Talk:Intimate partner violence/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Citations of Michael P Johnson

Johnson's methodology for his claim, paraphrased as

"Michael P. Johnson reported in 2001 that 97% of the perpetrators of intimate terrorism were men.[1]"

is suspect. This is the original source of his data, we're looking at pages 1009-1010. His sample base is exclusively women, who not surprisingly do not self-report themselves to be perpetrators of intimate terrorism in significant numbers. We should use different sources, or remove this data content referring to the hypothesis that most perpetrators are men. It's frankly astounding that this paper passed peer review. 98.206.167.5 (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2014‎ (UTC)

Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation

Bbb23, I know that I just bothered you about a domestic violence article yesterday, but this one -- Intimate partner violence -- may also need some extra eyes on it regarding men's rights movement aspects. In fact, all domestic violence articles likely do. This article has been sparingly edited (currently has a very short edit history), but the WP:Undue weight edit seen here, which I reverted (taking care of citation matters in the lead soon after), has made me think that it could be a men's rights movement problematic issue. Given what you stated at the aforementioned article talk page, I don't think it's necessary that you respond to this matter; I simply wanted to alert you to it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"Gender symmetry"

Just like at the Domestic violence article, the Intimate partner violence article gets the occasional editor giving WP:Undue weight to the topic of "gender symmetry" -- the theory that women commit domestic violence as much as men do. This view of domestic violence is not the prevailing view; for example, when it comes to intimate partner violence, the prevailing view is that the overwhelming majority of victims are teenage girls and women, and that intimate partner violence affects teenage girls and women more severely than it affects teenage boys and men. And like the Domestic violence against men article points out, the notion of "gender symmetry" is controversial. So after Prefixcaz made this huge WP:Undue weight edit to the article about "gender symmetry," I challenged the text, stating, "Moved this content down, and cut it significantly while pointing to the article you copied and pasted this from -- Domestic violence against men. Do see WP:Summary style. Removed WP:Citation overkill." Prefixcaz didn't restore the content, but he moved the section back up, to a spot that I feel perhaps gives WP:Undue weight to this theory; so I noted my objection, but did not revert. He then added text that unbalances the content by noting all the supposed proof that "gender symmetry" exists. I followed that up with, "Revert text that unbalances the content, introduces some non-WP:MEDRS-compliant sources and has WP:Citation overkill. Fine, I will go ahead and bring WP:Med into this matter."

Basically, while I do feel that this article has a place for the topic of "gender symmetry" (this part of the article already challenges the "women are the majority of victims" aspect; it did before Prefixcaz's gender "gender symmetry" additions), I don't feel that it should be given as much WP:Weight as Prefixcaz originally gave it. I additionally feel that the section should perhaps be lower, even if not the last section of the article. I'll go ahead and alert WP:Med of this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Alerted. Flyer22 (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This is Prefixcaz's latest edit on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Also note that Prefixcaz deleted this discussion section, in violation of WP:Talk. Flyer22 (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

First, I have no intentions to delete any discussion sections (discussing and providing a neutral point of view is still one of Wiki's principles), so if that would have been the case, it would have been unintentional. My editing of Wiki dates back a few years as I have been busy with some other things, hence the clumsiness in my editing. Second, the studies I have mentioned are valid, the last one from 2010 summarizing over 200 studies. In general, if terms like "a prevailing view" are used, I would appreciate some solid argumentation instead of mere censorship based on personal point of view.

IMO the correct section for Gender symmetry is immediately after the WHO grid after violence against women, as otherwise Wiki would give a biased point of view, implying that IPV is a one-way problem only. According to the studies provided, this doesn't seem to be the case. Furthermore, until a neutral observer has checked the validity of the most recent studies, I would find biased and quite frankly, strange to just discard the existence of such studies. That would not be according to the principles of Wiki as I have known them. Personal opinions are not valid arguments to start an editing war.Prefixcaz (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:Due weight is an aspect of the WP:Neutral point of view policy, and is therefore also policy. Do read what it states, including its subsections. We are not supposed to give "equal balance" (see WP:VALID) to the minority viewpoint. Your "mere censorship based on personal point of view" argument is false. It's false because, as you well know, "gender symmetry" is the minority viewpoint; many, easily found, up-to-date WP:Reliable sources show that. Various studies on "gender symmetry" even make this clear, including this 2013 study that men's rights editors like to throw around; it acknowledges that its definition of domestic violence is not the mainstream view, defining partner abuse broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, and who hits first. It examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence; the authors stated that if one looks at who is physically harmed and how seriously, who expresses more fear, who has psychological problems following abuse, domestic violence is significantly gendered and women suffer the most; however, going by their broader paradigm, "partner abuse can no longer be conceived as merely a gender problem, but also (and perhaps primarily) as a human and relational problem, and should be framed as such by everyone concerned." It's clear from the Domestic violence against men article and the Conflict tactics scale (CTS) article that "gender symmetry" is highly disputed. So to call the mainstream view, a view that is consistently supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, such as this 2009 systematic review source, this 2012 systematic review source, this 2014 scholarly book source, and the World Health Organization (see here), "personal opinions" is entirely false. And you did indeed add poor sources to the article. Any source on intimate partner violence that is about health should be WP:MEDRS-compliant.

As for the placement of the "gender symmetry" text, I'm still not convinced that it should be as high as you placed it. That stated, I don't strongly object to where you placed it. What I mostly objected to, as noted above, was the amount of content you added to the article about it, the WP:Citation overkill that included poor sources, and the unbalanced bit after I cut the content down. Flyer22 (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You're using 3 studies about violence against women to prove that there's violence against women. Here are 5 recent studies about IPV between 2010 and 2013 from my home region, The 5 most gender equal countries in the world: Iceland [1], Finland [2], Sweden [3], Norway[4] and Denmark [5]. 4 of these 5 countries also top The 5 least corrupted countries in the World (Iceland is nr 12)[6], so I would assume we can agree it's fair to say the studies could be considered relatively reliable, as they were ordered by e.g. Ministries of Health, European Union etc. They all say the same thing: IPV is gender symmetrical in all Scandinavia, even the percentages are very similar in all of the 5 countries.

And no, I am neither a Feminist nor a Men's Rights Activist, as I am against these radical movements, so you can stop the flaming attempts based on your personal views. I am very much pro equality for both sexes, just that I rely on honest data and honest interpretations of it, as I do it to improve the society, not ideology.Prefixcaz (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I used four sources (the same that I used at the Reproductive coercion talk page) to show that domestic violence against women is significantly more prevalent than domestic violence against men, and one source that is favored by men's rights editors that even acknowledges that the notion that men are victims of domestic violence as much as women are is the minority view. Let's look at relevant passages from four of the five aforementioned sources I cited:

The 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. There are no WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that state that domestic violence against men has reached epidemic proportions in many societies.

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)."

The 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."

The World Health Organization source 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."

So, again, your argument that I am arguing solely from "personal views" is false. I have the literature on domestic violence, the vast majority of it, backing me. And those sources are not basing that material on ideology. Those sources are honest sources. You have a theory supporting you, and you, especially in your initial "gender symmetry" edit to the Intimate partner violence article, have used poor sources to support that theory. Above, you have also included sources that the vast majority of English-language Wikipedians cannot verify by reading; see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. While I do doubt that you are not a men's rights editor, I'm not going to press that issue. All that stated, since no one from WP:Med has yet to weigh in on this matter, and since I've recently dealt with the same type of "men are victims too" argument at the Sexism article (see here), I'm going to go ahead and ping (via WP:Echo) a few editors from that discussion at the Sexism talk page: EvergreenFir, Rhododendrites, Cullen328 and Jim1138, any opinions on the above? Keep in mind that, as indicated in my "04:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)" comment above, the main dispute on this matter is resolved. And, Prefixcaz, feel free to ping one or more editors who can assist you on your "gender symmetry" arguments. Flyer22 (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No need to get upset, this is open discussion and I welcome it. You are mixing Interpersonal violence with Intimate Partner Violence. Feel free to try to dispute or to undermine the sources I used. Had you looked at them, you would have noticed some of them have English summaries and their origin in shown (Hint: Try the address bar, if not else). Due to the fact that they are in the respective languages of their countries, I didn't use them as sources in the Gender Symmetry section. If you feel European Universities, Ministries and the EU are poor sources, especially from countries that are regarded as the Most Gender Equal and the Least Corrupted countries in the World, then I can only assume you would be reluctant to accept any results against your beliefs. If you want to say, that your point of view is "the prevailing view" and discard these, that is your personal decision. Still, I doubt you can find any studies with less bias than these. In Scandinavia, the prevailing view is according to these, which makes sense of course. The mere number of books in your shelf on the matter is not a valid argument, I'm afraid.

