Talk:Reproductive coercion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Re-rating as C-class

Nice work on this expansion. I'm tentatively re-rating this as "C-class". I've only made a quick pass over the article, but it appears well-sourced and to provide good coverage of the subject's basics. One major remaining issue is that the article appears very, very US-centric. Many of the statistics here presumably apply only to Americans, but aren't identified as such. Groups like National Domestic Violence Hotline might be identified by their country of origin (I'm assuming these are all US?), but more importantly, a stat like "14% of surveyed young mothers reported undergoing birth control sabotage" needs context--is this global? Specific to a country, or region? Making the context clear will maximize the usefulness of the article to readers around the world. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Aren't we forgetting something?

This is a very interesting subject and one that all people should be aware of. However I came here as a male, and find that the article is female-centered, with the male victims of reproductive coercion being a mere footnote. Males are just as likely, if not even more likely to be pressured into having babies. The fact that this isn't a wildly controversial topic is because it is seen as something quite normal in western society for the female to want babies (and getting them more often than not) when the male partner is not ready to have them. There are also cases where female partners secretly neglect taking birth control pills without telling their partner and passing it off as forgetfulness or a mistake when they are confronted about it. Women tampering with condoms in any way (such as poking holes in them) is a tad cliché, and almost sounds like an urban legend, but it has and does happen. It would be in the best interests of everyone if the excellent information present on his page where added to with descriptions of male victimization on reproductive coercion. I'm aware this page represents the carefully researched and thought-off work of someone so I respect this person's efforts and await for their reply. 189.187.28.20 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Out of place paragraph

I'm placing this here because it had been at the beginning of the article and I couldn't decide on a good place to move it.

"Prevalence of Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health by an Intimate Partner Approximately 8.6% (or an estimated 10.3 million) of women in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to, or refused to use a condom, with 4.8% having had an intimate partner who tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to, and 6.7% having had an intimate partner who refused to wear a condom (data not shown). Approximately 10.4% (or an estimated 11.7 million) of men in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth control, with 8.7% having had an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth control and 3.8% having had an intimate partner who refused to wear a condom."

-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

MNT and Salon refs

Came across this article but I'm not sure if it's a valid reference or not, anyone know? Also found this URL (no longer active on Salon.com) can't find a Wayback archive for it, but presumably something written September 1998 based on the URL. I came across this but it doesn't sound like the right story. Ranze (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

General Comments

Wikipedia is a very simple idea, it is a an encyclopedia. Its entries as such as are encyclopedic, which broadly speaking means accumulated and authoritative knowledge on an existing subject of some note. Despite this simple idea and definition, determining whether an entry is encyclopedic can be very, very hard. It is actually much easier to say when an entry is not encyclopedic than is encyclopedic. Encyclopedic is not original research, soap-boxing, advertising, incompleteness, one sidedness, self promotion, axe grinding, activism, outright lying or other such nonsenses. Starting with a preconceived notion then finding supporting sources rarely results in an encyclopedic entry.

Make no mistake, the people who put the underlying principles of Wikipedia together are really, really smart. Determining if an entry is unarguably "encyclopedic" is probably ultimately impossible, though an entry satisfying the conditions of The Five Pillars very probably is. These pillars or principles are further defined in terms of other principles that in turn are similarly further defined, and so on. Even the base level ideas in this system have elements of opinion involved, people arguing in good faith however should be able to resolve their differences.

We are human and as such imperfect, we are plagued by cognitive biases. The miracle of Wikipedia is that it utilizes the phenomena of group intelligence, in that many people of very differing opinions can work together to produce a balanced encyclopedic entry, (usually). A page is created by a process of informed iteration till it is more than the sum of its parts, and ultimately encyclopedic. This process can not be described by a short finite sequence of simple steps.

When I read this page I sense that few of the mechanisms that make Wikipedia what it is have come into play. CSDarrow (talk) 03:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

CSDarrow, given your WP:Disruptive editing on issues that pertain to women being victims significantly more than men are, such as sexism, and on general men's rights topics, why should I take anything you state on reproductive coercion seriously? Even in the case of the Sexism article, a topic that clearly affects women significantly more than it does men, you took the viewpoint of applying neutrality where it does not exist, which is a violation of the WP:Neutral policy. Your history of editing topics related to men's rights is exactly a "focus on the editor" matter for me when it comes to topics such as reproductive coercion.

Given the sudden influx of men's rights editors at this article, even if caused by my having called Bbb23 to this article in the #Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation section above, I am glad that I called on him and have contacted others to keep an eye on this article. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I should remind you that enshrined in the fifth of the Five Pillars are ideas such that an editor should not indulge in personal attacks and should assume good faith on the part of others. Neither of which you have done here, imo. It is disappointing you would do so in an article that is also part of an educational project, it is a bad example for aspiring editors. Also the worth of an argument is independent of the where a person came from or their other opinions; an argument's worth stands on its own. I would also hope all editors are welcome where ever they came from, diversity of voices is the life blood of Wikipedia. CSDarrow (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to remind me of anything. Like I stated, you being involved in topics dealing with men or women's rights is a "focus on the editor" matter, as I'm certain some WP:Administrators would agree. It is nowhere close to a WP:Personal attacks issue. Ask at the talk page of that policy, and I'm certain every editor there will agree that it's not. Keep your condescension to yourself. Flyer22 (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Read wp:civ. CSDarrow (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

quick note

I was pinged above. Just want to say a few things. Please excuse me for being schoolmarmish.

• First of all, this is obviously a controversial and emotional subject. So... please be extra mindful to be WP:CIVIL, and to discuss content, not contributors, per WP:TPG and WP:NPA. Way too much unproductive interpersonal bashing going on, which doesn't help WP arrive at mutually acceptable content.
• Second, per Wikipedia:Controversial articles, everybody should be reaching for the best sources they can find - ones that the other side cannot dispute. So everything here should be sourced from independent secondary sources or statements by major medical/health and science bodies. Please stop bringing primary sources (I have, to my surprise, found them on all sides in the discussion above). I work on a bunch of controversial stuff and generally find that when someone is really demanding to use a primary source (which technically one can do, but not what we all should do per WP:RS and WP:MEDRS) it is because that primary source is superjuicy support for the demanding persons's POV (and that person will never bring or respect (!) the inevitable primary source that directly refutes that position). So please, in a controversial article like this, stay away from primary sources and the temptations they bring. And if you want to bring a primary source, please do it tentatively and be ready to abandon it if the other side objects. (if everybody agrees that the primary source is killer-useful, of course it stays. but please don't fight with primary sources by proxy) Find the best sources, and let them speak.

To offer a concrete suggestion to the disputants, would you pause discussing content for a bit, and come to agreement on sources that you all find acceptable? And please try to suggest sources that you think are deeply solid WP:SECONDARY sources that can withstand scrutiny from the other side. I may be weighing in on the discussion in a bit, but just wanted to respond to the ping. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Domestic Violence Original Research

The statement that women are the significant majority of domestic violence victims is WP: OR on this article. The article is about reproductive coercion, not domestic violence as a general topic, as such this statement fails to be directly related to the article. What's more, the content is not contained anywhere in the body, only in the lead which also makes it undue weight. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting how you, an editor heavily involved with men's rights movement topics, suddenly popped up at this article. I doubt that the article was on your WP:Watchlist, so I conclude that you followed Bbb23 or me to this article. Whatever the case, what I added to the lead to support the statement that women are the significant majority of domestic violence victims is not WP:OR, and that you have suggested that it is makes me think that you do not understand what WP:OR means. The sources that I added directly support the statement that women are the significant majority of domestic violence victims. If you mean that the sources are focused on the prevalence of domestic violence of men vs. women, and that children may be the majority of the domestic violence victims, the second source is clearly talking about the matter of who are the most common victims of domestic violence, not simply a men vs. women matter. As for the statement being a part of the article, it clearly belongs, considering that reproductive coercion is an aspect of domestic violence, and the sex most targeted/most affected when it comes to reproductive coercion are females...at least according to the vast majority of sources on the topic. I noticed its placement in the lead, and that, per WP:Lead, the matter should be covered lower in the article as well (generally speaking when it comes to WP:Lead matters). But as noted in the #Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation section above, it was already in the lead. I was not obligated to move it out of the lead, and I have no problem with it being moved to a position lower in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Like the WP:OR policy states, "The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Its reference for that statement continues: "By 'exists', the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source." So, no, the aforementioned statement in the Reproductive coercion article is nowhere close to a WP:OR matter. And it's not a WP:Synthesis matter (which is an aspect of WP:OR) either. Flyer22 (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Skipping over your snark, what I said is what I meant. This article is about Reproductive coercion, not Domestic violence. Statistics about general domestic violence do not belong here. The relevant sentence under OR is "published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". This isn't an article on the general statistics of DV or DV in general, it's about Reproductive Coercion. Any source and content that isn't talking about Reproductive coercion is original research on this article. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what you said is what you meant, and your WP:OR argument is inaccurate. Pure and simple. Ask at Wikipedia talk:No original research if the statement in question is a WP:OR matter, and you will get a resounding no, for reasons I noted above in this section. I reiterate that, as the article makes clear, reproductive coercion is an aspect of domestic violence. So your assertion that this article is not about domestic violence is false. The article does not have to be "an article on the general statistics of DV or DV in general" to note that domestic violence affects women more than it does men. Naturally, an article discussing domestic violence is likely to mention that domestic violence affects women more than it does men, as is the case with this article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick question; is there a source that connects Domestic Violence to Reproductive Coercion or vice versa? If so, where? Tutelary (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@ Flyer: I am fairly certain we are at an impasse then. While I see domestic violence as a parent topic, I disagree that parent content is appropriate on a child article. To clarify my position above, statistics about DV (general) are not appropriate on articles about a specific type of DV. The reason being is that the ratios in DV (general) may not be the same in the specific type of DV. Placing these statistics in the specific type of DV implies that the percentages and ratios of victimization are the same. This is a standard logical fallacy of composition.

@Tutelary: I would assume one in the Role in domestic violence section of the article, though I haven't looked specifically. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Then, yes, Kyohyi, we disagree. And, yes, Tutelary, various sources in the article, including ones in the lead (see the sources) and in the Role in domestic violence section, where I moved the statement about domestic violence affecting women more than men, connect domestic violence to reproductive coercion. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The wording in the article is "consistent research indicates..". This is untrue as at least 2 sources as mentioned above suggest otherwise. CSDarrow (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And yet another men's right editor has popped up at this article. So who called you here? And as for your argument about "consistent research indicates"... The abundance of research on domestic violence has been consistent on this matter, as you very well know. That's the point. WP:Due weight. And the majority of sources that Mrklp5716 provided above are poor, with none making a comment on the general body of evidence regarding domestic violence. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Having an opinion and supporting that opinion are two entirely different matters. Here is an unparalleled three-year research project, conducted by 42 scholars at 20 universities and research centers, and including information on 17 areas of domestic violence research. The work is scholarly, peer reviewed and published.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm?PID=4003003

Perhaps you would add this work to your thinking, as you can see the results are at odds with your opinion. Concerning your other more personal comments, rather than repeat myself I have addressed them below in reply to a similar post on your part. CSDarrow (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"Having an opinion and supporting that opinion are two entirely different matters." Exactly. I see you providing a source and giving WP:Undue weight to it (meaning that source conflicts with the significant majority of data on domestic abuse). Furthermore, a press release is never a good source. And take notice that, as WP:MEDRS (the type of sourcing that should be used for this material) points out, peer-reviewed is not the same thing as a review article.

After one or a few more replies to you at this talk page, I won't continue engaging you at this talk page; this is because I know that I will be wasting my time. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, what your source supports is "men and women perpetrate physical and non-physical forms of abuse at comparable rates, most domestic violence is mutual, women are as controlling as men, domestic violence by men and women is correlated with essentially the same risk factors, and male and female perpetrators are motivated for similar reasons," as well as "research confirms that women are more impacted by domestic violence." Flyer22 (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

To suggest the source I have provided, and those of the Governments of Canada and the UK, do not carry considerable weight defies common sense. CSDarrow (talk) 17:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Now you sound like Mrklp5716. The source you provided is WP:Undue weight to the bulk of research on domestic violence, and even states "research confirms that women are more impacted by domestic violence." It certainly does not support Mrklp5716's contention that, on average, men are affected by domestic violence more than women are. And like I told Mrklp5716, "The British government is supporting your view, how? The Canadian government is supporting your view, how? The Public Health Agency of Canada is your only good source, and it does not support your argument that men are generally victims of domestic violence more than women are; it supports the suggestion that domestic violence might equally, or almost equally, affect men and women in Canada, and that a few studies relay that, for some forms of domestic violence (such as 'he/she is jealous and doesn't want you to talk to other men/women,' and 'he/she demands to know who you are with and where you are at all times'), men are victims more than women are. And those reports conflict with a lot of research, including research that the Public Health Agency of Canada reports on regarding its information on violence against women, such as here...and here."

