergency Medicine" source, coercive control also often includes injuries, which is what women face in IPV significantly more than men do. I have repeatedly told you that one source (literature review or otherwise) does not trump what the literature generally states, and especially when it is United States-based (or based on another country's data), or is coming from one survey, and is not representative of the world. This is why WP:MEDDATE states, "Assessing reviews may be difficult. While the most-recent reviews include later research results, this does not automatically give more weight to the most recent review (see recentism)." You never seem to accept any of this, even when the vast majority of editors echo it in an RfC. This is why I do not want to debate you on yet another aspect of the literature. I ask that you do not keep trying to turn this latest discussion into yet another debate. It is easy enough to agree to disagree and move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This might just be a terminological issue. The sources that you cited were talking about intimate terrorism. The source that I cited differentiated between intimate terrorism and coercive control, and affirmed that intimate terrorism happens to women more than men. Intimate terrorism and coercive control are not the same thing because coercive control is way more common than intimate terrorism, at least by the terminology of this paper. Its true that more recent work doesn’t necessarily take priority over older work. But that isn’t directly relevant to this discussion. However, this is now turning into a general discussion of the topic. So I don’t think that I will be replying any further. The current wording is perfectly acceptable. Sewblon (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't find this as just a terminological issue. The sources I cited are talking about coercive control. The "Cultural Sociology of Divorce: An Encyclopedia" source is clear that intimate terrorism and coercive control are synonyms. That one or a few sources characterize them as two different things doesn't change the fact that they are commonly used and cited as synonyms. The "Rosen's Emergency Medicine - Concepts and Clinical Practice E-Book" source talks about the same exact thing that various other reliable sources talk about when speaking of coercive control, whether are not they are using the term coercive control, intimate terrorism, or a different term. But, yes, it seems we are done here for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

___