I don't think I need to ping anyone. Call me naive, but I trust there is enough scientific honesty to review the sources I've provided here on the talk page (even if they have all been peer reviewed already, of course). We should present what studies show, not what we want them to show. Neither Feminists nor radical Men's Rights Activists are for equality. They are both for equality only according to their own definitions. Having some experience in the mentality of both of these ideologies, feminists as well as radical Men's Rights Activists, I can understand that it can be hard for you to understand that there are many neutral pro-equality-type of people, especially in Scandinavia. Prefixcaz (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You speak of getting upset; you have seemingly been upset at points in this discussion. Your "mixing" argument is odd, as the Domestic violence article and a variety of WP:Reliable sources are clear about what domestic violence is. As has been stated at the Domestic violence article talk page, the Intimate partner violence article likely should not even exist since so much of domestic violence is intimate partner violence. You don't seem to be aware of all of the alternative terms for domestic violence and which ones are used interchangeably. But whatever the case, the World Health Organization source, which is an international source, is explicitly clear that girls and women are affected by domestic violence significantly more than boys and men are affected by it; different World Health Organization sources are clear on that matter, and the World Health Organization source I cited above specifically uses the words "intimate partner and sexual violence." I don't have to try to dispute the sources you have used. WP:MEDRS is clear about what sources we should be using for health content, and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources is clear about what language sources we should generally be using. Apparently, you have not attempted to study WP:MEDRS. For example, peer reviewed is not the same thing as a review article; ideally, you should be using quality review articles when it comes to study-sources on domestic violence. Your arguments and sources for the existence of "gender symmetry" -- a highly disputed theory -- are not convincing, I'm afraid. And if I hadn't looked at your sources, I wouldn't have noticed the non-English aspect. As for pinging, it's better that others weigh in instead of you and I debating the same things back and forth; WP:Dispute resolution is clear about that. But, at this point, we are not having a debate about article content; we are having a debate about the existence of "gender symmetry," and I'm not interested in debating you on that topic since you've gotten it into your head that "gender symmetry" exists, and talk page discussions are supposed to be about improving the Wikipedia article at hand; see WP:Talk. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Peer reviewing happens in a number of science magazines, as I'm sure you know. I didn't feel the need to start looking for the peer reviewed articles of all of them, as 1. we would not necessarily have access to them without a subscription and 2. this is the Talk-page and none of the links has been used as a source in the article. They are used merely for our talk about a "prevailing view". You can perfectly well see that 1 is a summary from a newspaper, some are from official government sites and others from official university sites. Go ahead and dispute them. It's studies from the Most Gender Equal AND Least Corrupted Countries in the world and in those countries the numbers are very similar, supporting the idea of Gender Symmetry when in comes to IPV in Iceland [7], Finland [8], Sweden [9], Norway[10] and Denmark [11]. Is it a "prevailing view" in those countries? Yes. Is it applicable to the whole World? Probably not. Still I consider it enough to say that it's ok to write "Numerous other empirical studies since 1975 suggest there is evidence for it" as the IPV article text says. It seems you want to water the text enough to give a very different point of view, leave the grid about women as victims on top and move the SUGGESTION of gender symmetry out of sight. That is not honest and you are the only one to know your own motives for it. (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

When I compared peer reviewing to review articles, it's because I was stating that review articles are stronger health sources than sources that are peer reviewed but are not review articles. WP:MEDRS is clear about that, just as it is clear about the fact that WP:Primary sources generally should not be used for health content. As for the rest, I've already pointed out the WP:Undue weight policy to you, and that policy is clear that WP:Undue weight can be given in different ways, including the placement of material. Placing the highly disputed concept of "gender symmetry" where you've placed it is nothing more than an attempt to downplay the fact that the vast majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are men; the vast majority of research on domestic violence supports men as perpetrators of domestic violence far more than it supports women as perpetrators of domestic violence. And it's not just old sources or "feminist sources" that state that. And it's because of that prevailing view that the topic of "gender symmetry" is so controversial. Obviously. As for "mov[ing] the SUGGESTION of gender symmetry out of sight," I was clear above (my "03:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)" post) that this part of the article already challenges the "women are the majority of victims" aspect; it was added there by an IP editor (no doubt a male one) who wants to downplay women as victims. The Intimate partner violence article is not a huge article; people can readily see the Gender symmetry section from the table of contents, no matter where it is placed. Arguing the existence of "gender symmetry" with me is futile, and therefore this discussion is futile if it is going to continue to be about the existence of "gender symmetry." That is another hint that there is no need to continue debating me on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The difference between our opinions seems to be, I don't (based on my agenda) select who the victims are, as I don't want to downplay anyone as a victim, whereas you seem to want to select the data you want to use and refute other. That's seems biased to me. Personally I think providing argumentation for one's own point of view is never futile. If you read our conversation carefully and think about it a little bit, you'll probably be able to figure out a few explanations that fit both your results and the ones I brought forth. I know I did. If you consider that futile, we can wait for others to join the discussion, no prob.Prefixcaz (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia: On Wikipedia, I adhere to its rules. This means that I go by what the WP:Reliable sources, specifically the WP:MEDRS-compliant ones, state on domestic violence. And I go by the WP:Due weight policy. The WP:Reliable sources/WP:MEDRS-compliant sources on domestic violence generally note a gender disparity. I've already pointed out what that gender disparity is, with WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. If that's selecting who the victims are, then so be it. But I'll continue to adhere to the WP:Due weight policy. As for futility, it's futile to try to convince me of something that I cannot be convinced of. That is why I stated that arguing the existence of "gender symmetry" with me is futile, and therefore this discussion is futile if it is going to continue to be about the existence of "gender symmetry." And why would others (with the exception of those who like to debate or seek for the debating to stop) want to weigh in on this discussion when, as I've already noted above, it is no longer about improving the Intimate partner violence article? That is, unless it focuses on the placement of the Gender symmetry section. Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems you come back to continue the discussion despite the fact you don't want to discuss. You have taken the issue to a sidetrack. It also seems like you're trying to imply that despite of the fact of Scandinavia as a region being the Most Gender Equal and the Least Corrupted region in the world, somehow sources from universities or governmental institutes in those regions would be false or have questionable reliability when it comes to IPV. Is that what you are trying to say? That could be understood as tendentious and biased. If you're not saying that the Scandinavian universities and governments lie, then you might consider finding a way to fit all the results in a workable hypothesis instead of merely repeating "no it doesn't exist and I cannot be convinced otherwise". When using the scientific method, all results have to fit a theory, or a theory has to be changed so that all results again fit the theory. I recommend you apply that thought also. And yes, this is very much about improving the IPV article, as a discussion is there to find a consensus based on results, not on agenda. I already wrote that if you think a little, all results can be fit in a hypothesis that can be accepted. Merely trying to denigrate sources or the results based on a personal agenda is not constructive, but dishonest and discriminating to some victims. One of the main purposes of Wiki is to be as accurate and as neutral as possible regardless of one's personal view.Prefixcaz (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you cannot take a hint when someone does not want to discuss. I am not the one trying to convince you of anything; but you are desperately trying to convince me of supposed "gender symmetry." Replying to you about the way that Wikipedia works does not mean that I want to discuss a thing with you. What it means is that I don't like you misrepresenting the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work and attributing proper Wikipedia protocol (the way that I have acted on this matter) to bias. I am clearly the significantly more experienced Wikipedia editor out of the two of us; I know what I am talking about when it comes to Wikipedia polices and guidelines. If you knew about (not simply heard about) those policies and guidelines, you would understand what the WP:Neutral policy means; see here for discussion of how editors like you make it challenging to cite the WP:Neutral policy; I reiterate that this policy includes WP:Undue weight and its subsections. If you knew about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you would understand WP:MEDRS; you would understand that, per WP:Talk, this discussion is not "very much about improving the IPV article." I didn't take "the issue to a sidetrack." You did, by repeatedly insisting on the existence of "gender symmetry." I already stated above (my "04:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)" post) the following: "As for the placement of the 'gender symmetry' text, I'm still not convinced that it should be as high as you placed it. That stated, I don't strongly object to where you placed it. What I mostly objected to, as noted above, was the amount of content you added to the article about it, the WP:Citation overkill that included poor sources, and the unbalanced bit after I cut the content down." That means that I considered the topic resolved. You are the one who pressed on with talk of the existence of "gender symmetry." Your sources and arguments on this matter are generally poor. You remind of the editors at Talk:Circumcision who always speak of supposed bias in the Circumcision article because they cannot comprehend the way that Wikipedia is supposed to work. And on that note, I'm done letting you WP:Bait me. You want WP:The Last word? Go ahead and have it. And while we're on the topic of repeating, the same goes for you as well. Repeating yourself does not make you any more right, or make me any more willing to listen to you. Flyer22 (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't be held responsible for the fact that you reply and keep up the conversation. I'm only responsible for my replies and if you choose not to discuss, you don't need to reply. Your text about "misrepresenting how the Wikipedia is supposed to work" I have have to return to you. I'm not the one trying to say that government institutions and universities in the most gender equal countries in the world are "generally poor" sources merely because I don't like what they say. I'm also not he one trying to completely dismiss results that don't fit in my personal point of view. I'm insisting that there are results that suggest gender equality regarding IPV (this is what I wrote in the article of IPV, go ahead and read the last line in that section) and now I'm providing more support for that suggestion here in the Talk side, because you proposed it yourself. Scandinavian universities have found results supporting it and those results seem to be reliable and consistent enough that the governments in those countries support it. My opinion is "yes, it is possible it exists" whereas yours is "no, it doesn't and anything anyone says can't change my mind". Therefore you try to question the reliability of Scandinavian universities and governments without any valid argumentation whatsoever for your attempts to do so. That's trying to poison a well, just that in this case it will be very hard to do. The amount of content was initially there to give further insight to the issue and to explain it more. To give more valid information. That is the purpose if Wikipedia. And yes all this is about the article because, if these points is not resolved, you will start an editing war based on your personal agenda or beliefs.Prefixcaz (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I've clearly ignored your latest nonsense post for weeks now, and I will continue to do so. But I will take appropriate action if you keep adding WP:Undue weight to this article as you did here (followup note here). I figured that you would try to add more WP:Undue weight "gender symmetry" material to this article, when you stated "if these points is not resolved, you will start an editing war based on your personal agenda or beliefs" in your "16:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)" post. Flyer22 (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