Various researchers, the vast majority of them, do not believe that women are as violent as men. The bulk of domestic violence by women against men has been characterized by some researchers as self-defense. Research has also indicated that men overreport women's violence toward them. All three statements are supported by this 2009 source, and many other WP:Reliable sources (including more recent ones).

Stop wasting my time. Flyer22 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Your sources are weak and your method of evaluating the body research on this topic is lacking. CSDarrow (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I feel the same regarding you. As noted below, your method of evaluating topics such as these is always highly questionable. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This by Arias, Samios and O'Leary is an old, small primary study. This by Whitaker et al. studies reciprocal violence and so doesn't appear to support a general statement about the relative prevalences. This doesn't appear to make a clear conclusion about the relative prevalences either. This is a popular-press story of results published by a small advocacy group, hardly can be expected to be neutral or high quality. This is, as it says right at the top, is a selective survey that includes only results that match the chosen conclusion. Meanwhile what's in the article, particularly Siegel 2012, appear to be much better quality. An assertion counter to the idea that women make up the majority of victims of DV acts would be quite exceptional and per WP:REDFLAG would require extraordinarly high-quality and authoritative sourcing. Absent that, I don't see support for changing it. Zad68 18:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, my contention is that women are not "a significant majority" of victims. Some studies, however, do show that men are the majority of victims. My contention is that IPV has far more gender symmetry than you want to acknowledge and I have provided numerous sources to that effect, all of which have been ignored by you in favor of counting the number of police reports filed as if they represent actual victimization rates while you repeatedly ignore studies that measure victimization rates instead of counting police reports. Mrklp5716 (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Why do you keep using vague references to possibly non-existent majorities? You say things like "the majority of researchers" and the "bulk of researchers" quite a bit but then you refuse to substantiate these claims when asked, and lord knows I have asked you to substantiate them claims many times. As Donald Dutton notes here (http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DUTTON-NICHOLLS-AND-SPIDEL-2005-FEMALE-PERPETRATORS-OF-INTIMATE-VIOLENCE.pdf) there is quite a bit of evidence to reject this theory.

Can we see your tally of researchers who both support and reject this theory? In order for you to say the bulk of researchers support it, you must have a tally. We've been through this before but you seem to keep making this claims about supposed consensuses and then you refuse to back them up. Could you please start backing these claims up or maybe stop using this sort of misleading rhetoric? Thanks. Mrklp5716 (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hamel sources

This does challenge the view that women are the large majority of victims of DV, it is a convincing source. It is three-year research project, conducted by 42 scholars at 20 universities and research centers, and including information on 17 areas of domestic violence research. The work is recent, scholarly, peer reviewed and published.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm?PID=4003003

It is a landmark study.

CSDarrow (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks CSD. I do note that even the press release itself says "research confirms that women are more impacted by domestic violence" and the relative equalities they're talking about are the perpetrators, which would logically lead to the conclusion that men are still more frequent and/or damaging perpetrators of DV. I have some concerns about the journal. May I suggest a discussion at RSN. Zad68 20:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Women are more likely to be seriously injured. This doesn't make them a "strong majority" of victims. Mrklp5716 (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The difference though you will note is not marked. The phrase "women perpetrate physical and emotional abuse, as well as engage in control behaviors, at comparable rates to men." is used. Considering the sources that are commonly used for gender related pages and the obvious quality of this work, I would find discussing it in RSN absurd. The quality of the journal is fairly easily verified and the quality of the authors is self evident. Taking it to RSN is clearly an option though you have. CSDarrow (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The project and publications are pretty interesting. Per this overview, "The authors spent up to 30 months researching their topics, and writing the results. Approximately 12,000 studies were considered, and more than 1,700 were eventually summarized and organized into tables. The 17 manuscripts provide an overview of findings on each of the topics, for a total of 2,657 pages, including tables. They appear in five consecutive special issues of Partner Abuse, between April, 2012 and April, 2013. In addition to summarizing what is known about the topic, each author was asked to indicate what is not known, and to make suggestions for future research. All conclusions, including the extent to which the research evidence supports or undermines current theories, are based strictly on the data collected, with due consideration for the size and type of sample (e.g., large representative sample versus small clinical sample)." This ~seems~ like a perfect, gold standard even, set of WP:SECONDARY sources. The press release cited above is a useless source in and of itself - nobody should base content in a controversial article on a press release. Editors interested in this topic, should read the relevant articles produced by PASK, and generate nuanced , NPOV paraphrases of content from those articles to create Wikipedia content. That is what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, so what wording do you propose on this matter, given that sources on domestic violence and its relation to gender, including the 2009 source I cited above in this section, generally report that women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are? Like I noted, and then Zad68 noted, the source that CSDarrow provided even states "research confirms that women are more impacted by domestic violence." So exactly what does the source mean when it states that "women perpetrate physical and emotional abuse, as well as engage in control behaviors, at comparable rates to men"? I've looked over a lot of research on domestic violence for years, and the consensus, like sources I've provided in my discussion with Mrklp5716 above state or indicate, has consistently been that girls and women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than boys and men are. And if not "significantly more affected," then "more affected." I noted in my discussion with Mrklp5716 above that the World Health Organization (WHO) states, "Intimate partner and sexual violence are mostly perpetrated by men against women and child sexual abuse affects both boys and girls. International studies reveal that approximately 20% of women and 5–10% of men report being victims of sexual violence as children. Violence among young people, including dating violence, is also a major problem." The WHO, like the vast majority of research on domestic violence, notably focuses more on women in this subject area. It seems to me that like is done with the Domestic violence article, WP:Due weight should factor in here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Frequency and severity are the not the same thing. The claim says women are a "strong majority" of victims. This claim is not supported by pointing out that women are more likely to be injured. Here is another source focused on frequency that refutes the claim women are the majority of victims. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21499/full Mrklp5716 (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to know things like: How well-respected is this journal relative to others in the field? It appears to have just started in the year 2010. Is it associated with any large, well-respected organizations? What is its impact factor? Is it the equivalent of "PUBMED-indexed" in its area? The journal's description of itself makes it sound like it has been created in reaction to something. John Hamel is the lead editor of the journal, is in control of submissions, and also directed the article. Has the article been cited by authoritative, mainstream authorities? What are the other review articles that have been published on this topic recently and what did they say?

I've seen lots of journal articles but mostly in medicine, and there's just something about this that's got my detectors up. Pinging Dbrodbeck for his opinion, his expertise is closer to this field. Zad68 21:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Did someone ping for a psychologist? Yes, well I don't know this journal per se, but that said, this is outside my area of psych. It is a Springer journal, they are pretty fine publications. The fact that the editor wrote an article would likely not be a big deal, as that happens often enough. The process involves appointing an editor for that issue or that paper so there is no COI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dave! OK... If it could be shown that this journal either has a non-trivial impact factor relative to the other journals in its field, or can show that this article is well-cited and cited favorably, that would help. Zad68 21:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, so I found an editorial from the first issue [1] and it seems pretty legit. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If someone could post a link to the article that would help. (I imagine it is here and I am missing it). I can do a bit more digging etc. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, maybe you, WhatamIdoing, have something to state on this matter? You recently helped out at the Domestic violence article. Any opinion on how we should treat the Hamel article, with respect to sources on domestic violence and its relation to gender usually reporting that women are more affected by it than men are? With all the drama the "women are more affected by domestic violence than men are" topic has brought to this article, I'm beginning to think that we might as well leave it out of this article, and let the Domestic violence article handle it instead. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Zad68, if you look at the summary article I linked to (here it is again: here) you will see this is not an "article" but a huge project reviewing the literature, that produced seventeen review articles that were published in five issues of that journal. I gave a too-long quote that summarized what they did. I do hear you on the need to verify it is respected, but the scope is certainly serious. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is really interesting to me. Hamel (and others) are saying essentially that we are all humans and we all suck toward one another.. so rates of what he calls "partner abuse" are actually pretty even, when you define "partner abuse" broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, even who hits first. They also have found that if you look at who is physically harmed and how seriously, who expresses more fear, who has psychological problems following abuse... this is indeed very gendered and women suffer the most. Hamel is aware that he and others are not mainstream and that the "gendered paradigm" is mainstream (see discussion by Hamel here) but they also take the stance that they are doing important, careful, nuanced work that shows us reality more clearly. They also seem very aware that their work is in danger of being seen as sexist by some and also of getting hijacked by others (namely men's rights wackos). Interesting. I don't know that this article on ReproCoercion is the place for discussion of their findings, but their work appears to constitute a 'serious minority view' as it were. I doubt that their work can be discussed with nuance anywhere in Wikipedia, given the way this place works. In any case, WEIGHT and what is stated in WP's voice is guided by what is mainstream - and that is the WHO report and similar. WP follows the mainstream. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Why do people keep mentioning the severity of DV when the claim in dispute deals with the frequency of it? Women are more likely to be injured by violent partners. This does not mean "a strong majority of victims are women". Here's another source that deals with frequency and it also refutes the idea that women are the majority of victims and men are the majority of aggressors. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21499/full. In all this talk, nobody has managed to support the claim that women are "a strong majority of victims" and plenty of evidence has been provided to refute this. Mrklp5716 (talk) 20:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Jytdog. This local news source, for example, has been critical of the Hamel source. It states, among other things, "While the study did represent sizable research, it unfortunately failed to factor in the type of violence that was considered for the study, and it highlighted misleading information with regard to the actual act of domestic violence. Domestic violence is a pattern of coercive, controlling behavior that can include physical, emotional, psychological, sexual or financial abuse to establish and maintain power and control over an intimate partner. It does not include resistive violence to escape, a one-time use of violence in response to a situational conflict or pathological violence used by individuals with mental illness. Effective research in the area of domestic violence must evaluate whether the violence was a part of a larger pattern of using coercion and power in order to maintain control over an intimate partner. While a victim in an abusive relationship may use reactive violence, this does not meet the definition of domestic violence, as it is a form of self-defense as the victim attempts to survive. A recent and extensive study, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The baseline data collected in 2010 shows that women are more likely to be affected by violence: 1 in 5 women have been raped in their lifetimes, compared to 1 in 71 men; 1 in 6 women have been stalked, compared to 1 in 19 men; and 1 in 4 women have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner, compared to 1 in 7 men. The study reports, 'Women are disproportionately impacted. They experience high rates of severe intimate partner violence, rape and stalking.' The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence reported that 'Men and boys are more likely to be the perpetrators of intimate partner abuse. At the same time, it is necessary to recognize that there are some women and girls who are abusive and violent to their intimate male partners. This is estimated to be in five percent or fewer of the cases.' (Belknap & Melton, March 2005)."

I'm going to look for better sources that criticize the Hamel source. But for another source pointing out that "domestic abuse disproportionately affects women, at the hands of men.", see this Amnesty International source, which cites authoritative sources. It does, however, note in its Violence in relationships section, that "Although we have some statistics around domestic violence, it's difficult to know just how many women are affected by this notoriously under-reported issue. But the information we do have gives a glimpse into just how widespread this deadly issue is." Flyer22 (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

And supporting that local news source on the "self-defense as domestic violence" matter is the 2009 source I've already noted above, which states, "In fact, the only researchers who seem to favor the explanation that women are equally as violent as men, are those who have used the Conflict Tactics Scale to collect their data or have attempted to interpret parts of the Straus and Gelles data. Nonetheless, there is a dearth of information about women offenders who have been arrested for domestic violence. Much of what is known supports the self-defense argument. However, there are increasing numbers of women who are arrested for other problems but also have been victims of domestic violence." Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

These articles are by respected scholars publishing in a reputable journal under the Springer-Verlag banner. They are bone-fide and important secondary sources on this matter and their commentary should be reported as is. It is not for editors to try to discredit this work or simply find sources that may be more to their liking, we are not in the business of original research. If there are problems with the reliability of these papers then it should be taken to RSN. Until proven otherwise the reliability of these works is assumed and their results taken as said. That is how Wikipedia works. CSDarrow (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you believe all of that, which you obviously do, then I suggest you read and comprehend WP:Due weight and its subsections. Flyer22 (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:UNDUE, and to quote its first sentence:-

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

The whole of the page on Neutral point of view is also worth a read. These papers are by mainstream scholars, their work is extensive and clearly significant. There are also the large number of scholarly works that lead to the conclusions of the Hammel work. Let's not forget these are review papers, they are not fringe opinions; by definition they represent the mainstream. CSDarrow (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't going to read your latest reply until Zad68 or Jytdog commented again, but I decided to go ahead and read it and reply when your having first added on to your comment caused the Reproductive coercion article to pop back up on my WP:Watchlist. Regarding what you think I meant, I meant WP:Due weight, which is what WP:UNDUE redirects to. Obviously. You cited the first sentence of the WP:Due weight policy, and don't seem to understand what it means. The next sentence explicitly states, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views." It adds, "For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it." Like Jytdog pointed out above, Hamel acknowledges that their view -- the way that they broadly define domestic violence -- is the minority view. A significant minority. I pointed to a 2009 scholarly source pointing out that defining domestic violence so broadly is a minority viewpoint among researchers. The conflict tactics scale (and I linked to that Wikipedia article above) has been criticized for its broad definitions of domestic violence.

WP:Due weight also, among other things, states, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ."