And I see that Jytdog reverted you at the Domestic violence against men article for the same material. Good. Flyer22 (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Please take all actions you deem necessary, as I will be more than happy to show what you are trying to remove to any objective observer. "Nonsense post" seems like an ad hominem, but I will be happy to discuss it with you any time here on the talk side. Still, I would appreciate if you tried to dispute the validity of the studies I provided instead of engaging in censorship. Are you trying to remove precisely IPV related studies from an IPV article? Would you care to explain? The case seems to be be quite similar in the Domestic violence section. I will add the studies (CDC and ResearchGate) there again. Prefixcaz (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Why would I want to discuss a thing with you when you keep disrespecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including by WP:Edit warring this bit into the article? You either don't know how to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or you don't care to follow them. Like I stated when I reverted you on that latest bit of content (before you re-added it), this is not the Gender symmetry article. Despite this not being the Gender symmetry article, you keep adding material about it to this article, based on faulty logic that it's not controversial, and so that you can bias the content to make it seem like men are victims of intimate partner violence as much as, or more than, women are. I provided WP:Reliable sources above that show that it's a false assertion that men are victims of intimate partner violence as much as, or more than, women are. Despite that, you have added material to bias the content in a way that supports your "gender symmetry" beliefs. I could just as easily add content to go against what you have added. But this is not the Gender symmetry article! We should only summarize that content in this article, without the summary taking one side or the other on it (well, unless it adheres to WP:Due weight), and point people to the Gender symmetry article (also known as the Domestic violence against men article) for in-depth material on the matter. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

If requested help for dealing with you at this article once again fails me, then I will drastically redesign this article, by removing any WP:Primary source from it and by adding nothing by quality sources on the matter; I've already been clear that the vast majority of quality sources on intimate partner violence do not support your "gender symmetry" assertions. Any WP:Undue weight and/or WP:MEDRS violations on your part will be handled via wide-scale WP:RfCs. Your kind of bias calls for me to go heavy-duty. Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Then again, I might request that this article is WP:Merged with the Domestic violence article, per what I stated in this discussion. We'll see what I do. And I'm going to have to do something since others, except for Jytdog thus far, can't be bothered to help stop this silliness. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bertaut, for explaining to Prefixcaz. Finally another person spouting logic on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

God Lord, had no idea there was a party going on here too! Bertaut (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: For how the latest WP:Med discussion on this matter turned out, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 59#Intimate partner violence‎ and Domestic violence against men articles. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Global

Hello editors,

I tagged the article as not representing a global perspective because too much of it does not represent a world view. In particular the Gender symmetry section seems to be primarily focused on a regional view.

This is an important topic world wide and needs to minimize presenting regional perspectives as being the world view. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

FloNight, regarding the tag you added to the article, how is the article not global enough, given that the article is relatively short and clearly has different regional data in it? Template:Globalize states in part, "This tag should only be applied to articles where global perspectives are reasonably believed to exist (e.g., that people in China have a different view about an idea or situation than people in Germany or South Africa). If additional reliable sources for a worldwide view cannot be found after a reasonable search, this tag may be removed." And as for the Gender symmetry section, I commented enough on that material in the #"Gender symmetry" discussion above; I stated there why this article should not heavily focus on "gender symmetry," and that we should have a WP:Summary style section on it that points to the main article on that matter. I don't see that your globalize tag is warranted. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry about doing the drive by tagging but I need to rush off to the kitchen right then. :-) I considered tagging individual sections but much of the whole article could benefit from having more international sourcing and perspective and attitudes. Some sections of the article are okay but others are very regional attitudes when I'm pretty sure that we could have a better mix of international sources or re-write it to better express the ideas that have a local base in theory. I need to go off again but will be back later with a more detailed explanation. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 01:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you did bring the matter to the talk page, so your tagging is not the drive-by tagging that Template:Globalize discourages. We need to assess if there are actually WP:MEDRS-compliant global sources for what you want globalized in the article. If there are not any, then we should obviously do with what we have and remove the globalize tag. Global sources were listed in the aforementioned "Gender symmetry" discussion, but those were listed for discussion of gender symmetry and I don't see that they are sources we should be using for this article. Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 59#Intimate partner violence‎ and Domestic violence against men articles. Flyer22 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Some extremely important aspect of IPV that are not covered in this article are violence related to pregnancy, dowry, honor killings, and same sex relationships. Although they are mentioned in other other articles, I don't think that this topic is complete unless they are covered here, too.