Your assertion that "these are not fringe opinions; by definition they represent the mainstream" shows a severe lack of understanding regarding what fringe is. Articles that "are by respected scholars publishing in a reputable journal under the Springer-Verlag banner" do not equal "mainstream"; neither does "review paper." WP:Fringe, in its Identifying fringe theories section, is clear that "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." That is the case with the Hamel review article, as acknowledged by Hamel. And I have not see any "large number of scholarly works that lead to the conclusions of the Hammel work." Not good ones anyway. The aforementioned 2009 source is very clear on what researchers support the type of view Hamel is pushing. I have yet to exactly call the Hamel source fringe, however. And yes, we absolutely are allowed to present material that discredits a source's work; in addition to what the WP:Due weight policy states, the WP:Verifiability policy states, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

To quote Hamel:-

“The purpose of this project is to bring together, in a rigorously evidence-based, transparent and methodical manner, existing knowledge about partner abuse, with reliable, up-to-date research that can easily be accessed by anyone. PASK is grounded in the premises that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not to their own facts; that these facts should be available to everyone, and that domestic violence intervention and policy ought to be based upon these facts rather than ideology and special interests.”

also

"..is an unparalleled three-year research project, conducted by 42 scholars at 20 universities and research centers, and including information on 17 areas of domestic violence research."

This is a significant body of work published in a reputable journal that can not be so easily dismissed, period. It is important Wikipedia reports all views relative to their weight; it is informative and also the majority view is not always reliable, at one point it was the majority view that the World was flat. And to repeat, it is not for editors to indulge in original research, such as speculating over the definition of domestic violence. CSDarrow (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever your point is, it's faulty. Hamel is indeed the significant minority, and the fact that the significant majority of researchers do not agree with him on his domestic violence angle is significant. Nowhere has he proven that the majority view is wrong in this case. What he has done is defined domestic violence so broadly that it essentially has no meaning. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate what I said before, which I think both of you have blown off.

• the topic of gender and violence is highly polticized (as the two of you provide evidence for) and it is hard for people to even consider nuance.
• The result is messy. The team's work can easily be misread as supporting equality of violence.
• That is not what his team found. They found that with respect to "partner abuse", which they defined broadly, there is a rough equality, but when you factor in the intensity of the violence and the impact, women have it much worse.
• His work confirms the consensus and adds nuance.
• The work is not mainstream, because the mainstream message emphasizes the violence against women and doesn't leave room for nuance.

You both are almost wilfully misreading the work that team did (as his article says people are likely to do), and I would bet $100 that neither of you have actual read any of the 17 articles that the team produced. You are so locked into your battle that you cannot see nuance. Shame on both of you. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between in the mainstream and being the majority view. These papers are in the mainstream although not the majority view. FYI I have read every one of those articles and many, many more articles on this subject. I am fully aware of the nuance they contain. Simply dismissing these papers as fringe or outside of the mainstream defies common sense. The sentence under dispute is:-

"..consistent research indicates that the significant majority of victims of domestic violence are women"

I do not believe this to be unequivocally true; the Hamel papers being a case in point for one. In fact I consider it matter of considerable dispute amongst informed and reasonable people.

CSDarrow (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I also know of the nuances; I've provided WP:Reliable sources on this talk page pointing them out. And as for the line in question not being unequivocally true; it is the consensus on this matter, that is all that I mean, as made clear by authoritative medical bodies, scholarly books, general and systematic reviews. And, CSDarrow, as for there being a difference between in the mainstream and being the majority view, mainstream commonly means the majority view. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has lots of good editors as well as advocates, so whatever happens in the current dispute, I am confident that in the end the obvious (and verifiable) fact that "the significant majority of victims of domestic violence are women" will be stated unequivocally. I doubt that anything useful can be said here other than to note that arbitration enforcement will probably be needed after a lot of wasted time. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You post has contributed nothing to this debate. CSDarrow (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

CSDarrow.... OK, so why not simply offer an amendment to that language, fully consistent with Hamel, along the lines of ::"..consistent research indicates that the significant majority of victims of domestic violence are women, especially when "domestic violence" is defined as causing significant physical or psychological harm" or something similar. Why are you not reaching for the obvious middle ground? Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You are entering the realm of original research and synthesis, and I am also not entirely sure your statement is true. It should also be noted Domestic Violence involving significant physical or psychological is relatively uncommon, and how are we defining 'significant'? I am not being obtuse here. I think the problem here is in the article itself and its authors. I don't think the subject has been properly researched by the authors, and I am finding the attempt to link the topic to Domestic Violence rather contrived. I am not even convinced there is a sufficient body of research to construct a meaningful page. I find the whole page rather absurd and of very poor quality, it is verging on synthesis and original research in of itself. The whole page should go back to the sandbox for further thought. CSDarrow (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not WP:OR - but paraphrase, which is what we do here. Support for the paraphrase from Hamel and PASK:

• See Hamel at about 1 minute into this video, where he says: "As I said before, the research is clear that women are more impacted. They suffer more injuries, they are more likely to go to the hospital, they are more likely to be killed, than are male victims."
• From PASK summary document # 9 The Impact and Consequences of Partner Abuse on Partners by Erika Lawrence, Rosaura Orengo-Aguayo, Amie Langer & Rebecca Brock: " In brief, the multitude of basic research studies examining the impact of abuse on partners yields strong and consistent evidence of two facts. First, psychological and physical abuse have serious physical and psychological consequences for victims and the consequences are, with some exceptions, generally greater for female victims compared to male victims. Second, with regard to the physical consequences of physical abuse, injuries are similar across samples of female victims (e.g., community samples, clinical samples, shelter samples)." It goes on to say:

"When sex differences were examined, physical violence demonstrated more deleterious physical consequences for women than men. Women were more likely to suffer severe and potentially life threatening injuries, and to visit an emergency room or hospital as a result of intimate partner violence. However, the severity of the physical abuse seemed to moderate these sex differences in injury rates. When mild-to-moderate aggression is perpetrated (e.g., shoving, pushing, slapping), men and women tend to report similar rates of injury. When severe aggression has been perpetrated (e.g., punching, kicking, using a weapon), rates of injury are dramatically higher among women than men, and those injuries are more likely to be life-threatening"

Hamel and PASK are both very very clear on this. Their work supports the consensus mainstream view and adds nuance. They run into trouble with both sides, who abuse their work by not reading it closely. It is unfortunate. Jytdog (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

And moving concretely to article, CSDarrow, why would you not accept something like ::"..consistent research indicates that the significant majority of victims of domestic violence are women, especially when "domestic violence" is defined as causing significant physical or psychological harm" or something similar, that is clearly supported by PASK, WHO, and pretty much every mainstream source? Please note that I am just dealing with this statement per se, not where it is deployed in the article (which I think is part of the problem in the contested edit). We can deal with that next. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I consider the truth of the following statements when interpreted in good faith:-

(1) "consistent research indicates that the significant majority of victims of domestic violence are women"

- to be untrue

(2) "consistent research indicates that the significant majority of victims of domestic violence causing significant physical harm are women"

- to be true

(3) "consistent research indicates that the significant majority of victims of domestic violence causing significant psychological harm are women"

- to be largely unknown

(4) "consistent research indicates Women are affected more by the consequences of a given domestic violence incident than men"

- to be true

This whole area is a mine field of language where the slightest misplaced word can change the inference catastrophically. The context of a statement can also significantly affect meaning. There is also the issue of cause and effect, you can have two equally physically and physiologically abusive partners, yet the woman will probably be affected more even if she is the instigator. What is also omitted in these discussions is that the most severe forms of domestic violence are relatively very uncommon. I would also caution that anything from WHO, or any UN agency for that matter, should be carefully inspected before being accepted unilaterally; they have different types of releases and reports. CSDarrow (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

CSDarrow Please note that this is not a forum. Please make a concrete proposal to modify or replace the sentence under discussion. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand the process you are attempting and I am not trying to be obtuse here; I have tried to give a nuanced response. My experience is that when nit-picking of language dominates a discussion there is something structurally wrong going on somewhere. I don't think the meaning of these statements, and other similar ones, can be divorced from the context they appear in. However I will attempt a more definitive response later onto today, work calls. CSDarrow (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

As a new editor, I have been following this discussion with interest. I agree with Jytdog that two editors here are misreading evidence in what appear to be instances of ideological blindness. In any case, I also agree with those who question what a statement about gender asymmetry/symmetry in IPV is doing in this article in the first place. At best it adds nothing to an understanding of reproductive coercion, and at worst it's distracting. I support removing it entirely. Casusbelli1 (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have taken no personal position on gender asymmetry/symmetry in IPV, my commentary has been on what the reliable sources say. If phrases like "consistent research indicates.." or "the large majority of victims of DV.." are to be used, then there has to considerable consensus within the reliable sources on the issue; there is not. You are correct this issue adds nothing to the article. The whole article needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view using better sources. CSDarrow (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Given CSDarrow,'s involvement with men's right issues, I don't believe that he has not taken a position on gender asymmetry/symmetry in IPV, but whatever the case, Casusbelli1 and others, gender asymmetry/symmetry in IPV belongs in the article because plenty of the sources note it with regard to reproductive coercion. Going by the sources in the article, and many sources on Google Books or on Google Scholar, reproductive coercion is a form of domestic violence. Like the lead and the Role in domestic violence section that Jytdog removed states, "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that a greater percentage of men reported an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant (10.4%) than women reported an intimate partner who tried to get them pregnant (8.6%)." That content touches on gender asymmetry/symmetry in IPV, and is supported by the following source, which clearly notes that it is about intimate partner sexual violence: "Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 48." Therefore, I don't see why the entire Role in domestic violence section needs to be excluded from this article, except for the fact that Mrklp5716 will add WP:Synthesis to the article, like he did here. But then again, he has also done it with the talk page, as seen here and here.

I am not going by "ideological blindness"; I am going by what consensus is on domestic violence, and I am tired of men's rights editors highjacking every topic that reports women as the majority of victims and trying to give false balance to men as victims. Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation exists for this very problematic editing. I always give the majority of WP:Weight to what the consensus is, as is stated on my user talk page. This is nothing new. The consensus on domestic violence is indeed that the women are significantly more affected by domestic than men are. Mrklp5716 has provided mostly poor sources to support his arguments, even after he's been asked to provide secondary reliable sources supporting it. And CSDarrow has provided a review article that defines domestic violence too broadly to be mainstream, as even Hamel basically admits. In the #Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation section and elsewhere on the talk page, I have provided sources on what authoritative medical bodies state on domestic violence and what scholarly books state on domestic violence. Here are some more scholarly book sources, including two systematic reviews:

This 2013 scholarly book source (page 190) states that one of the goals is to recognize "that domestic violence disproportionately affects women." Like the book's Google description states, "[I]t illustrates how international human rights law is interpreted and implemented across international organizations and offers examples of political, economic, social problems and legal issues to emphasize the significant impact of international human rights law institutions on the constitutions, law, policies, and societies of different regions."

This 2013 scholarly source (page 644) relays, "As the Commission has established in the past, in the discharge of their duties, States must take into account that domestic violence is a problem that disproportionately affects women, since they constitute the majority of the victims."

This 2014 scholarly source (page 961) states, "Interpersonal violence disproportionately affects women and includes child sexual abuse, rape, and domestic violence. Women who have been victims of any kind of violence at any age are at greater risk of developing a mental disorder."

This 2009 systematic review source states that it was important to use consistent definitions of domestic violence, and that: Results of this review emphasize that violence against women has reached epidemic proportions in many societies. Accurate measurement of the prevalence of domestic violence remains problematic and further culturally sensitive research is required to develop more effective preventive policies and programs.

This 2012 systematic review article states, "Although IPV affects both men and women as victims and perpetrators (4), more women experience IPV and most studies about screening and interventions for IPV enroll women. Approximately 1.3 to 5.3 million women in the United States experience IPV each year (5–6). Lifetime estimates range from 22% to 39% (7–8). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey indicated that 30% of women experience physical violence, 9% rape, 17% sexual violence other than rape, and 48% psychological aggression from their intimate partners over their lifetimes (4). Costs related to IPV are estimated to be between $2 and $7 billion each year (9)."

Given all of these sources, I don't see why we should be giving WP:Undue weight to any male aspect on this topic. What WP:Reliable sources state that domestic violence against men "has epidemic proportions in many societies"? Including the Hamel source can be fine, as long as the majority view on the gender aspect of domestic violence is clear. But like I've stated above, "With all the drama the 'women are more affected by domestic violence than men are' topic has brought to this article, I'm beginning to think that we might as well leave it out of this article, and let the Domestic violence article handle it instead." Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I hear you! Those are some high quality reviews you bring there. So... it sounds we look at Hamel the same way. That is good. And actually it looks to me like CSDarrow is acknowledging that Hamel supports the consensus as well, when "violence" is used with nuance, which I think is is good. we've made some progress. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

None of these sources appear to support the claim that "a strong majority" of victims are women. Many of them don't even look at men at all. How can a source that focuses exclusively on women support a claim about which gender is victimized more? Additionally, DV does disproportionately affect women in some respects, such as them being more likely to be injured. Your sources are acknowledging this and I would acknowledge it too, but they do not support the claim that a majority of victims are women, which is an issue of frequency and not severity. We are talking about frequency here. Your sources are mostly about severity.