I'm going to park some references here that I see as I look for some ways to expand the topic globally and in other ways. Since this topic is medical, legal and has an large cultural component, I think we can find up to date medical references that go beyond the gender symmetry/male vs. female discussion that seems to be a common thread through this article now. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 06:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the female vs. male thing, it's that the literature on domestic violence mostly focuses on women as victims (as you likely know), and a few editors have tried to inappropriately balance things out with regard to the "women as perpetrators" aspect. For example, pregnancy (in this case, reproductive coercion), dowry and honor killings are all especially female matters. Anyway, I've mentioned before, including in the aforementioned "Gender symmetry" discussion, that I don't think that the Intimate partner violence article is needed; for the discussion where I made that explicitly clear, see this section. Flyer22 (talk) 07:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Something else that I mentioned in that discussion is that the Sexual violence by intimate partners article is an unnecessary WP:Content fork of the intimate partner violence topic, and it should be merged with the Intimate partner violence article. Flyer22 (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history of the Sexual violence by intimate partners article, I see that, except for this one-line addition that resulted in a redirect, it was created before the Intimate partner violence article; so the WP:Content forking is the other way around in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, one of the reasons that I tagged instead of editing was that I wanted to look over the full group of articles in this topic area to see the state of the different articles. Looking at them now, I see that some of the articles in the violence against women series seem pretty out dated and not very well sourced. These topics overlap a great deal. There is some nuanced difference between domestic violence and intimate partner violence. Intimate partner violence terminology came into being to be more focused on the couple relationship aspect, while domestic violence was beginning to overlap more with general family violence...like sibling violence or elder abuse. The idea that pregnancy was a risk factor for domestic violence made the discussion of intimate partner violence more legitimate, too. All the terms are surprisingly poorly defined and used the same in many articles and books. :-) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 08:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

In that discussion, while I did note the interchangeability of terms, I also noted (in my "22:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)" comment) the following: "One point that has been made above is that some of these terms are more interchangeable than others; a few of them (intimate partner violence, spousal abuse and family violence) are aspects of domestic violence, and so are not used as interchangeably as the others." Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, after reading more reliable sources (WHO, CDC, systematic reviews in PM, etc) I think we should keep this article as a separate place to discuss the health effects and treatment of intimate partner violence in more detail than in the domestic violence article because I don't think it fits better anywhere else on Wikipedia, and there is room for more detail than the domestic violence article can hold. I also think that it is a good place to have a a bit more detailed summary of various local types of the IPV than can go in the domestic violence article. I'm thinking of dowry related violence, honor killings, acid attacks attacks, as well as gun homicides. And speaking of homicides, this article has room to increase the overall coverage of IPV homicides and other serious injuries as well as prevention strategies.

Keeping a series of articles on a topic up to date is never the strong suit of Wikipedia English. I see this article as being a summary article of sorts since we can link to the many other articles related to IPV. But right now many of them are pretty out of date and look to not have the highest quality references, so getting really good content in this article can be a start toward updating them down the road. So, that's my rationale for expanding this article and making it a better representation of the global nature of IPV.

I plan to add more references here and then come up with a general outline of the article where I'll discuss here, too, before I make any significant changes. Thoughts? Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good; I've mentioned on the Domestic violence article talk page that the Domestic violence article is very big and needs significant cutting.

The Sexual violence by intimate partners article should still be merged into the Intimate partner violence article. It's the same topic. Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

______________

• Associations between Intimate Partner Violence and Health among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Ana Maria Buller, Karen M. Devries, Louise M. Howard, Loraine J. Bacchus, Published: March 4, 2014 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001609
• Adult experience of mental health outcomes as a result of intimate partner violence victimisation: a systematic review. Lagdon S1, Armour C1, Stringer M1. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2014 Sep 12;5. doi: 10.3402/ejpt.v5.24794. eCollection 2014.
• Intimate partner violence and HIV infection among women: a systematicreview and meta-analysis. Li Y1, Marshall CM2, Rees HC2, Nunez A2, Ezeanolue EE3, Ehiri JE4. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014 Feb 13;17:18845. doi: 10.7448/IAS.17.1.18845. eCollection 2014.
• A systematic review of African studies on intimate partner violence against pregnant women: prevalence and risk factors. PLoS One. 2011 Mar 8;6(3):e17591. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017591
• Intimate Partner Violence and Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Interventions, An-Sofie Van Parys,* Annelien Verhamme, Marleen Temmerman, and Hans Verstraelen PLoS One. 2014; 9(1): e85084. Published online 2014 Jan 17.doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085084 PMC 3901658
• Maternal and fetal outcomes of intimate partner violence associated with pregnancy in the Latin American and Caribbean region. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Jan;124(1):6-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.06.037. Epub 2013 Oct 5. Han A1, Stewart DE2.
• Associations between intimate partner violence and termination of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2014 Jan;11(1):e1001581. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001581. Epub 2014 Jan 7. Hall M1, Chappell LC1, Parnell BL1, Seed PT1, Bewley S1.
• Disclosure and health-seeking behaviour following intimate partner violence before and during pregnancy in Flanders, Belgium: a survey surveillance study. Roelens K1, Verstraelen H, Van Egmond K, Temmerman M. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008 Mar;137(1):37-42. Epub 2007 Jun 1.
• Domestic Violence and Perinatal Mental Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Louise M. Howard,1,* Sian Oram,1 Helen Galley,2 Kylee Trevillion,1 and Gene Feder3 PLoS Med. 2013 May; 10(5): e1001452. Published online 2013 May 28.doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001452 PMC 3665851
• Intimate partner violence victimization and cigarette smoking: a meta-analyticreview. Trauma Violence Abuse. Crane CA1, Hawes SW, Weinberger AH. 2013 Oct;14(4):305-15. doi: 10.1177/1524838013495962. Epub 2013 Jul 22.
• Prevalence and risk of experiences of intimate partner violence among people with eating disorders: a systematic review. J Psychiatr Res. 2013 Sep;47(9):1134-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.04.014. Epub 2013 May 22. Bundock L1, Howard LM, Trevillion K, Malcolm E, Feder G, Oram S.
• Forced sexual initiation, sexual intimate partner violence and HIV risk in women: A global review of the literature AIDS Behav. 2013 Mar; 17(3): 832–847. doi: 10.1007/s10461-012-0361-4 Stockman,1 Marguerite B. Lucea,2 and Jacquelyn C. Campbell2
• Killed in the name of honour, The Lancet, Volume 373, No. 9679, p1933–1934, 6 June 2009 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61049-7
• Violence by Intimate Partners Heise L, Garcia-Moreno C. In: Krug EC, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, Zwi AB, Lozano R, eds. World report on violence and health. 2002: 88–121.http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2002/9241545615_chap4_eng.pdf (accessed March 9, 2009).http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2002/9241545615_chap4_eng.pdf
• Bride burning, Dr Virendra Kumar, Sarita Kanth DOI:The Lancet, Volume 364, Special Issue, p18–19, December 2004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17625-3

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

I'm pleased to find a large number of references that meet the medical reliable sources guideline. I anticipate being able to improve much of the content that now is being sourced from primary sources or less authoritative works, and additionally expand the content. In case anyone is not familiar with the medicine reliable sources guideline, I have included a link. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Michael P Johnson's Typology Theory

Other editors have noted that this article which should be on intimate partner violence, actually focuses, for some reason, on one sociologist's typology theory and mainly intimate terrorism. The main types of IPV remain in the literature as sexual, physical, psychological, economic, etc That is what the reliable sources on intimate partner violence report as the "types" not Michael Johnson's, or any other researcher's own personal theory, on types. In fact there are a number of other theorists too, not just this person. There needs to be due weight applied to this article on intimate partner violence not a complete dominance of Michael Johnson's theory? Will edit the article accordingly, if no-one offers a sensible and solid reason, based on reliable sources and policy, why it should remain the way it is? Otherwise this seems like a clear case of promoting Michael Johnson's personal theory on Wikipedia's intimate partner violence article. This is wrong.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: The section Charlotte135 is referring to is not based solely on Michael P. Johnson's typology; the section even states, "Michael Johnson argues for four major types of intimate partner violence (Johnson's Typology), which is supported by subsequent research and evaluation, as well as independent researchers." The bolded part is my emphasis. There are sources from other scholars in that section. FloNight, Fyddlestix, Kaldari and Gandydancer, what are your thoughts on this, and on how the section should be formatted? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22reborn's comments did not address the clear points I made. It appears Flyer22reborn was also the one who changed it to "types" for some reason after it was originally titled Johnson's types or something similar. As other editors have already noted, this article which obviously be on intimate partner violence, actually concentrates, for some unknown reason, on one sociologist's typology theory, and mainly intimate terrorism at that, a term he coined personally. Is someone a fan of this one person's opinion and theories? Otherwise why is this article all about this Michael Johnson, and parading his, and only his personal theories on Wikipedia to the detriment and exclusion of all other obvious information which should instead be included in the body and lead of the article? Can someone offer a sensible and solid reason, based on reliable sources and policy, why it should remain and be given such undue weight? POV? Promotional? If no responses here, I will commence editing accordingly, based on this discussion.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: If anyone wants to see when I changed the title, reverting the change that made it focus on Michael P. Johnson, since the section is not solely about Johnson's beliefs (they are about types that have been shown via subsequent research), they can see this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, as is easily seen by a visit to Google Books, Michael P. Johnson's typology on intimate partner violence is the most cited typology on intimate partner violence; scholars consistently support that typology, to the point that it is not simply Johnson's typology anymore. It is not simply a theory; it is a typology that has been repeatedly validated by research. A WP:Due weight violation? Hmm. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And for a specific quote with regard to what I mean, see this 2012 The Routledge Handbook of Family Communication source, page 638, which states, "Two typologies in particular have received considerable attention across various disciplines: Holzworth-Munroe and Stuart's (1994) male batterer typology and Johnson's (2008) intimate partner violence typology." Other sources state similarly. Unless someone can show that other typologies on intimate partner violence are as notable, as well-cited, I don't see the point of this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I alerted WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22reborn you have entirely missed the point I am making and other editors have made. You are also obviously a very big personal fan of Michael Johnson who has very controversial POV he has, and there is little research supporting his personal theories Flyer22reborn and this article should not be based on one person's theories, as you well know. We should be neutral here and not apply undue weight to this one person's POV and personal theories regardless of your adulation for him. We should not promote his personal theory over other theories, nor focus this article on intimate terrorism, a term he personally coined and is not used within the current judicial system for instance. Why is his theories given so much weight? Why are you so desperate to keep all of this in the article Flyer22reborn? You have decided to title the header as "Types" Within the intimate partner violence research literature types commonly refer to psychological, physical, sexual etc types of violence.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: It is best for me to ignore Charlotte135 in this discussion. As others know, Charlotte135 barely understands Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, mischaracterizes me each and every time, and gets upset when others note him/her as the single purpose account gender symmetry POV-pushing editor that he/she is. I will eventually report Charlotte135 at WP:ANI, after gathering evidence on his/her editing; it's only a matter of time (even if months from now). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, back to personal attacks are we, when you cannot respond to content and policy Flyer22reborn. It is also patently clear that all you are interested in in this and related articles, is making sure the statement globally women are more affected than men is kept in the article. Your obvious POV is showing through, loud and clear, as is your lack of neutrality on these emotive topics in society, and on what the body of scientific research actually says.