If you want to see a source that actually looks at the frequency of victimization and focuses on both genders, well, you've been given plenty of those already and continue to reject them with no or weak explanations. 23:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything in those sources that actually measures the frequency of victimization for each gender and that's what's being disputed here. Mrklp5716 (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

you are not reading. I suggest you read. Jytdog (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Tell me which of those reports contains this data and on what page because I have skimmed them all and I see no data on victimization rates of men and women that conforms to the standards I mentioned earlier. Several of these do not talk about men at all so I fail to see how they confirm that women are a "significant majority" of those who experience DV.

The CDC report I linked earlier does contain this data and the figures are very close to even. You guys need to stop with the vagaries and provide some cold hard data like I have already done many times. Quoting a paragraph that makes a vague reference to "disproportionate effect" does not mean women comprise "a significant majority of victims" because the disproportionate effect they're referring to isn't in regards to how often they experience this DV but how severe it is, and the claim being disputed here is about the former, not the latter. Show me some actual data that isn't based on police reports that indicates women are significantly less likely to initiate DV and that men are significantly more likely to. Nobody has done this and this is what needs to be done to support the claim that women comprise a significant majority of victims.

Alternatively, tell me why you reject the findings of the CDC which indicate victimization rates to be very close to equal. 02:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

All of those latest sources of mine indeed support the statement that women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are, as Jytdog has seemingly agreed. Those sources make the matter explicitly clear by stating that domestic violence disproportionately affects women or just how significantly they affect women, whether specifically noting that it's a matter that affects women more than men or noting the general aspect of it. Once again, there is no point in me communicating with you. I cannot take you seriously on this topic, when you are rejecting high-quality sources that explicitly state that women are the majority of domestic violence victims, while you are providing primary sources, some of which that don't even support your statements, and making other comments without any reliable sources supporting those comments. I'm not interested in your interpretation of the sources. Here at Wikipedia, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, with WP:Due weight. I'm done discussing with you again. Do stop trying to get me to continue discussion with you. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Statements like "significantly more affected" ado not demonstrate an increased likelihood of one experiencing DV because the statement doesn't necessarily apply to frequency of the group experiencing it. Women can be "more affected" because they are more likely to be injured, but this doesn't mean they comprise the majority of victims, which is an issue of frequency and this is what we're talking about here.

I have repeatedly asked you to focus on the difference between severity and frequency yet you keep ignoring this. Your quotes and your links do not demonstrate that women are the significant majority of victims, they are ambiguously worded comments from individuals who are clearly referring to the severity of DV as experienced by women, but the claim I am disputing revolves around the frequency of that victimization.

Please look up the difference between frequency and severity because you are clearly struggling with this concept and I'm tired of explaining the difference to you. If you have any actual data that measures the frequency of victimizatio by gender - like the CDC report that I was using as my primary source - then I would like to see it. I am not interested in your ambiguous quotes talking about severity, I am interested in actual data that looks at frequency because, once again, this is what's in dispute here. Please try to focus on what I'm saying because this has gone over your head several times and I would very much like for you to be on the same page with me. Mrklp5716 (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow a lot to read has been generated here in the past day, trying to wade through it now. Thanks Jytdog and Dave for bringing the sourcing expertise needed.

My impression regarding Hamel that it is a serious scholarly work carried out by well-trained academics, and is useful. So I am satisfied it is a reliable source for the conclusions it's drawing.

But, like others, the the problem I'm having with it is WP:WEIGHT. I'm not seeing evidence yet that it is influential or authoritative. It's a huge work product but it's only been out for a little while. What I'd really like to see is that it has made a difference, such as it has been used by an organization like the WHO or a national group in forming policy, or that it has been favorably cited by well-respected peers in the field. (Or even unfavorably cited, one way to gauge how influential you are is by the quality and vociferousness of your opponents.) Or even just a respectable impact factor, I can't find anything on this journal.

Also Jytdog your points that this adds depth and nuance to the existing body of information without significantly upsetting the mainstream apple cart are really important.

Finally I don't think the specific sentence underlying the current content dispute--whether the phrase "strong majority" should be used (and a well-supported substitute could be proposed, easily, that focuses instead on the disproportionate impact instead of the numbers)--really matters all that much in the context of this particular article, and wish we could move past that. Zad68 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

work over

I just worked this over, concentrating on getting rid of low quality sources and adding high quality sources where i could find them. happy to discuss anything i did. Jytdog (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge the Birth control sabotage article into the Reproductive coercion article

There has been a merge tag on the Birth control sabotage article since 2012; that stubby article should definitely be merged into the Reproductive coercion article, or rather redirected to the Reproductive coercion article...since it already covers that matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

law articles

This article uses several law articles as sources, for health related/epidemiological content. I am uncomfortable with this and have removed them for now, and have listed them below. I they fail WP:MEDRS but would be interested to hear what others think...

• (ref name=Trawick>Trawick, Shane. "Birth Control Sabotage as Domestic Violence: A Legal Response." California Law Review 100 (2012): 721-760.</ref)
• (ref name=CusackCI2011>Carmen M. Cusack, Consensual Insemination, An Analysis of Social Deviance within Gender, Family, or the Home Journal of Law & Social Deviance, Vol. 2, p. 158, (2011)</ref) (left this in, as it was used to support content about law). But it used elsewhere too.
• (ref name=CusackNIPat2012>Cusack, Carmen M. & Telesco, Grace. Nonconsensual Insemination: Patriarchy, Police Education and Policy." LSD Journal 4 (2012): 277-320.</ref)
• (ref name=CusackNIBat2012>Carmen M. Cusack, Nonconsensual Insemination: Battery, 3 J. L. & Soc. Deviance 78 (2012)</ref)
• (ref name=Fischer>Fischer, Judith D. "Walling Claims In or Out: Misappropriation of Human Gametic Material and the Tort of Conversion." Texas Journal of Women and the Law 8 (1999): 143-65.</ref) (am also not sure that this source supported the content it was used for, which was "Contraceptive fraud is the conversion of a man's semen for a purpose that he does not consent to; in this case, pregnancy."

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am much more comfortable with WP:MEDRS compliant sources in such a situation. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

POV bias that needs to be fixed

Sadly, this article has a clear POV problem. In fact, it is misandric in most aspects. It fails to assert that in most cases victims of birth control sabotage and to lesser extent of pregnancy pressure are male partners. Feel free to discuss. Netrat (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have some references to bring to the table? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Give me some time, and will bring plenty. The current version of this article is based on very few biased booklets that ain't even scientific. Netrat (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Read what WP:Neutral (the POV policy) means; it does not mean what I think you assume it means. And where are your WP:Reliable sources or WP:MEDRS-complaint sources that support your assertion that "in most cases victims of birth control sabotage and to lesser extent of pregnancy pressure are male part[n]ers"? You might also want to read the past discussions above about what are appropriate sources for this article. As the article currently shows, reproductive coercion against women and men is addressed, and the prevalence for reproductive coercion varies. We go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, preferably high-quality WP:Reliable sources. And if you don't want to be reverted by Dbrodbeck or others, like you were here, you should add one or more high-quality WP:Reliable sources for the claims you intend to add to the article. As for the article's sources, how are the sources "very biased" and not scientific? Also see WP:BIASED. A significant portion of this article was cleaned up by medical editor Jytdog, and I'm certain that, like me, he knows what sources are scientific. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I have read previous discussions, and I see a lot of inconvenient questions unanswered. We have a clear cases of [[WP:BIASED] and lack of WP:Global_perspective here. By the way, reverting a non-controversial edit will not do any good for the article. Do you mean females never execute "pregnancy pressure" on their male parters? If not, there was no point in reverting my edit. Netrat (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

hi Netrat. You have made it clear that in your view, the article is biased. Please mind the talk page guidelines, and limit your discussion to content and sources, and we how we use them under policies and guidelines. If you want to introduce new content to the article, please be sure it is reliably sourced, per WP:VERIFY. If there is specific content in the article that you believe is not supported by its sources, or if existing content doesn't accurately reflect the sources used, or if you find important sources that have not been used, the use of which would result in content that would generate a different perspective in the article, I am all ears and so too will others here be. But I will remove any further broad statements you make about bias, etc, that are not grounded on specific content and sources. Again, please follow the talk page guidelines. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Netrat, I don't think you understand WP:BIASED; I pointed you to it so that you can read it and see that it is clear that biased sources can be the best sources (not that I'm agreeing that the article's sources are biased). And if you read the WP:Neutral policy, such as its WP:Due weight section, you will perhaps understand why that is. To be clearer: Being neutral on Wikipedia does not mean what it means in common discourse. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation

Bbb23, regarding this edit you made at the Domestic violence article, I think that the Reproductive coercion article is also a good candidate; it tackles some of the same topics as the Domestic violence article and therefore attracts the same type of problematic editing. See, for example, this, this and this edit by an IP. So far, I have only reverted the IP on the latter two edits, as seen here and here. I'll look deeper into that first edit later; I didn't want to waste my third revert. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: I'm not inclined to subject portions of this article to the sanctions. Although I can see the tie-in, I think it's more remote than the domestic violence article. Also, it's a bitch to enforce. :-) Still, you can always seek the opinions of other administrators. As an aside, if you need assistance with the IP and the newly registered account, please let me know on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22,

Why is this one study and its results being taken as gospel when numerous other studies give wildly different results? Numerous studies have been done indicating that IPV is either bidirectional or that men are more likely to be victims than women:

- http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/2/1/82.abstract

- http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

- http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/publications/mlintima-eng.php[

- http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

- http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

There are dozens of studies at that last link alone all contradicting this 86% figure. Why do you continue to restore this claim when it's backed by a single source that is contradicted by numerous other studies and isn't even pertinent to the subject of reproductive coercion? Mrklp5716 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as noted on your talk page, I reverted you when you edited as the aforementioned IP and when you edited as Mrklp5716. I appreciate you coming to the talk page about this instead of reverting again. As for one study, surely you know that it's not simply one study stating that, generally, there are significantly more female victims of domestic violence than there are male victims of domestic violence. This fact is supported by this 2007 source (page 70), this 2008 scholarly source (page 40, citing that 80% of domestic violence victims are women), this 2012 scholarly source (page 77, reported as page 102 in the Google link, citing that "Women, however, are six times more likely than men to be victims of rape, domestic violence, and sexual assault."), this 2013 scholarly source (page 32, stating "Most activists, academics and agencies agree that most commonly victims of domestic violence are women, and perpetrators are men, but do acknowledge that violence can be the other way round."), and many more WP:Reliable sources. The fact that the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources, including those of the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) variety (the type of sources you should be using for this material), state this "women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are" matter is exactly why this matter is presented in the Domestic violence article. So instead of focusing on that article, you are focusing on this article, which is essentially a sub-article of that article, why? And, yes, this domestic violence aspect is pertinent to this article, which, again, is a subtopic of domestic violence. The vast majority of WP:Due weight should go to what the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources state on a topic. Your use of "numerous" (if taken to mean "many") supporting "men are more affected by domestic violence than women are" angle is a stretch.

On a side note: Remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. If you don't already know, all you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You say there are significantly more female victims yet I just gave you more than a dozen studies indicating that this is not true. Did you actually read them? You also say there are more studies confirming this yet you offer no evidence of this. How many studies confirm this and how many don't? Surely you must have some tally of studies in order to make such a claim. Can I see it?

It's "conventional wisdom" that women are the majority of victims but conventional wisdom is often wrong and this is one such example. You have numerous sources here refuting the 86% claim - several of them government studies by the Canadian and British governments - and you reject them out of hand with a reference to a smaller number of studies? I have provided you with a small mountain of evidence refuting the 86% figure and I suspect you didn't look at any of it because you're still repeating the very claim that's in dispute and which I have provided tons of evidence refuting. Mrklp5716 (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You asked if I looked at any of the sources you cited above, some of which are poor. I did. And yet it's clear that you barely considered what I stated above. No, it's not "conventional wisdom" that women are significantly more affected by domestic than men are; it's a fact supported by various WP:Reliable sources, a fact that is supported by far more WP:Reliable sources, including high-quality sources, than anything you can put forth stating that men are significantly more affected by domestic violence than women are. Again, WP:Due weight is one important Wikipedia matter at play here. I don't need "a tally of studies" to support my view. All I need to do is show what consensus is among researchers on this matter, and I did that with my "00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)" post above. The 2013 source I cited above is clear that "Most activists, academics and agencies agree that most commonly victims of domestic violence are women, and perpetrators are men, but do acknowledge that violence can be the other way round." It's not stating that due to "conventional wisdom. Whether we pull the 86% statement from the article or not, the fact remains that women being significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are is a well supported matter in literature on domestic violence. Your assertion about men? Not so well supported. Also, it's best that you don't overexaggerate by stating "numerous" or a "dozen" and the like. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You're being very vague. What specifically are the problems with each study and why do you feel the Canadian and British governments are not reputable sources? And where is that tally of studies you must have in order to determine more studies confirm women are the majority of victims? Don't tell me you don't need it. You said most studies confirm you standpoint, the only way you could know this is if you had tallied the various studies and counted ones for and against. An uncited quote from someone who shares your claim isn't exactly compelling in the face of empirical studies saying something else.

As it stands, the balance of evidence that has been provided thus far does not support the claim that women are 86% of DV victims. You're saying they're "poor" and providing absolutely no substantiation for this while simply repeating the original assertion and refusing to explain why one study should be given all of this weight while every other study is rejected out of hand. I find your arguments lacking in substantiation and credibility.

In fact, it doesn't even look like the article being used as a source for this claim would support this claim. Where in that source does it say 86% of DV victims are women? Can you show that to me? I've shown you several sources that give different figures, you're saying this source is all that's needed and yet I can't even find support for this claim in the source you want to keep using in favor of all others. Does 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men equal 86% of victims being women? What page of the source supports this figure of 86% and what is the context of that claim? Mrklp5716 (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The source, Trawick, Shane. "Birth Control Sabotage as Domestic Violence: A Legal Response." California Law Review 100 (2012): 721-760. Has this to say in a footnote:

"Throughout this Comment, I refer to birth control sabotage victims using predominantly feminine pronouns and their abusers with predominantly masculine pronouns. This is because the vast majority of domestic violence victims are women. SHANNON CATALANO ET AL., BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, NCJ 228356, SELECTED FINDINGS: FEMALE VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE 5 tbl.2 (2009)(finding that 86 percent of all domestic violence victims in sixteen large countries are women). But see Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Controversies Involving Gender and Intimate Partner Violence in the United States, 62 SEX ROLES 179 (2010) (finding that data collection methodologies on the gender asymmetry of domestic violence may skew the gendered occurrence rates of domestic violence). As I argue that birth control sabotage is a form of domestic violence, I have assumed a similar asymmetrical occurrence rate, wherein men are the primary saboteurs of contraceptives and women are the primary victims. Undoubtedly, sabotage and violence by women does occur."

That source, NCJ 228356points to the 86% figure in a later report, Profile of Intimate Partner Violence Cases in Large Urban Counties. The figure represents the gender makeup of cases filed in 16 counties in 8 U.S. States, rather than overall prevalence. Would suggest a better source regardless, as there are more comprehensive studies available and the citation itself offers reasons why the figure may be unreliable. Reactive inhibition (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Mrklp5716, I fail to see how I am being "very vague." I've been explicitly clear with you above, and you, for some reason, have not been digesting it the way that you should have. For example, I never stated that "the Canadian and British governments are not reputable sources." I never stated that "most studies confirm [my] standpoint." I stated that, compared to your assertion, the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources, including those of the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) WP:MEDRS variety, support the "women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are" aspect. They do, as is clearly indicated by "00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)" post above. But, indeed, there are various WP:Reliable sources stating that the vast majority of studies on domestic violence report that women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are; either type of sourcing is all that is required to support my viewpoint. I don't need to literally tally "various studies and counted ones for and against," and your suggesting that I do is ridiculous, as if that is common practice when assessing research consensus on a topic as big as domestic violence. The quote I cited from the 2013 source is not "An uncited quote." I take it you mean that it doesn't point to a study for that comment. Not that it needs to, since nothing in the WP:Reliable sources or WP:MEDRS guidelines requires that it does, but that page cites multiple studies and the quote that you contend is uncited appears to be partly cited to Gadd et al., 2002 (the latter part of the comment). But whether it's the scholarly sources I cited above, or review articles such as this 2003 one, they all support what I have stated on this matter. That review article relays, "While some surveys suggest that similar proportions of men and women report intimate partner violence (IPV), abused women experience more physical and emotional impairment than men.2- 4 It is not surprising, therefore, that the great majority of interventions aimed at prevention and treatment of IPV focus on violence by men against women. Although violence against men by women and between same-sex partners are important issues, presently there are too few original research articles with this focus to warrant a systematic review of these topics."

If you want to cite organizations, which you obviously do since you disregard scholarly book sources as though they are biased (when, actually, they are some of the preferred sources per WP:MEDRS), I'll begin with the World Health Organization (WHO), an undoubtedly authoritative source on health matters, which states, "Intimate partner and sexual violence are mostly perpetrated by men against women and child sexual abuse affects both boys and girls. International studies reveal that approximately 20% of women and 5–10% of men report being victims of sexual violence as children. Violence among young people, including dating violence, is also a major problem." Regarding this WHO study, described as "the first comprehensive look at domestic violence globally", the WHO pointed out, "When women are murdered, a partner or spouse is the killer 38 percent of the time... ... By comparison, men die at the hands of a wife or partner only 6 percent of the time." This Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) source states, "Approximately, 29% of women and 10% of men in the U.S. have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported at least one measured impact related to these or other forms of violence in that relationship (Black et al., 2011). ... 1 in 4 women (24.3%) and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) aged 18 and older in the United States have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). Nearly, 15% of women (14.8%) and 4% of men have been injured as a result of IPV that included rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). In 2010, 241 males and 1095 females were murdered by an intimate partner (U.S. Department of Justice, FBI, 2011)." These types of reports, showing that women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are, are the far more common reports when documenting gender matters of domestic violence, and yet you are insisting that the minority of studies suggesting otherwise proves these matters wrong. You state that you find my arguments lacking in substantiation and credibility; I feel likewise regarding your statements, if that is not clear already.

I am not tied to the 86% statement; I reverted you on that matter because you were removing it while making a faulty argument (that men are more affected by domestic violence than women are). I would be fine with removing the 86% statement, as long as a statement about women being significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are is in the article. And as for balance, do read the WP:Due weight policy, including its Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance sections. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You're fine with removing what you now acknowledge is a faulty statement as long as we leave a different faulty statement in there? The quote you've provided is based on REPORTED incidents, which makes is useful only for determining the number of individuals who report IPV. Numerous other studies have indicated that men are far less likely to report IPV, which is precisely why actual incidence rates can only be determined via questionnaire instead of relying on police reports as your quote is doing.

Guess what happens when we discard police reports and look at actual victimization rates, as many of the studies I provided you with have done? They indicate that it's either bi-directional or that men are slightly more likely to be victims of what qualifies as DV. I still don't understand why you think your cherry picked sources should be given ultimate preference here, especially when your figures are based on reported incidences, a notoriously poor way to determine victimization rates due to a multitude of factors that lead to these issues going unreported.

It seems to me like you're trying to negotiate a resolution that still involves misleading information being allowed remain on the page while you continue to ignore a mountain of legitimate empirical evidence to the contrary. Mrklp5716 (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

86% is not much of a faulty statement in this case; after all, this 2008 scholarly source (page 40) that I cited above states that 80% of domestic violence victims are women. A lot of WP:Reliable sources report in the 80% range for domestic violence concerning women. Compared to that, and your assertion that men are more affected by domestic violence than women are, it was easy to decide to revert you. And as for the sources you provided above, you provided two small studies (one, the latter one, which states, "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."), a Public Health Agency of Canada source (your best source), a news source which is not the best type of WP:MEDRS source, and a site (www.csulb.edu) that does not look too WP:MEDRS-compliant. I, on the other hand, have provided scholarly sources, WP:Secondary sources instead of WP:Primary sources, pointing out that women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are, and to a much more traumatizing or deadly degree; your Public Health Agency of Canada source even states that some scholars suggest "women suffer more severe injuries than men." I even included citations from the WHO supporting what I have stated. Again, the WHO relays, "Intimate partner and sexual violence are mostly perpetrated by men against women." That indicates that women, as opposed to men, are usually the victims, are more affected by domestic violence than men are. If one wants to state that it does not, the WHO has been clear on this matter in other ways, including that aforementioned global study of theirs I noted above. And, like the 2003 source I provided above states, "Although violence against men by women and between same-sex partners are important issues, presently there are too few original research articles with this focus to warrant a systematic review of these topics." In other words, domestic violence against men is not an area that is as well researched as domestic violence against women. But you are here insisting that numerous studies show that men are more affected by domestic violence than women are. To add on to what I mean, this 2009 scholarly source (page 119) states, "While it is possible that these women were both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, it is not consistent with the gendered model seen in other research such as the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) where 85% of reported domestic violence victims are women."

Regarding your view, it's clear that it doesn't matter how many sources I provide stating the contrary; you will be sticking to your very questionable belief. To you, all this research has it wrong, and it's simply a construct, or a failure of men to report women battering them or otherwise harassing them, that so much of the research keeps reporting women as the gender more affected by domestic violence. To you, it's simply that reported incidences are "a notoriously poor way to determine victimization rates." I haven't had to cherry pick a thing on this matter; there's an abundance of sources supporting what I've stated, and you know it. And as for questionnaires, which is a form of reporting, the aforementioned WHO global study includes reviewing questionnaires in addition to other reports; it's a systematic review, the first and so far only one, "of the body of scientific data on the prevalence of two forms of violence against women – violence by an intimate partner and sexual violence by someone other than an intimate partner." This WHO source is also a questionnaire matter, and plenty of questionnaires indicate that women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are. You bring up men being unlikely to report domestic violence, but the same has been stated of women; for example, the aforementioned 2013 source I noted above, this time page 24, states, "Women are also unlikely to report domestic violence incidents, even with the self-completion methodology, if the perpetrator is present in the home." As for the accuracy of questionnaires, it also states, "While the use of a self-completion questionnaire suggests that respondents are more likely to give an accurate representation of their experiences it may be the case that a victim has not self-identified their experience as violence. The everyday coercive control that victims may experience is not always self-identified as domestic violence. Some victims completing the questionnaire may be in a state of 'self-blame' making it difficult for them to admit their experience on the questionnaire." All in all, the body of research on domestic violence overwhelmingly supports the statement that women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are; that is why I feel that "my sources should be given ultimate preference here." WP:Due weight and WP:Secondary sources.

Going back to the 86% statement, I removed it and its source, left in the statement that "the majority of victims of domestic violence are women," but added in "significant," and supported it with two of the scholarly sources I cited above with my "00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)" post (the 2012 and 2013 sources). Again, this is material that is also made clear in the Domestic violence article, and I don't see why it shouldn't be noted at this article as well. Trying to convince me that men are more affected by domestic violence than women are is futile, just as it seems it's futile to try to convince you that women are more affected by it than men are. So I suggest you stop trying. If you want to make the case that the argument that men are more affected by domestic violence than women are should be in the article, then I suggest we take this matter to WP:Med and perhaps some other form of WP:Dispute resolution. Whatever the case, your content should be given WP:Due weight if it's included. Flyer22 (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop quoting data that relies on reported incidents, it's worthless as a measure of actual victimization. Shall I edit all articles on rape to reduce those figures only to those reported? Do you think that would be fair? Obviously not, so stop doing it here. You've been given much better data that doesn't rely on reports and have ignored it or rejected it and avoided given any arguments as to why other than incredibly vague accusations of it being "poor".

It's patently obvious that you have no interest whatsoever in statistical accuracy. You still have not substantiated your claims about a majority of studies confirming your position and I'm still waiting for you to explain what's wrong with the studies you were given or why you feel the British and Canadian governments are not trustworthy. Let's not forget that you initially defended the original stat and restored it after it was removed even though it was later determined that the source didn't even corroborate the claim of 86%.

The statement you left there is not supported by the evidence. The bulk of the evidence here indicates that DV is bidirectional and, in many cases, that women are the disproportionate number of aggressors, but it seems that evidence means very little to you and it's quite obvious that you're motivated by ideology alone.

Once more I'm going to ask you these questions and I would like you to answer them: Why do you feel the British and Canadian governments are not reputable sources? Where is the tally of studies you have taken in order to determine that the majority of them side with your claims? I'm sorry but you've given me no reason whatsoever to accept that your modification has improved the accuracy of this article. Mrklp5716 (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Mrklp5716, the significant majority of your arguments are poor. Most of your sources are poor. Stop making poor arguments. Stop producing poor sources. Two small studies are not good sources. Stop asking, "Why do [I] feel the British and Canadian governments are not reputable sources?". The British government is supporting your view, how? The Canadian government is supporting your view, how? The Public Health Agency of Canada is your only good source, and it does not support your argument that men are generally victims of domestic violence more than women are; it supports the suggestion that domestic violence might equally, or almost equally, affect men and women in Canada, and that a few studies relay that, for some forms of domestic violence (such as "he/she is jealous and doesn't want you to talk to other men/women," and "he/she demands to know who you are with and where you are at all times"), men are victims more than women are. And those reports conflict with a lot of research, including research that the Public Health Agency of Canada reports on regarding its information on violence against women, such as here...and here for specific text. You will of course again focus on what women have reported, and disregard matters that are not questionnaires. But, like I've already noted, questionnaires are also a form of reporting and nowhere do these sources state that questionnaires were not involved in any of the research. In fact, and like I've already noted, the WHO has involved questionnaires. And nowhere does the Public Health Agency of Canada source state that all its data on domestic violence against men is based on questionnaires. So your "reporting vs. questionnaires" argument is moot. Furthermore, I already addressed above, with a WP:Reliable source, how questionnaires can be quite inaccurate. But since you are focused on questionnaires, the second Public Health Agency of Canada source specifically about women that I pointed to in this paragraph explicitly documents men and women having taken questionnaires (or surveys), and women having been significantly more affected by domestic violence than men were. The site then adds, "Clearly, physical and emotional abuse is a common experience for women in Canada. Given the widespread nature of this problem, woman abuse is not a private concern for individuals and families—it is a serious and urgent societal issue."