Back to content and policy, Flyer22reborn you have titled the section of this article "types" for some reason instead of Johnson's theory of typology. If you type into a google search "types of intimate partner violence" or forms of intimate partner violence or domestic violence you will get results showing the vast majority of reliable sources speak of types and forms of DV & IPV as being physical, sexual, economic, psychological etc not your Michael Johnson's types, including intimate terrorism that have completely consumed all other content in this current article which is supposed to be on intimate domestic violence. You need to re-title the "Types" header, at minimum.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe Flyer22 Reborn is being neutral...as for the header it seems fine...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've taken this article off my WP:Watchlist. Have at it men's rights editors. Some might also want to look into Charlotte135's "Other editors" claim; I'm not seeing others who stated similarly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Extra note: As expected, a little after I declared I was done with this article, Charlotte135 removed "this is generally perpetrated by men against women" from the lead, with the edit summary "removed some sociologist's personal theories and terms he coined from the lead POV", when that aspect is supported by various WP:Reliable sources independent of anything Johnson has stated. It is this type of bait I was looking for; Charlotte135 took it. Just a note to FloNight, Fyddlestix, Kaldari, Gandydancer, CFCF and Kevin Gorman that this is exactly what I mean about Charlotte135's POV editing repeatedly trying to downplay women as the majority victims of domestic violence/intimate partner violence. This is why, within a week or two, I will be reporting Charlotte135 at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22reborn the reliable sources do not support this statement. That is why I removed it. If you can find major sources which support it please add them. Please stop the personal accusations and attacks. If you would like to work at resolving the issue I am happy to discuss it here.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And for the 10000th time now, I am not "repeatedly trying to downplay women as the majority victims of domestic violence/intimate partner violence." Leave me alone, stop harassing me, hounding me, following me. Stop the bullying, intimidation and stop the personal attacks.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Since I will be reporting you at WP:ANI in a few hours (yes, I certainly will be), likely with a WP:Topic ban proposal, I will go ahead and respond to you directly now: Did you really think I was going to just let you have your way that easily? I set you up, and you fell for it. The "Howe, Tasha R. (2012)" source does support the "this is generally perpetrated by men against women" statement; so do other sources in the article. That the most extreme forms of intimate partner violence are perpetrated by men against women is well-supported in the literature. You know that. And the second source states "Intimate male partners are most often the main perpetrators of violence against women, a form of violence known as intimate partner violence, 'domestic' violence or 'spousal (or wife) abuse.'" I don't care what you consider a personal attack, especially when you are the one starting things with "You are also obviously a very big personal fan of Michael Johnson who has very controversial POV he has"; I don't care about you, except for your asinine POV-pushing. That edit was the last straw. Anything else you have to state to me can be stated at WP:ANI.

And as for following you, you pop up at articles on my WP:Watchlist, including the Clitoris article (one of the articles I am very entrenched in). If anyone has been doing the following, it's you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

When you say "I set you up, and you fell for it." You set me up for what? I have been editing this article for a week or two now. I am trying to make a better article here as I have done in many other articles. Should you be baiting other editors anyway even though Flyer22reborn. I simply edited because that is not what the reliable sources say.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22 If I made a Requests for Mediation here would you or others like to work with me toward a solution? Might be worthwhile considering you refuse to discuss content and refuse to acknowledge what the high level critical literature reviews published in international journals actually say? That is, what the body of scientific knowledge actually tells us. Or is working things out with you peacefully, and trying to achieve a resolution, still not something you are even willing to try? Up to you Flyer22reborn. I'm more than happy to have a neutral un-involved editor help achieve a resolution, as I have tried to do before and you refused, or now more formal mediation. What do you say Flyer22reborn? Peaceful resolution?Charlotte135 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, after looking at my original addition of "(also known as spousal abuse)" after thinking about it further, I agree with your revert today.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree (to a point) with Flyer22 Reborn here. Johnson's typology is widely used and discussed by other IPV researchers, attempts to portray it as one person's view/theory (and especially to suggest that it's a marginal theory) are clearly inconsistent with the literature on this subject. I'm not sure it should be treated as the only typology that's out there, or as an unproblematic fact, but it is definitely one of the primary theories that IPV researchers use to study and theorize IPV, right up to the present day.

As an aside, has any thought ever been given to merging this with Domestic Violence? I'm not clear why why have 2 articles on what is basically the same subject. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The point I was making was IPV seems to be a very broad topic in the literature and this article appears to cover Michael Johnson's theory to a large degree, and I've questioned that. I still do. We need to include it, but it appears to be taking up too much space in this article IMO to the detriment of other aspects of IPV which seem to be lost in translation here with a focus on gender, for some unknown reason. My other point, again, was simply this. Types of IPV appear to be referring to physical, psychological, sexual, economic violence/abuse, in most sources. Can we use a different header in the article, was my point. And apologies Flyer22reborn. I meant nothing by my comment to you about you being a fan of Michael Johnson. Lets try and move on rather than focus on something as silly as that. I'll go with with others here decide.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Fyddlestix. That is what I was stating; it had absolutely nothing to do with being "a very big personal fan of Michael Johnson." There is nothing wrong with including the term intimate terrorism in the lead. There is nothing wrong with including "this is generally perpetrated by men against women" with regard to the most controlling forms of intimate partner violence in the lead. I can't work with an editor who repeatedly acts like I am pushing some horrid POV by simply adhering to the WP:Due weight policy or some other Wikipedia policy or guideline. It irritates me to no end when an editor thinks that I or someone else is POV-pushing by simply following the WP:Neutral policy accurately. We have far too many editors at this site who do not understand that policy, which has been noted more than once at that policy's talk page; too many get tripped up on the word neutral when Wikipedia's definition of neutral is not at all the same as the definition of neutral in common discourse. I cannot work with an editor whose understanding of the literature is lacking and who does not seem to listen when told what the literature states, but instead goes on and on about some POV I or someone else is supposedly pushing, sometimes including poor sources to counter what I or that other person is stating. Working with an editor who is not as informed is fine, but not when that editor does not listen and repeatedly harps on an imaginary bias. If the literature is biased, we still go by the literature, as noted at WP:BIASED SOURCES. And, yes, I brought up the merging aspect before; this is seen at Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 5#Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title). The separation aspect is also why I started that other alternative name discussion at Talk:Domestic violence; in the Discussion section of that now-closed WP:RfC, I also noted the incorrect application of "spousal abuse" to the lead of the Intimate partner violence article. So, yes, thank you, Montanabw, for this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the idea of a merge. In the USA, the two terms are conflated, but there is a subtle nuance (people might be in an intimate relationship and behave violently toward one another but not be living together). If it's a WP:CFORK so that an undue weight POV can have its own walled garden, then merge. If there is enough of a difference to warrant a separate article, then don't merge. Montanabw^(talk) 21:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I made changes to the article with this edit (followup edit here), per comments made by me (and Fyddlestix) above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

And per needed tweaking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Added a link here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Intimate partner violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/publications/conditions/pdf2008/ViolenceH_F2004_an.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Potential Improvements

I've been looking over this article, and wanted to suggest possible changes, some of which have been mentioned by other editors. First, while the Gender Symmetry section uses general language, almost all of the sources cited refer to the U.S. context only. Either this limited scope should be noted more explicitly in the section itself, or additional information about gender symmetry (or lack thereof) in other parts of the world should be added.

Second, the table in the "Types" section is somewhat unclear, and could be edited to reflect that the data refer to the percentage of women who experienced physical or sexual violence committed by an intimate partner in their lifetime. The citation for this table, currently, is of a secondary source that references a study, and should be replaced with a citation for the study itself: Garcia-Moreno C et al. WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2005. Moreover, the table's title includes the phrase "intimate terrorism violence," but this language is not part of the WHO study and should therefore be removed.

The Sexual Violence section is currently lacking a citation.

Lastly, there are several significant ways this article could be expanded. It focuses primarily on explaining different types or classifications of IPV, and I think it could be improved by the addition of discussion of risk factors and prevention efforts, and how the causes of/responses to IPV vary in different parts of the world. --KAnds42 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

KAnds42,this, and Domestic violence are both in odd places right now. There was some discussion about merger but I suppose that went bottom up. Seems to have ended up with DV getting everything imaginable and IPV getting little to nothing. I'm down to move the Sex Vio section to talk, or to blank it as it stands. It serves little purpose other than to link to the main.

Tear it up. I'll help as I can. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 03:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

KAnds42, when it comes to gender symmetry, the vast majority of the material is U.S.-based, like so much of the literature on domestic violence. There is not nearly as much discussion of the gender symmetry debate in other countries. If we are to note this fact in the article, it should be sourced; no WP:Editorializing allowed.

As for sourcing, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources; see WP:Secondary sources.

Timothyjosephwood, since domestic violence is the broader topic, it obviously makes sense that it deals with so much more than what this article deals with. That stated, I reiterate that the vast majority of the domestic violence literature is about intimate partner violence, which is why merger talk was suggested a little above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I can draw some similarities to the perennial argument at MilHist. The Iraq War was a war because secondary sources say it was a war. But the Iraq War wasn't a war because secondary sources define war legalistically and specifically, and war was never declared on Iraq. Where the consensus seems to boil down to: "war is a broad term that includes war but also includes non-war wars". Hard to move forward without some measure of subjective WP:OR, because you're trying to draw a consensus based on sources that don't themselves have a consensus. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

(Oh look, Charlotte135.) I assume there was never a WP:PM with the Sex Vio in IPV relationships article? Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

In this case, what consensus aspect are you referring to? By that, I mean a consensus concerning what area? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I mean having sources that define them broadly and inclusively, even synonymously, and sources that treat IPV as a distinct phenomenon. Similarly you have sources that use war as synonymous with armed conflict, and sources that define war as the specific declared state. (Part of the reason why war is a mess.) TimothyJosephWood 14:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think there would be value in fleshing out more information specific to IPV, as opposed to domestic violence as a whole. Beyond adding more context about regional variations, it could be useful to incorporate the findings of a wide body of scholarship treating IPV as a global public health issue. Other global dimensions of IPV, including its role in evaluations of development assistance and the impact of global norms and increasing human rights discourse on its prevalence, would also be worthwhile contributions. I have some potential references listed on my user page. --KAnds42 (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, we got a bit off topic there. Like I said, go for it. If you have any questions feel free to ask. It might be a good idea to post your suggested changed here on the talk first, and we can discuss them before hand. TimothyJosephWood 20:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Prevention strategies

Both legal and social action are needed to work toward the prevention of intimate partner violence. According to the United Nations, over 600 million women live in countries that do not criminalize domestic violence. Therefore, there is a global need for laws against domestic violence and intimate partner violence.

There is also a need to rethink societal gender norms that can lead to intimate partner violence, especially concerning masculinity. These efforts would need to begin with correcting the gendered social learning of children. There is also a need to change norms that keep intimate partner violence marginalized as a personal and individual problem, rather than a public and widespread public health concern.

In terms of policy approaches, intimate partner violence can be framed as both a public health issue and a human rights violation, both of which hold the state accountable.

References

I'm moving this here in case anyone wants to do anything with. I personally don't think it's worth saving. The topic is important, and probably deserves it's own section, but this isn't it. This is at worst an unsourced pseudo-blog post and at best WP:OR. TimothyJosephWood 21:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Potential Areas of Elaboration

Regarding this article, I would love to see more information on this page about details regarding IPV in same-sex relationships. So far, there are several mentions that it occurs, but much less information regarding the rates for same-sex couples or the mutuality or lack thereof of IPV in these relationships.

Additionally, I noticed this statement is unclear:

"A 2014 study on the mental health effects of intimate partner terrorism found that 42% of women reported thoughts of suicide and 31% had attempted it.[54]"

Does the rate of women reporting thoughts of suicide overlap with those who actually attempted it (and therefore must have also thought about it)? Does this mean that most of the women who reported thoughts of suicide following IPV actually attempted suicide? My assumption would be that these are meant to not overlap, but it's unclear here.

Clarkmr (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding a new section on treatment for IPV

I am adding a new subsection on treatment of IPV -- Any feedback will be much appreciated! Juliafhammett (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding a new subsection on assessment

I would also like to add a new subsection on assessment tools. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliafhammett (talk • contribs) 21:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Revising the introductory paragraphs

I am revising the introduction to make it a bit more concise and have it map onto the remainder of the article more closely. Please let me know with you think! Juliafhammett (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I replied above to your changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

New editor to this page

Hi everyone, I would like to make edits to the "intimate partner violence" page. I am working on this page as part of a graduate seminar, which requires me to make some greater changes to the page as it currently stands. I apologize if I did not follow proper etiquette when making changes last night. I noticed that my work was reverted to its original since then. I am new to Wikipedia, so please let me know what I can do, as my aim is to make meaningful contributions to this page. Thank you in advance for your help, Julia Juliafhammett (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC) 11/6/17 juliafhammett