And your news source? Not a good source. It is a news report on research done by a men's rights campaign group named Parity, who has made claims in their Domestic Violence: The Male Perspective report, claims that are not generally supported by experts in the topic of domestic violence. Notice that the news source is careful to point out that the group is making these claims. That group, like the vast majority of men's rights groups, is not a reliable source whatsoever on domestic violence. And what else? British and Canadian sources are not enough to state that, on average, men are affected by domestic violence more than women are. Get some global research into your arguments, get some non-men's right's secondary sources specifically stating that men are affected by domestic violence more than women are, and then maybe your arguments would be stronger. I have provided global research data, data suggesting that men are not nearly as affected to the same degree as women are by domestic violence. The WHO source, which is not a national source, but an international source, specifically states, "Intimate partner and sexual violence are mostly perpetrated by men against women." I have provided secondary sources that specifically state that women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are. And the 86% figure? It was pointed out above by a different editor where that figure comes from, and, like I noted above, hardly is it faulty, given that "[a] lot of WP:Reliable sources report in the 80% range for domestic violence concerning women."

One more time: The vast majority of WP:Reliable sources, across various cultures, support the statement that women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are. Researchers state this; your calls for my tallying the sources is ridiculous. Like the 2009 source I noted in my "15:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)" post states, "In fact, the only researchers who seem to favor the explanation that women are equally as violent as men, are those who have used the Conflict Tactics Scale to collect their data or have attempted to interpret parts of the Straus and Gelles data. Nonetheless, there is a dearth of information about women offenders who have been arrested for domestic violence. Much of what is known supports the self-defense argument. However, there are increasing numbers of women who are arrested for other problems but also have been victims of domestic violence.'" You speak of me having "no interest whatsoever in statistical accuracy" and of evidence meaning very little to me. Quite the contrary; it's clear that evidence, including quality sources, means very little to you when it comes to domestic violence. I am not interested in why you think sources are biased. Also see WP:BIASED. I am interested in you providing quality sources that support your view that, on average, men are subjected to domestic violence more than women are. You have not done that. The sources I've provided above are clear about why you have not done that. Actually, I am not interested in anything you have to state, since it's obvious that you are motivated by a faulty men's rights movement viewpoint. It's clear that you have not even studied WP:MEDRS since you are citing your sources as superior to mine, and it's therefore clear that you are wasting my time. Flyer22 (talk) 16:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again you reject data with no explanation other than vague references to it being poor while you ignore repeated requests for details on why they are poor, then you substitute your own cherry picked sources that rely exclusively on police reports instead of actual victimization rates? I have repeatedly said that numerous studies indicate DV to be bidirectional, which you also ignore in favor of insisting that women are the overwhelming majority of victims... even when your own sources do not support such a claim, they only support the idea that women file the majority of DV related police reports.

Let's not forget that you have twice restored and defended a claim that it's own citation did not even support! This is quite pathetic, actually. You accuse me of everything you're doing yourself while continuing to avoid every request for you to substantiate your claim that this data is of poor quality. Repeating claims doesn't make them true. You still have not provided suitable proof that women are the "strong majority" of DV victims. The data does not support such a claim. It either shows that women a slight majority, men are a slight majority or that it's bidirectional.

I am going to ask you once again why you feel this data is of poor quality, why you feel police reports are a superior way to gauge victimization over actual victimization and to substantiate the claim that the majority of studies agree with you. You still have not addressed any of these issues. If you can't defend your own arguments you should question why you're so insistent on making them. Repeating your claim that it's poor isn't substantiating the claim that it's poor and replacing valid data on victimization with data on police-reported victimization is not in the interests of accuracy.

Please stop avoiding the questions and address this issue honestly and fairly because right now you are not doing either. The only wasting person wasting your time right now is you because you'd rather stick to your narrative and justify it by any means necessary. Mrklp5716 (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There you go again, with the same poor arguments, same accusations of my being vague when I have actually been very explicit with you, and the same big claims with no good sources specifically supporting those big claims. Quite pathetic indeed. My sources have supported what I have stated, including by explicitly echoing what I have stated. Your arguments have become a Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass matter for me. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There you go again, avoiding my requests for you to back up your claims with substance. You have not been explicit at all. You have been incredibly vague and still have not explained why you think the sources are poor, what percentage of studies indicate women to be the "significant majority" of victims, why you think police reports are a better way to gauge victimization rates than actual victimization rates.

You continue to ignore dozens of studies that indicate DV to be bi-directional and some that indicate women to be the majority of aggressors and men the majority of victims while relying exclusively on police reported data to indicate victimization when you should know it only covers reported victimization. Your arguments are weak and not even supported by your own data. Please address the concerns I've raised. Don't tell you have, you have not.

What is wrong with this study?:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/2/1/82.abstract[2]

"Some 30% of the men and 32% of the women reported engaging in some form of physical aggression against a current steady dating partner. Additionally, 49% of the men and 26% of the women reported being the victims of their current dating partner's physical aggression. Length of the dating relationship was associated with men's physical aggression and their victimization was associated with decreased liking for their partners. Women's experiences with physical aggression in a dating relationship as both victims and aggressors were related to the length of the relationship, less liking for the partner, and less positive affect for the partner."

What is wrong with this study?

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020[3]

"Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5)"

What is wrong with this study?

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/publications/mlintima-eng.php[4] )

"Statistics Canada reports that "ALMOST EQUAL PROPORTIONS OF MEN AND WOMEN (7% and 8% respectively) had been the victims of intimate partner physical and psychological abuse (18% and 19% respectively). These findings were consistent with several earlier studies which reported equal rates of abuse by women and men in intimate relationships."

What is wrong with this study?

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm[6]

"Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988). The incidence of violence and acquaintance rape in dating relationships among college men and women. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 305-311. (A sample of actively dating college students <204 women and 140 men> responded to a survey examining courtship violence. Authors report that there were no significant differences between the sexes in self reported perpetration of physical abuse.) Anderson, K. L. (2002). Perpetrator or victim? Relationships between intimate partner violence and well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 851-863. (Data consisted of 7,395 married and cohabiting heterosexual couples drawn from wave 1 of the National Survey of Families and Households <NSFH-1>. In terms of measures: subjects were asked "how many arguments during the past year resulted in 'you hitting, shoving or throwing things at a partner.' They were also asked how many arguments ended with their partner, 'hitting, shoving or throwing things at you.'" Author reports that, "victimization rates are slightly higher among men than women <9% vs 7%> and in cases that involve perpetration by only one partner, more women than men were identified as perpetrators (2% vs 1%)")"

This one?

"Arias, I., & Johnson, P. (1989). Evaluations of physical aggression among intimate dyads. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 298-307. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale-CTS- with a sample of 103 male and 99 female undergraduates. Both men and women had similar experience with dating violence, 19% of women and 18% of men admitted being physically aggressive. A significantly greater percentage of women thought self-defense was a legitimate reason for men to be aggressive, while a greater percentage of men thought slapping was a legitimate response for a man or woman if their partner was sexually unfaithful.)"

What about this one?

"Arriaga, X. B., & Foshee, V. A. (2004). Adolescent dating violence. Do adolescents follow in their friends' or their parents' footsteps? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 162-184. (A modified version of Conflict Tactics Scale was administered on two occasions, 6 months apart, to 526 adolescents, <280 girls, 246 boys> whose median age was 13. Results reveal that 28% of girls reported perpetrating violence with their partners <17% moderate, 11% severe> on occasion one, while 42% of girls reported perpetrating violence <25% moderate, 17% severe> on occasion two. For boys, 11% reported perpetrating violence <6% moderate, 5% severe> on occasion one, while 21% reported perpetrating violence <6% moderate, 15% severe> on occasion two. In terms of victimization, 33% of girls, and 38% of boys reported being victims of partner aggression on occasion one and 47% of girls and 49% of boys reported victimization on occasion two."

Tell me what's wrong with all of these and then we can deal with the other dozen or so. Mrklp5716 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. I have addressed the so-called points you've raised, and with WP:Reliable sources. Notice the number of sources I have provided, compared to what you have provided, with no WP:Reliable secondary source supporting your wide assertions? Yeah. You simply don't like what I have stated. And you still have not answered why you are focused on this article, as opposed to the Domestic violence article, which reports the same thing regarding women being the majority of domestic violence victims. In another reply two, I will cease replying to you. Or perhaps I will cease replying to you with this edit. Unless it's to revert you, or to support someone else reverting you. And if I need to bring WP:Med editors other than myself into this matter, I will. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you have not addressed what you claim are the flaws in these studies. You have rejected them while claiming you have and there is a difference. I still want you to explain why none of these studies are valid, I want you to substantiate your claim that most studies indicate the majority of victims are women and the aggressors are men (note: actual victims, not who files the most police reports) and I want you to explain why you feel studies that look at actual victimization rates should be rejected in favor of studies that look at total police reports filed. You have not satisfactorily answered any of these or substantiated the claim that a "strong majority" of victims are women and the aggressors are men in any context other than police reports which, once again, are not a valid measure of victimization. Mrklp5716 (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed what are flaws citing those studies. And you claiming that I have not is silly. Stop focusing so much on what primary studies state. Per WP:MEDRS, Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. And, yes, the rates of domestic violence are a WP:MEDRS matter because it deals with epidemiology. Then again, I suppose you can't stop focusing on such sources, given that, as secondary sources I've provided above point out, research on domestic violence against males is not nearly as well researched as domestic violence against females. Again, you are not even bothering to follow WP:MEDRS, which is the guideline you should be following for rates of domestic violence; so that's another reason it's futile replying to you. Medical editors, such as Jmh649 (Doc James) or Jytdog, would tell you that secondary scholarly sources confirming your viewpoint, not primary studies, are the sources you should be adhering to for content such as this. I told you above, "Get some global research into your arguments, get some non-men's right's secondary sources specifically stating that men are affected by domestic violence more than women are, and then maybe your arguments would be stronger." You still have not done that. I also relayed above, "like the 2009 source I noted in my '15:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)' post states, "In fact, the only researchers who seem to favor the explanation that women are equally as violent as men, are those who have used the Conflict Tactics Scale to collect their data or have attempted to interpret parts of the Straus and Gelles data. Nonetheless, there is a dearth of information about women offenders who have been arrested for domestic violence. Much of what is known supports the self-defense argument. However, there are increasing numbers of women who are arrested for other problems but also have been victims of domestic violence." You ignored that. You've ignored every WP:Reliable source I have provided because you assert that the sources are biased, disregarding the WP:Biased guideline, and only rely on police reports instead of questionnaires, without providing any proof that this is the case and disregarding where I pointed out questionnaire matters.

Also, see what Zad68 stated below regarding your sources. I really don't see what is left for me to state to you on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're talking about "men's rights secondary sources" while ignoring academic and government studies that are about IPV/DV and have nothing to do with men's rights. Are the CDC, Statistics Canada and British Home Office/British Crime Survey all men's rights sources? Your arguments are weak and without merit. Your bias could not be more obvious.

The fact remains that you continue to conflate police reports with victimization, you continue to reject studies as being "poor" with no explanation why (unless we count erroneously labeling them as "men's rights secondary sources") and you have not backed up your claim that most studies show women are the majority of victims, only that they file the most police reports.

I'm preparing another edit to that page. It will be factually accurate, fair, balanced and have legitimate sources. If you want to revert the changes, I will expect to see some legitimate arguments from you this time. And no, rejecting valid studies from IPV researchers and government agencies as "men's rights secondary sources" doesn't count as a valid refutation or an indication of the data being "poor".

Let's not forget that you twice restored my removal of the 86% figure even though you now seem to acknowledge that the citation provided didn't even say that. Yet you restored it... twice. Your bias is clearly interfering with the accuracy of information on that page and your inability to understand the difference between police reports and victimization rates is getting old. Mrklp5716 (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, which source is a men's rights source was already noted above; it is the source you cited by providing this news source. As for the rest of what you stated, in either version, I've already sufficiently addressed that above. You don't like what I have stated and have ignored some of it, just as you have ignored Zad68's comments about your poor sources. Your planned edit will be reverted if it relies on primary study sources and/or gives WP:Undue weight to a domestic violence matter. As for bias, I am going by Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you are not, and clearly don't care to do so. I suggest you read what Wikipedia means by WP:Neutral, including what it states about balance, like I've already pointed out to you above. But just like you don't care to read and adhere to WP:MEDRS, you obviously won't. Flyer22 (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not a source, it's an article. The data itself comes from the British Crime Survey and a separate source was provided for this data that also refutes your claim. It's very telling that you choose to hone in one item - which isn't even being portrayed as a source - while you ignore every actual source from IPV researchers and government agencies that also refute your claim.