Hi Julia, was this edit yours too? Sorry about the revert, I can see a lot of effort went into that revision. I'm not opposed to incorporating much of that back into the article, but I suggest making smaller, more incremental changes with a clear edit summary so that other editors can follow what's going on a bit better. That was an awful lot to change in one edit, it makes it quite difficult to figure out what exactly is being changed. Also please be aware that really major changes (ie, removing or adding whole sections) are quite likely to get challenged and require some discussion/explanation here on the talk page. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fyddlestix, thank you for the quick response! Yes, that was my edit as well. I will try making these changes again in smaller increments and bringing major changes up for discussion on the talk page. Thank you again for your help. And please don't hesitate to convey additional feedback to me as I am gaining my first Wikipedia editing experiences. Juliafhammett (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Juliafhammett. When it comes to changes you make to this article and working with established editors, the WP:Student editor page can help. Student editors tend to treat expanding Wikipedia articles simply as a grade and often are not interested in true collaboration and listening to what the problems with their edits are. As for the treatment material you added, you need to be sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Do read WP:MEDRS for what I mean. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources, especially for medical content. Per MOS:Headings, headings are generally in lowercase. And per MOS:Paragraphs, we typically do not need paragraphs for a little bit of material. Look at how big the Treatment section currently looks from the table of contents even though the section is relatively small. We don't need all of those subheadings. And per WP:LEAD, the lead is meant to summarize the article. It should not be too brief; it should touch on the significant aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful feedback, Flyer22 Reborn! I made some edits based on your suggestions (and plan on continuing to work on this page). I understand you comment about the lead. Thank you for making me aware of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliafhammett (talk • contribs) 23:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Juliafhammett (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Juliafhammett, I reverted you here for the following reasons: We typically do not use one organization's definition of a topic for the initial Wikipedia definition, even if the definition is coming from the CDC. It's also important to keep WP:Copyvio (copyright issues) in mind when using an organization's definition. Per WP:Refers, we also usually do not state "is defined as" for the initial sentence unless the article is a word article (meaning is specifically about the word). When it comes to naming the most recognized types of intimate partner violence, see what was is argued in the #Michael P Johnson's Typology Theory section above (disregard the bickering). As is noted there, these types are not solely "Johnson's types." They are widely supported in the domestic violence literature. Labeling them "Johnson's types" can give the impression that they are solely or mainly supported by him. I do not think that "Gender asymmetry" and "Gender symmetry" should be listed under types, especially given how debated gender symmetry is. I appreciate that you reduced the headings for the Treatment section; I restored your downsize, but without the bolding (see MOS:BOLD for what I mean on that). You can restore material I removed, but I ask that you do not restore the layout I reverted without further discussion about how best to organize the article. Being WP:Bold is good, but per what Fyddlestix and I stated above, you should try discussing big changes first. WP:Consensus is an important aspect of Wikipedia, and it goes back what I stated about collaboration. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Juliafhammett, also, I think that it is important to begin the lead by noting that intimate partner violence is domestic violence, like we currently do. As for adding U.S. statistics in the lead, the issue is that the article is already tagged for not representing a worldwide view of the subject; so the statistics should have more of a worldwide view. And as for adding primary sources, please see the WP:Primary sources policy I pointed to above. Your edits should not rely so heavily on primary sources. Go to Google Books for secondary or tertiary sources if you need to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, explanations and suggestions, Flyer22 Reborn. What you are saying with re: the lead makes sense to me. I removed some of the primary references from the treatment section and will make sure to bring up additional changes (Layout) on the talk page first. Juliafh (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Juliafh, do you understand what a primary source is? I ask because of this edit you made. In that edit, you removed the following book source: "Domestic violence focused couples treatment," 2005, from John Wiley & Sons. You didn't include a URL link and I have not had a look at the source, but these types of sources tend to be tertiary sources, which, per WP:TERTIARY, are generally fine to use. Wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources to primary sources. If you have not read WP:PRIMARY yet, then do. An individual study is a primary source, for example.

I also see that Diannaa has alerted you to copyright issues and, via WP:RevDel or WP:Oversight, has hidden some additions you added. This type of thing is why I noted WP:Copyvio to you above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, no need to WP:Ping me to this page since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. I put the book source back in.Juliafh (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested change for layout -- Calling for feedback

Hi everyone, I would like to suggest a change to the layout: What do you think about combining the "Gender symmetry" and "Gender assymmetry" subsections into one "The gender debate" subsection? I think this might clarify that these subsections are two different sides to this one debate. I also would find it helpful to preface this section with a general introduction. I had suggested the following paragraph before:

In the 1970’s and 80’s, scholar studying incidence, perpetrators, severity, and context of IPV, mainly family sociologists, typically focused their efforts on large, nationally representative samples (Kelly & Johnson, 2008). These large-scale studies resulted in findings indicating that women were as violent as men in intimate relationships (Archer, 2000), information that diverged significantly from shelter, hospital, and police data. As a result, advocates and service providers strongly rejected family sociologists’ research, fearing that what they viewed as misinformation would dilute society’s focus on and funding of services and education for battered women (Pleck et al., 1978). Thus, as pointed out by Kelly and Johnson, until recently the two groups most concerned with intimate partner violence, feminist activists/practitioners and family sociologists, have rarely intersected, and “misunderstanding and acrimonious debate have interfered with a more constructive and unified approach to what remains a serious societal problem for intimate partners and their children.”

Please let me know what you think. Thanks in advance! Juliafh (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Juliafh, I would be fine with you creating a "Gender debate" section with "Gender assymmetry" and "Gender symmetry" as subsections of that section. I think that "Gender asymmetry" should come before "Gender symmetry," like it currently does in the article. Per MOS:HEAD, use of "The" should not be included in the heading. As for your suggested summary, I would only support it if covered by WP:SECONDARY or WP:TERTIARY sources. Otherwise, it reads as WP:SYNTHESIS to me. And quote bits like the one at the end should have WP:In-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I gave it a try -- Please let me know what you think.Juliafh (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Juliafh, I deleted your introduction for the section. It doesn't really summarize the subsections and it's missing key detail. For example, research based on the conflict tactics scale or that using similar methodology isn't challenged simply because it found that women are as violent as men, but mainly because the Conflict tactics scale data was so broad and/or not varied enough in scope, including even instances of self-defense. Like the "Gender asymmetry" section states, "Men and women are both victimized, but violence against women has a higher prevalence rate. Although men and women commit equivalent rates of unreported minor violence via situational altercation, more severe perpetration and domestic battery is committed by men [...] It was also found that women's physical violence was more likely motivated by self-defense or fear while men's was motivated by control." This is why some scholars argue against the "gender symmetry" claims and state that domestic violence/intimate partner violence is rather a "gender asymmetry" matter. I would prefer an introduction for the section to be more balanced. The sourcing could be improved as well, but I would take care of that for you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, Flyer 22 Reborn. I just inserted a revised introductory paragraph. I tried to keep things neutral/balanced. Please let me know what you think and please feel free to edit what I wrote and/or add information that you feel is missing. However, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't take down the entire paragraph. Thanks!Juliafh (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Juliafh, this is better. I tweaked it with this edit. For example, "controversial" is a WP:LABEL issue (although the term is sometimes fine to use on Wikipedia). I still have issues with your revised text, however. First, the "In the 1970s and 1980s, large-scale studies using large, nationally representative samples resulted in findings indicating that women were as violent as men in intimate relationships. This information diverged significantly from shelter, hospital, and police data." text makes it sound as though the "gender symmetry" side is valid while the other side is just hearsay or based on flawed beliefs. This is not true. Considering how gender symmetry may be defined, enough sources have found that true gender symmetry does not exist. The "whereas the other side maintains that both genders perpetrate IPV at about equal rates (gender symmetry perspective)" aspect should include the self-defense and "minor partner violence" aspects; a number of scholars arguing that both genders perpetrate IPV at about equal rates acknowledge that this is due in part to, or mainly due to, self defense and/or the "minor partner violence" aspect. Like this Gender differences section of the Domestic violence article states (with sources), "A 2011 review by researcher Chan Ko Ling from the University of Hong Kong found that perpetration of minor partner violence was equal for both men and women but more severe partner violence was far likelier to be perpetrated by men. His analysis found that men were more likely to beat up, choke or strangle their partners while women were more likely to throw objects, slap, kick, bite, punch, or hit with an object. A 2013 review examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence. The authors found that if one examines who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, experience subsequent psychological problems, domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims."

Basically, gender symmetry is mostly found in cases of self-defense and/or "minor partner violence." Other than that, intimate partner violence is significantly more weighted toward women as victims. The text you added also states the following: "As a third perspective, many scholars and practitioners of the field do not take a strong stand in the debate by acknowledging that women tend to face more severe outcomes of violence, as well as higher risk when violence against men is ignored." What is "as well as higher risk when violence against men is ignored" supposed to mean? This final bit seems unnecessary and confusing.

As for not reverting you, this is why disputed text is supposed to be worked out on the article talk page first, meaning before it is inserted or re-inserted. It's why I asked you to discuss and propose text here on the talk page first before inserting it. If I see something problematic in an article, I am likely to remove it or tweak it for accuracy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliafh (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Juliafh, you are welcome, but you have not addressed my latest expressed concerns. If the what I feel are issues with the text you added remain, I will edit the text per what I stated above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I apologize, I misunderstood that. I thought you were planning to just go ahead and edit. Please feel free to do so and if I have any further suggestions after I have seen what you wrote, I will let you know. Thanks!Juliafh (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Changed to this for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Juliafh, be careful not to mark significant changes as WP:Minor. Those deletions you are making are not minor edits. Also keep in mind what I stated above about discussion, meaning proposing some changes first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Gender base violence

What's a clear definition of gender base violence THABANG MICHEÁL (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow this article is biased!