Additionally, you still have not answered my questions. Once more I would like to know why you feel all of those other studies from IPV researchers and government agencies are not valid, I would like to see how you determined the majority of studies confirm your claim when the majority of actual studies posted in this discussion thus far have refuted them and I would like to know why you think it's acceptable to portray data on police reports as though it represented actual victimization rates while rejecting studies that actually look at victimization rates without providing a reason for that rejection.

My edit will address all of these issues with facts on actual victimization rates from credible, primary sources so I suggest you start thinking of answers to these questions now. Mrklp5716 (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not a source? You are the one who cited it as a source. And that article specifically states, "Men assaulted by their partners are often ignored by police, see their attacker go free and have far fewer refuges to flee to than women, says a study by the men's rights campaign group Parity. The charity's analysis of statistics on domestic violence shows the number of men attacked by wives or girlfriends is much higher than thought. Its report, Domestic Violence: The Male Perspective, states: 'Domestic violence is often seen as a female victim/male perpetrator problem, but the evidence demonstrates that this is a false picture.'" It is relaying what the group makes of the research.

You used a Public Health Agency of Canada source to support your claims. I countered that with what they have stated in their articles about domestic violence against women, noted that you would likely discard those matters because you think they are just police report matters, and that the source cannot support the claim that men are, on average, more affected by domestic violence than women are. This piece from a Public Health Agency of Canada source is not simply a police reports matter. For the last time: "You've ignored every WP:Reliable source I have provided because you assert that the sources are biased, disregarding the WP:Biased guideline, and only rely on police reports instead of questionnaires, without providing any proof that this is the case and disregarding where I pointed out questionnaire matters." Where is your proof that all these sources stating that women are victims of domestic violence significantly more than men are...are basing all the evidence on police reports? Where is your proof that questionnaires are not involved? I've provided proof that questionnaires are involved in a lot of the research. And like Zad68 stated, your Public Health Agency of Canada "doesn't appear to make a clear conclusion about the relative prevalences." Your assertion that "the majority of actual studies posted in this discussion thus far have refuted" my statements is false.

Stop stating that I have not answered your questions regarding your sources. I have, and so has Zad68. And you've already been told by more than me that primary sources, "credible" or not, will not cut it for what you are trying to report. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll stop stating it when it's no longer true. In the meantime, I will continue to point out the fact that you have repeatedly failed to substantiate your accusations of "poor" data in numerous academic and government studies that contradict your assertions. Instead, you've focused all of your efforts on one article that was never even portrayed as a primary source.

And why would I ignore the StatsCan study? Because it indicates women file more police reports? We already know this. The pertinent part of the study is that when police reports are ignored and actual victimization is measured, it clearly says IPV rates between genders are nearly equal. 17% of men and 18% of women had indicated some form of victimization in the last 12 months, if I recall correctly.

Either way, the sources you've provided that are currently on the page reflect reporting rates, they don't reflect victimization rates and I'm not sure how many times I can explain the difference to you. I suspect you know this and are ignoring it because it's simply inconvenient for you to acknowledge. It's not that your sources are bad, it's that they don't actually say what you claim they say. They measure police reports, not victimization. Victimization surveys, like those from the CDC, BHO and StatsCan - which I have provided and which you have failed to acknowledge on several occasions - show a far more even distribution of victims and aggressors between genders.

I have given you numerous primary sources from credible organizations that actually measure victimization instead of simply counting police reports and you have done nothing but reject them as "poor" while refusing to say what's poor about them. 22:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

"Instead, you've focused all of your efforts on one article that was never even portrayed as a primary source." Clearly incorrect, as is the vast majority of what you have stated in this discussion. I'm done replying to you. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That's too bad. All I wanted you to do was substantiate your claims, but I guess you can't do that as you have reapeatedly ignored my requests to do so. It would have also been nice if you could have recognized the difference between police reported incidents and actual incidents, but I guess you cannot do that either. Or maybe you choose not to. I guess I will never know since you won't be replying. Either way, my sources on actual victimization speak for themselves as does the poor methodology in yours. Mrklp5716 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Mrklp5716 Please strike the comments about contributors in your remarks above. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

He changed the comment here; I don't care if he violates WP:Civil with me, though. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes secondary sources are required. These are review articles or major textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Mrklp5716 and Flyer22 you are the only two talking above, and it is going nowhere. You are free to continue but I wonder why you would. Could I ask each of you to list your best sources below? Just the source, please hold back on commentary for now... if you like. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We can use the original source from the CDC which states: "1 in 17 women and 1 in 20 men (5.9% and 5.0%, respectively) experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in the 12 months prior to taking the survey." That does not translate to "a significant majority of victims are women" or that "the majority of aggressors are men."

Link: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_executive_summary-a.pdf

The reason I removed it initially is not that the source was poor but that the claim being made in the article wasn't actually supported by the source. Now, as for the source that's up there right now, it says: "the significant majority of victims of domestic violence are women" which is based on this part of the source: "Women, however, are six times more likely to be victims of rape, domestic violence and sexual assault."

The problem is that these figures are based on Bureau of Justice statistics (ie. court cases) which do not accurately reflect victimization rates for a variety of reasons, including men being less likely to report their victimization and and also police not taking them as seriously or even arresting them as the primary aggressor when they do. (Source: http://wordpress.clarku.edu/dhines/files/2012/01/Douglas-Hines-2011-helpseeking-experiences-of-male-victims.pdf, pg.3)

When we look at actual victimization rates instead of police reports we generally see that IPV is bidirectional and largely equal, or tilts slightly in one direction or another depending on the source, many of which indicate women are the majority of aggressors. I've already and provided sources for those elsewhere but I'm not even interested in pushing that point to be honest. There's obviously going to be variance in different studies but when victimization is looked a instead of police reports, that variance pretty much never indicates that women are a "strong majority" of victims as IPV victimization rates are generally equal or close to equal. Mrklp5716 (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am ignoring this. If you would like me to participate, please just provide your best source(s) and leave your argument out of it. if you want to continue as you were, you are free to do so. If you would like me to participate, you can open a new subsection for sources or just delete all the commentary above, as you will. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Then just read the first sentence please because that's the source. Regarding your revision plus request to talk it out, Flyer22 has already stated that s/he will not reply to me any more. I can't talk it out with someone who refuses to communicate. The most recent revision I made is supported by a primary source and uses specific figures on actual IPV victimization rates by the CDC instead of vague language like "strong majority" which is then backed by nothing more than a tally of police reports. I don't see why this should be a problem for anyone. Mrklp5716 (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

ok, you are on your own. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Have I done something wrong? I'm new to Wikipedia editing and I'm not sure what's expected of me. I have provided a source for the edit I made and explained why it's superior in accuracy to what is currently there. If you're expecting something different please tell me. Mrklp5716 (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source that rejects the idea that women are the majority of victims and men the majority of aggressors. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ab.21499/full Mrklp5716 (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The article at present doesn't have the "86% victims female" figure, which is not even supported by the source that was being cited, in it; instead, it reports the 2010 CDC NISVS statistics that 10.4% of US men and 8.6% of US women had been subject to reproductive coercion, giving 45% of victims female, which is indeed a lower figure than for other forms of intimate partner violence, which do indeed victimize more women than men. NISVS is a large-scale random-digit-dial telephone survey by some of the most respected researchers in the intimate partner violence field, carried out by the world's most respected public-health organization. Although its scope is limited to a single country, this study is the gold standard among primary sources, and is treated as such by secondary sources. The reports from different years of the NISVS currently have 688 citations in the literature, including this excellent 2012 review paper on intimate partner violence.

In short, the 86% figure for reproductive coercion simply does not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny, and it should remain out of the article. There is no need to resort to unreliable statistics like police reports, biased talking points from MRA organizations, or 2013 papers with only three fringe citations, to justify its exclusion. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Kragen - pointless post as the figure is not in the article. WP:NOTFORUM. Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Role in domestic violence section from article

Please work out your edit war here, instead of disrupting the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Role in domestic violence

Domestic violence, also called "intimate partner violence", is monitored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Their survey on domestic violence measures five types of domestic violence, including control of reproductive health, citing pregnancy pressure and birth control sabotage specifically.

While research remains fragmentary, women in abusive relationships appear to be at higher risk of reproductive coercion and unintended pregnancies.

Discussion

I really have no more time for this issue, I have made my points and I hope those who are responsible for final construction of the page take them into consideration. Some of the pages on gender related issues are simply awful by all but the most jaundiced of meters, I hope this does not become one of them. If Wikipedia can tolerate 3rd rate entries, then Wikipedia tolerates 3rd rate entries and the project has become not was hoped. So be it. CSDarrow (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

On the talk page, I reverted Mrklp5716's clear use of WP:Synthesis here, where he attributes the "majority" matter to police reports even though the WP:Reliable sources supporting that line do not state that, and the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources relaying that women are the majority of domestic violence victims do not support that material either. And then here, Tutelary reverted me, stating, "Don't edit others' comments." Jytdog, what is the point of bringing this material to the talk page, if, like Tutelary believes, we can't edit others' work on this matter? This text is from the article, Tutelary. It is not Mrklp5716's comment. It is text that Mrklp5716 is misrepresenting, and is text that he should be proposing edits for in the Discussion section. Show me where WP:Talk is against my revert of Mrklp5716 on this matter? And contrary to your belief, WP:Talk does allow us to edit others' comments, such as here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Having used WP:POPUP to see the diff of the edit in question, I thought that you had edited someone else's comment along with the tildes, I am wrong here. There was no malicious intent in my honest mistake. Feel free to revert me. Self reverted. Tutelary (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Please review your sources. They are based on Bureau of Justice statistics, not victimization surveys. They measure the number of police reports and court cases filed, they do not measure actual victimization due to underreporting by men and women, but disproportionately men.

You say my edit was a synthesis, yet I'm quoting exact figures from one report by the CDC. Why did you remove this? It is reliably sourced content and the figures can be easily confirmed by looking at the source.

Why should vague language be used in place of precise percentages? Why should Bureau of Justice stats be used in place of actual victimization stats? Please answer these questions. Mrklp5716 (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have already reviewed them. And you engaged in pure WP:Synthesis, plain and simple. Read that policy. What WP:Reliable source supports the assertion that "consistent research indicates the significant majority of police reports filed are from women"? The second source, for example (Nicola Groves, Terry Thomas, 2013), its statement of "Most activists, academics and agencies agree that most commonly victims of domestic violence are women, and perpetrators are men, but do acknowledge that violence can be the other way round.", is not based on police reports (not solely anyway). And neither are many of the other sources I have provided on this talk page (not solely anyway), including these, which Jytdog referred to as "some high quality reviews." Like I stated with that edit, you have provided mostly poor sources to support your arguments, even after you have been asked to provide secondary reliable sources supporting it. With your talk page edit that I reverted, you provided no WP:Reliable source for your statement that "victimization surveys often show a more even gender distribution between victims and aggressors," and you cherry-picked a study from the CDC when the CDC has stated differently on the matter, as shown above on this talk page, including in the #Hamel sources section. And CSDarrow has provided a review article that defines domestic violence too broadly to be mainstream, as even the Hamel review article basically admits. In the #Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation section and elsewhere on the talk page, I have provided sources for what authoritative medical bodies, scholarly books, general and systematic reviews state on domestic violence, and they all support the statement that women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are. Zad68 reviewed your sources here, and recognized them as poor. Should he review more of them for you to get the point? Jmh649 (Doc James) stated here of my initial sources, "Yes secondary sources are required. These are review articles or major textbooks." As noted, since then, I have provided a lot more sources making the same points as those sources, while you have continued to provide inappropriate sources. You continuing to argue that men are significantly more affected by domestic violence than women are, or that the victimization rate is equal, without providing good sources to support that statement, is why I have ceased discussion with you before. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No. The edit I made used precise numbers from the CDC report. This is the exact same CDC report that you previously restored twice, except when I first removed it was making a claim that the report itself did not support. Your ability to differentiate legitimate data from questionable data is highly suspect and I would appreciate it if you would stop making excuses for rejecting data you don't want to acknowledge while slyly passing off data as things that it isn't.

The CDC data I added said: "1 in 17 women and 1 in 20 men (5.9% and 5.0%, respectively) experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in the 12 months prior to taking the survey." This is direct from the same report. You still haven't refuted it, you just ignore it while pointing out studies using police reports to change the figures.