Reading through this article it is clear that an extremely biased lens has been used to downplay female violence and exaggerate male violence. This is not what the empirical research as a whole indicates, particularly in Western cultures. Harrow1234 (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide secondary or tertiary sources to back up your claim about "research as a whole"? Generalrelative (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean it is filled with cherry-picked bias and POV. As soon as I tried to bring some type of NPOV you jump in and revert and abuse without any adherence to policy which binds all of us Generalrelative. I will break it down section by section then in regard to what I mean by appalling bias. ASs far as research as a whole I refer you to domesticviolenceresearch.org where approximately 12,000 studies were considered and more than 1,700 empirical research papers were summarized and organized into tables. https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/ Not the appallingly blatant cherry-picked set of sources designed to push a feminist agenda and POV as has been done in this Wikipedia article to date. Thoughts? Harrow1234 (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

We need to stick to the sort of secondary and tertiary sources that are WP:MEDRS. And where such sources disagree, we follow WP:Due weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Harrow1234:. Wikipedians are a bit like cats - they are difficult to herd and tend to mostly do what they are interested in. I'm not convinced that people will be energetic enough to review these sources, compare them to the article, and consider where the article is wrong. However, if you can identify particularly parts of the article which are wrong or viewpoints that are missing, together with reliable sources then people are more likely to make the edits, particularly if you provide them with a summary of the material together with citations. Talpedia (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Talpedia and Crossroads for your good advice as to how to move forward here. I will show the palpable bias and agenda on this article page bit by bit. Harrow1234 (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone find in the reports in that research where it says how they got from the original 12,000 papers considered down to 1,700? There's a lot of documents in it, and since they excluded more than 5/6 of the papers, I'm very curious about it. I also want to know, can anyone find a time this research has been published in a peer-reviewed journal? The only ones I've found have been in the Journal of Partner Abuse, which is run by at least two of the authors of the research and therefore has an obvious conflict of interest. Cheers --Xurizuri (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Xurizuri I am going to look into all of that as I am also curious now and report back here. Harrow1234 (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is the list of researchers involved https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/pask-researchers/ Seems to be quite a lot of them. Harrow1234 (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a lot of researchers doesn't mean a source is reliable - did you manage to find anything about where it's been published or how they decided which articles to examine? (Note: my comment happened after the other response thread to this statement, but to keep it easy to figure out which statement I was responding to I've put it above) --Xurizuri (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do we only reference surveys that report women only statistics? An example is "According to a study conducted in 2010, 30% of women globally aged 15 and older have experienced physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence" and another example of bias "Global estimates by WHO calculated that the incidence of women who had experienced physical or sexual abuse from an intimate partner in their lifetime was 1 in 3" Where are the male statistics reported? This is horrendously biased article. Can I include the statistics for males too? Is there any reason editors in the past have hung cherry-picked stats on to the branches of this article? Harrow1234 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The best way to answer this question would be to read through some of the archived discussions from years past, e.g. [12] and [13] (note that there is actual persuasion going on here, e.g. statements like "Ok, I was wrong about gender-symmetry"), as well as discussions at Talk:Domestic violence against men such as: [14]. These are just a few examples. There's plenty more to explore in both articles' archives. Generalrelative (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I should note too that the premise of this question is incorrect. References 1 and 5, for instance, begin by quoting statistics on both male and female victimization, and references 3 and 6 make clear quantitative comparisons between the two. I stopped there. So yeah, you just have to look. And of course you are welcome to add more, so long as the sources are reliable and provide due weight to the article. Generalrelative (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a specific question. Bit by bit. Probably the best way to approach things. Another problem. In the Research instrument section it says

"The probably most widely used instrument in research on family violence is the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS). But the source does not say probably most widely used instrument in research. I will boldly remove that unsourced statement. Harrow1234 (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Though the cited reference does indeed state that the CTS is the "most widely used instrument in research on family violence", it's written by the test's creator and therefore not an independent reliable source. So I agree that your edit here was a good one. Generalrelative (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Under coercive control these studies massively contradict with the cherry-picked stat in the article that 97% of coercive control is committed by men. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51512935_Women_and_Men's_Use_of_Coercive_Control_in_Intimate_Partner_Violence Harrow1234 (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You're referring to the Johnson 2001 finding that "97% of the perpetrators of intimate terrorism were men"? I see no reason why the reference you've suggested can't also be presented in due fashion, i.e. given no more and no less weight than other similar primary sources like Johnson. That doesn't mean I see evidence that this finding was "cherry-picked" however. Generalrelative (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI there's a great discussion of this topic in Appendix C of Johnson's 2008 book A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence. He makes a convincing case, in my view, that gender symmetry is a myth (even in situational couple violence, where the reported evidence for it is stronger). He argues that the issue is a methodological mistake: looking at prevalence –– "a particularly meaningless measure of symmetry" –– instead of prevalence times severity. Flyer22 has made similar points quite eloquently in past talk page discussions. Generalrelative (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah sorry, there is reason why it can't be stated alongside - the study you linked is a primary source, whereas the citation for the 97% is a secondary. However, both are actually kinda outdated, and I'll have a look for a more recent 2ndary. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative, thanks for watching this article and for critically evaluating sources. These past RfCs [15][16] will also be of use when it comes to evaluating WP:Due weight about claims of men and women being the same (or nearly so) regarding these matters. They are not. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh wow, thanks, that looks pretty definitive. As a newcomer to the topic I had no idea that this degree of consensus had been reached. @Harrow1234: I'd strongly suggest reading through these recent RfCs before proceeding further (I suspect that Crossroads meant to link here with the second link: [17]). As El_C stated in that second recent RfC: We can't be having the same debate every year. Some long lasting resolution is to be expected. Generalrelative (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

To expand on my own view as cited above, although consensus can change, a major shift in attitude on this key issue seems unlikely to occur any time soon. As noted, attempting to gauge it on, say, an annual basis is probably foolhardy and is almost certain to turn into a timesink, with the predictable result of the consensus almost certain to remain unchanged, anyway. El_C 21:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Given those RfCs over at domestic violence, are we happy to apply that to this article? I think that would be the most reasonable decision, as IPV is largely a content fork of DV. This doesn't mean that specific sources shouldn't still be questioned though - all statements, no matter what they conclude, should obviously be checked. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it should be taken to apply here as well. We don't need to relitigate this and waste time. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we should obviously look at individual sources still. For instance under coercive control there seems to be multiple sources we could use. However we are currently relying solely on a 2001 source from Michael Flood. Could we say this research says x and this research says y? Harrow1234 (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Contrary to the inflated 97% statistic here is a study with entirely different results. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51512935_Women_and_Men's_Use_of_Coercive_Control_in_Intimate_Partner_Violence Harrow1234 (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Given no other editor here has objected to me adding a more balanced and neutral point of view by including other sources such as the one I have linked here, which provide an opposite set of results. I have waited a week so will go ahead and add it. Harrow1234 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I also removed "battering" from coercive control synonyms. Generalrelative restored it. Can you provide the full sentence here so we can see the quote in context. My reading is that coercive control is not battering, which is defined as extreme physical violence whereas cc is a much different construct. Harrow1234 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As I stated above: I see no reason why the reference you've suggested can't also be presented in due fashion, i.e. given no more and no less weight than other similar primary sources. However, there appears to be a strong consensus here that the article as a whole is not in fact biased, so please be careful to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Regarding "battering", I now see what you mean. I gave a page number in my edit summary, so you can easily check this reference yourself, but it references "battering" as a synonym for IPV in general. I've moved this word to the final sentence of the first paragraph, where it fits better. Generalrelative (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If possible could you please paste the sentence you refer to here? Harrow1234 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Generalrelative I am not necessarily disagreeing with you but I cannot find any other sources at all which refer to "battering" being a direct and interchangeable term for coercive control. It is part of coercive control but is not referred to as a synonym. If you could paste the sentence here it would help. Harrow1234 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Please go back and read my last comment again. The reference states that "battering" is a synonym for IPV in general, not coercive control in particular as you rightly pointed out. Also, no one here is responsible for fetching things for you. I provided a complete citation (to a page that happens to be available on Google Books). Go click the link in the reference if you want to check the source. Generalrelative (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)