I would appreciate it if you would stop making excuses for rejecting data you don't want to acknowledge while slyly passing off data as things that it isn't. You have done this numerous times now. Mrklp5716 (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I just took a shot at editing this. I for one am pretty unhappy having discussion of STDs in this section... as if Wikipedia were old-school Roman Catholics (as I was brought up) and sexuality has no meaning outside reproduction. :) As far as I can tell this article is about reproduction, not about sexuality or sexual health or disease. So I took all that out. I also took out WP:PRIMARY sources and press releases (ugh) and kept only WP:SECONDARY sources and statements by major medical and scientific bodies. The result is pretty abbreviated much shorter than what was there. Is this OK with folks? If anybody wants to add contact back, please base it on secondary sources or statements by major medical or scientific bodies. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is not about sexuality or sexual health or disease; various WP:Reliable sources on the topic make it clear that reproductive coercion is about all of those things. And reproduction is always a health matter. If this article were not at all about health, WP:MEDRS sources would not apply; they obviously do. Reproductive coercion concerns sexuality, sexual health, mental health, disease, legal and other social aspects. But at the same time, I don't object much to you having significantly cut the section down, except that it now needs expansion. Or perhaps the section is not needed at all, and the material should be relocated elsewhere in the article (perhaps with a new section title), since reproductive coercion is a form of domestic violence.

And of course above, I already stated, "With all the drama the 'women are more affected by domestic violence than men are' topic has brought to this article, I'm beginning to think that we might as well leave it out of this article, and let the Domestic violence article handle it instead." So now we've stuck specifically to the reproductive coercion aspect, instead of the general rates of domestic violence, and that's fine. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% that reproduction is very much a health issue. Flyer, what would you like this section to accomplish? Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

To simply convey the relationship between reproductive coercion and domestic violence, whatever aspects come along with that, and to reflect those aspects accurately. Also, I reiterate that the information can probably be relocated to another section or retitled, since it's redundant (to me at least) to note "Role in domestic violence" when reproductive coercion is domestic violence. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Point?

If I may ask, what do you all see as the goal of this section, with respect to the topic of the article? Can folks answer just briefly, giving their own views of what the goal is, not making arguments against anybody at this time? Jytdog (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like for it to accurately reflect the frequency of victimization by both genders. Victimization surveys show much more symmetry in both IPV aggression and victimization than police/court reported data, but this is not being considered by Flyer22. The claim that a "strong majority of victims are women" is not supported by victimization surveys, it's supported by police/court reports only and underreporting by men means the conclusions are very lopsided. I would like for this to be rectified. The CDC indicates that women are slightly more likely to be victims and I am happy to have this stated. I am not happy to see "a strong majority" of women being victims or a strong majority of men being aggressors because these claims are not supported by victimization statistics. Mrklp5716 (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Would you please comment on the goal of this section in relation to the topic of the article? I will ignore further off-topic answers, but wanted to give you a chance to respond to the question. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even convinced that it needs to be here. There is already an article for domestic violence. My only concern is that whatever information does end up here is accurate. Mrklp5716 (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Mrklp5716, as noted in the #Discussion section above, the sources I have provided support the statement that the "strong majority of [domestic violence] victims are women." We should not give artificial balance to a topic in the way that you have been trying to do. But this aspect is moot now, since Jytdog has significantly cut the section in question.

Again, reproductive coercion is a form of domestic violence. Yes, like I already pointed out on this talk page, there is already a Wikipedia article for domestic violence, and it states that the majority of domestic violence victims are women, and yet you focused on this article. So I take it that you will now move on to the Domestic violence article and I will be faced with more of the same from you? Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

No, your sources do not support your claim that "a strong majority of victims are women". Many of the sources you've provided don't even mention male victims nor do they look at the frequency of victimization between genders at all. How do you figure these support your claim? You continue to conflate frequency with severity while ignoring that police/court data is inferior to victimization surveys because of under-reporting issues, particularly by men

Actual victimization surveys - which you have also been given several of (and ironically one of them is the original source from the CDC that you had restored yourself twice which was only removed due to the faulty 86% claim it was attached to) - show anything from women being a slight majority of victims to men being a slight majority of victims. They do not indicate a "strong majority of victims" to be women and show very close numbers with little variance.

Also, yes, you will see me on that article and probably many more, including more issues I have with this one. All of this has been over ONE SENTENCE. I've already identified several more bogus claims on this page that I haven't even tried to address yet. After all of this you still have not proven that women are significantly more likely to be victims of IPV and continue to attempt making your point by using inferior data or by quoting vague comments about "disproportionate effect" without even considering if this effect is applicable to frequency instead of just severity. Your comment states it's the former but your sources all claim the latter and that isn't even in dispute. Mrklp5716 (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I am now done responding to you. You are not staying on topic and focused relentlessly on one thing, regardless of whether it is under discussion or not. Going forward, WP:SHUN. Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That comment was in response to Flyer22, not to you. Why are you inserting yourself into a reply I made to another user, which is relevant to their comment, and claiming it's not relevant to your comment? Did you respond from the wrong account? Additionally, I find it funny that you - like Flyer22 - always respond with a statement about how you will no longer respond to me... but only when I challenge one of you to substantiate a claim you have made concerning the contents of a source that doesn't appear to support the claim it's being represented as supporting. Mrklp5716 (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Mrklp5716, like I just stated in the #Hamel article section above, all of those latest sources of mine indeed support the statement that women are significantly more affected by domestic violence than men are, as Jytdog has seemingly agreed. Those sources make the matter explicitly clear by stating that domestic violence disproportionately affects women or just how significantly they affect women, whether specifically noting that it's a matter that affects women more than men or noting the general aspect of it. Once again, there is no point in me communicating with you. I cannot take you seriously on this topic, when you are rejecting high-quality sources that explicitly state that women are the majority of domestic violence victims, while you are providing primary sources, some of which that don't even support your statements, and making other comments without any reliable sources supporting those comments. I'm not interested in your interpretation of the sources. Here at Wikipedia, we go by what the WP:Reliable sources state, with WP:Due weight. And your assertion that "All of this has been over ONE SENTENCE"? Wrong. I'm done discussing with you again. Do stop trying to get me to continue discussion with you. Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but they do not support the claim that women are a "strong majority" of victims. None of those sources actually measure victimization rates of both men and women and some don't even talk about men at all. How you figure this proves women are victimized more often is beyond me and would be beyond any reasonable person. The comments you quoted about "disproportionate effect" also do not apply to the frequency of victims between genders but the severity of things like physical injury which does indeed disproportionately affect women but is irrelevant to the issue of how often each gender is victimized and I must once again remind you that this is the issue at hand.

I'm not the only person to note your disingenuous tactics here. Find some credible data to refute the data that has been provided and we can begin to resolve this but your repeated attempts to pass off studies as things they're not isn't going to fly with me and I will not let this issue go until you manage to find some actual evidence to support your claims. Plenty has been provided refuting them. 01:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Men's rights Reddit members WP:Canvassed to edit the Reproductive coercion article

Take note that Men's rights Reddit members were WP:Canvassed to edit the Reproductive coercion article, or to at least lend their voices at this talk page; see here. Some of the editors are Wikipedians, and one WP:Administrator chirped in. I was alerted of the matter via email, and I now know of some of those members' Wikipedia identities, but I won't disclose that here on Wikipedia...per that perhaps being seen as violation of the WP:Outing policy. Bbb23, any thoughts on this matter with regard to Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation? Flyer22 (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I dunno, Flyer22, I'd probably take this to WP:ANI, but you'd have to show the effects on Wikipedia and you'd have to be careful of outing.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, I didn't get your ping via WP:Echo a few minutes ago, but I don't need it since I have this article WP:Watchlisted. I am not sure if you have it WP:Watchlisted, so I pinged you to it again. I noted early on that more men's rights editors were popping up at this article. The linked Reddit thread is further indication to me of how these editors mobilize (one of the ways that they do), and that topics such as these are always in danger of being ridiculously skewed by such editors. Their presence at this talk page has not yet proved especially problematic for the article, so I see no need to report this matter at WP:ANI. And, yes, I've clearly mentioned WP:Outing, which it seems can apply to cases involving linking a Wikipedia editor to a Reddit account. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I noted the matter here at WP:ANI because of a thread that is already there about Men's rights movement/Article probation: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bbb23's conduct in enforcing article probation. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Also: The aforementioned Reddit post has since been edited to partly change what it originally stated, as the post currently acknowledges. Flyer22 (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Expansion

I am currently working on expanding this page to include the general definition of reproductive coercion, the three types of reproductive coercion (pregnancy pressure, birth control sabotage, and pregnancy coercion), its relationship with domestic violence and teen pregnancy, and its prevalence. All work so far is in my sandbox - please let me know if you have additional resources or ideas for expansion on this page. Thank you! Rachelpop- (talk) 16:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rachel, here are recent stats for reproductive coercion. It looks like the page needs a rewrite to reflect the fact that men and women experience it at roughly equal rates because at the moment its very misleading.

"Prevalence of Control of Reproductive or Sexual Health by an Intimate Partner Approximately 8.6% (or an estimated 10.3 million) of women in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to, or refused to use a condom, with 4.8% having had an intimate partner who tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to, and 6.7% having had an intimate partner who refused to wear a condom (data not shown). Approximately 10.4% (or an estimated 11.7 million) of men in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth control, with 8.7% having had an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth control and 3.8% having had an intimate partner who refused to wear a condom (data not shown)."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SigGoddard (talk • contribs) 10:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

This article mentions partners coercing to end pregnancies (aka coerced abortion, or Forced abortion) in the the first paragraph but is never addressed in the body of the article. In fact, it only lists three forms as "pregnancy pressure, birth control sabotage, and pregnancy coercion". This is very one sided, and needs amending. -- Malessa (I don't have a user account yet) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.104.231 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the body, not just in the lead. What do you mean by "very one sided"? Flyer22 (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Amazing Liberalism

Saying "Let's have beautiful babies together." is not an example of "coercion." It seems radical feminists seek to criminalize anything men say, anything men do that's not a a statement of submission. Men can't even express their desire for children, because that's somehow "coercion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by TMBTC (talk • contribs) 01:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Saying "Let's have beautiful babies together" within an abusive relationship in which the other partner has no control over the choice of having said babies or not is part of overall reproductive coercion. It serves as verbal pressure that takes away the autonomy of the other person. Women are not the only victims of reproductive coercion. If you want to add to this Wikipedia page and discussion, please do some research and use credible sources. But first, read the whole article. Rachelpop- (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe it stayed there this long without being removed. Yes, "Let's have babies" when you're not giving your partner any other choice is pregnancy pressure. But only because not giving your partner any other choice is pregnancy pressure - the statement on it's own (which to clarify is what the Wikipedia article said up until now) is not even close. In particular, in the sourced article the pressure is clearly in how the man was very physically violent, so it can't be used as a source here. Suffice to say, I've removed the line from the page. 86.40.236.171 (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd add that "If you have a baby, you will never have to worry about me leaving you. I will always be around." is also excessively vague and doesn't appear to come from the reference(Reference examples are "I’ll leave you if you don’t get pregnant", "I’ll have a baby with someone else if you don’t become pregnant", "I’ll hurt you if you don’t agree to become pregnant") which seem far more controlling/harmful IMHO. Eg what if the potential mother were worried about a partner leaving them after becoming a mother? In that scenario, "If you have a baby, you will never have to worry about me leaving you. I will always be around." seems supportive 217.37.166.142 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Stealthing Merger

I've undone your merge of the stealthing article with reproductive coercion. As I understand it, the motive for this act is pure selfishness, with reckless disregard for the consequences, rather than a direct attempt at reproductive coercion. A narrow distinction perhaps, but one we should make. -- The Anome (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

While it may not seem like stealthing doesn't fall under reproductive coercion, it very much falls under birth control sabotage which is then falls under reproductive coercion per the definition. Stealthing is merely a "new" term that the news has dredged up from as far back as 2012 with even the gay angle being ripped off by the current articles from this one. MTWEmperor (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Subject inclusion is not transitive; just because A is a valid subtopic of B, and B a valid subtopic of C, does not mean that A is a valid subtopic of C. And I'd also note that, as cited above, this is behavior that can also occur in same-sex intercourse, in which reproductive coercion is not, and cannot be, an issue. -- The Anome (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Stealthing in the gay community is not a new term and has been used in research :

* Generationing, Stealthing, and Gift Giving: The Intentional Transmission of HIV by HIV-Positive Men to their HIV-Negative Sex Partners 2014 H. Klein --ChristopheT (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I see, it does indeed fall under WP:NEO. Even if a term is a few years old, it is still a new term. Neologisms are new (or relatively new) and (relatively) isolated terms. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merger - There are lots of sources that say it is about the man doing this to feel greater pleasure. Having this in Reproductive coercion would be misplaced and imply that it is about attempting to get the woman pregnant. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose merger stealthing is not explicit reproductive coercion as the motives may differ - why not link rather then merge ? --ChristopheT (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, per The Anome and others. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

That stated, I don't think that stealthing needs its own Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• For merger "In the sexual and domestic violence fields, advocates already have a name for this kind of violence: reproductive coercion. The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) defines reproductive coercion as "behavior [that] includes explicit attempts to impregnate a partner against her will, control outcomes of pregnancy, coerce a partner to have unprotected sex, and interfere with contraceptive methods."

http://www.refinery29.com/2017/04/151202/nonconsensual-condom-removal-stealthing

This is simply the media rehashing an old topic MTWEmperor (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

"Non-consensual condom removal" I think this seems more acceptable. "Stealthing" seemed much too slangy MTWEmperor (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q4 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)