Talk:Domestic violence against men/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Partner Abuse State of Knowledge

I've added some findings from PASK. My reading is that their findings largely support the symmetry theory, but you may want to have a look at the page in case I have inadvertently cherry-picked. —Ashley Y 04:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The prevalence and frequency of IPV against men is highly disputed

Really? Where does it state that in a source?

The only thing that I can gather is disputed, is it's prevalence in relation to the other type of domestic violence - violence against women. As such only the relative proportion of all domestic violence is disputed by people who happen to mainly study violence against women, and it's massively important for them, for some reason. That doesn't mean the prevalence of violence against men is "highly disputed", which are weasel words not backed up by any sources. And it seems to be fairly comprehensively studied in its own right to not have to have this "warning" message on display.CdOl0lO (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

CdOl0lO, I would ask how a relatively new account knows of WP:Weasel wording, but I'll instead state the following:

The wording previously stated: "The prevalence and frequency of IPV against men is highly disputed, with different studies showing different conclusions for different nations, and many countries having no data at all."

You changed it to: "The relative prevalence of IPV against men to that of women is highly disputed between different studies, with some countries having no data at all."

The change is not much of a difference. Of course, "the prevalence and frequency of IPV against men is highly disputed" wording was mainly about the prevalence of IPV against men as compared to that of women, but it was also about the fact that studies on the domestic violence against men significantly vary and are challenged by things such as the gender symmetry debate and underreporting. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Do they vary much more significantly to studies on women though? In all the studies I've seen the variance has been approximately similar. It's an inherent problem to these sort of studies, but I have seen no-where that says the variance is generally too large as to be unable to draw conclusions from. Conclusions have been drawn from many studies.CdOl0lO (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Advocates of battered women

Are we not all advocates of battered women? Are we not all advocates of battered men? This looks like an attempt a pushing "advocates of battered men" out of the possibility to care about battered women... I.e. a zero sum game, which it is not. We (should) all care about each of these social malignancies. I will reword the paragraph to what it actually means - advocates of the feminist theory of domestic violence, and critics of the feminist theory of domestic violence.CdOl0lO (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason that I reverted you is because it's not simply "advocates of the feminist theory of domestic violence" who argue that "proponents of female-perpetrated IPV are part of an anti-feminist backlash, and are attempting to undermine the problem of male-perpetrated IPV by championing the cause of the abused man over the much more serious cause of the abuse woman." Also, the conflict tactics scale debate is covered lower in the article. Per WP:CITELEAD, the lead does not even always need to be cited. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Changed to this (followup edit/fix here). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I was just replying then you replied. Thanks for replying. I was about to ask this.. (I am newish to Wikipedia, probably edited 10 articles pretty minorly over the past 10 or so years, in reference to your asking about how much I know about weasel words, which look like also apply in some sense to this paragraph too, to me anyway). Anyway I'll paste what I said, even though you mostly replied.

Could you address the point I made here? Currently we have "Advocates of battered women argue that "... which is a lot more incorrect than my proposed edit of "Advocated of the feminist theory of domestic violence".. (Almost) every man woman and child I have ever met is an advocate of battered women, regardless of their view on the feminist theory, or causes of domestic violence. Using the words "Advocates of battered women" makes it seem that to disagree with the feminist theory of domestic violence (which is what stands to be called into question after all) is to not care about battered women. I.e. it's crafted to be a zero sum game. I am personally an advocate for battered women, but also strongly support studying battered men too. Whats wrong with narrowing down ultimately the defence of the feminist theory of domestic violence to ..this? I don't know how else to phrase it. Fundamentally we're talking about domestic violence against men. This page isn't actually about female-perpetrated IPV (similarish in some people's minds, but not the same), or male-perpetrated IPV, the sentences should be focussed on the study (or not) of domestic violence against men, and leave out special interest groups that may have further connotations, like "the group that advocates for battered women", which is pretty much all encompassing, other than people that actually do batter women.

Having read your reply, the conflict tactics scale is fine. On the "advocated of battered women" I might suggest "Predominantly advocates of the feminist theory of domestic violence".. as the sources making this point are generally feminist academics, and this needn't be exclusive. Either way it's a lot fairer than effectively saying "you think this or you're someone that doesn't care about women being battered", which is genuinely false for many people, as opposed to covering most of the truth pretty accurately.. I.e. I am not making any assumptions with this wording, as I have described something by stating the case for the narrowest group known to be true, rather than dealing with the inverse of an overstatement in the counter point (if that makes any sense). I would also like to move the text away from simply being a woman or man advocate, along with advocates the study of male/female perpetrators, to someone that recommends/advocates the study of female domestic abuse and male domestic abuse (victims).

Again really this is dancing round the feminist viewpoint that violence against men is controversial because it would presumably involve female perpetrators of IPV.. when in reality it should be studied because it's underreported, regardless of the perpetrator, and because we should all care about male (and female) domestic abuse victims. This whole paragraph is tip toeing around the fact that feminism finds the subject controversial for the reasons mentioned, and everything is being stated in double dutch to obfuscate the actual points.

So I would suggest this paragraph.. ?

Predominantly, advocates of the feminist theory of domestic violence argue a drive to study domestic violence against men is part of an anti-feminist backlash, and an attempt to undermine the problem of domestic violence against women by championing the cause of the abused man over the much more serious cause of the abused woman.[5][6] On the other hand, those who believe IPV against men to be a significant, or underreported problem argue that radical feminists have purposely tried to suppress research so as to further their own ideology; if female-perpetrated IPV is recognised, much of the foundational feminist theory behind domestic violence in general, specifically that IPV is an extension of patriarchal dominance, would be drawn into question.

CdOl0lO (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the wording I went with, which does not identify one side as feminist and the other as men's rights, or similar. As you likely saw, it states the following: "The lines of the debate tend to fall between two basic polemics — those who argue that proponents of female-perpetrated IPV are part of an anti-feminist backlash, and are attempting to undermine the problem of male-perpetrated IPV by championing the cause of the abused man over the much more serious cause of the abused woman, and those who believe IPV against men to be a significant problem argue that radical feminists have purposely tried to suppress research so as to further their own ideology; if female-perpetrated IPV is recognized, much of the foundational feminist theory behind domestic violence in general, specifically that IPV is an extension of patriarchal dominance, would be shown to be invalid."

Also, I don't see that "the feminist theory of domestic violence" is sourced. That wording also suggests that what feminists and others are stating on the matter of domestic violence perpetrated on women by men is merely a theory. That's not true. We know from research that domestic violence disproportionately affects women and that more serve forms of domestic violence are perpetrated against women by men. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

And unless a source states "predominantly" (or uses a synonym for it), I wouldn't state "predominantly" either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It is sourced. For the first source, it's in the title "Feminist Perspectives on wife abuse", and the second source is from "Women's Use of Force: Complexities and Challenges of Taking the Issue Seriously. Violence Against Women. ", which granted is not available online, and the word "feminist" is not in the title, but I will buy a hat and eat it if they are not feminists. Of course, technically, I do not have a source that says all feminists think that, or that is is a view that is held by a subset of the population that could be called "predominantly feminist", but I really can't see it as being at all disingenuous to suggest that feminists have that view point, I can see no other reason, personally anyway, to not care about domestic violence against men, so much so as to openly denounce its enquiry, for the reasons mentioned in the article.

Honestly is that not nit picking on needing citations, given the previous accepted demographic description was the unsourced, golden get out of jail free card used be feminists of "you're either with us or a woman beater, or the very least a sympathiser of woman beaters", as just scrubbed from this article... double standards?

However, likewise, you can see no other reason for people to care so much about "female perpetrated IPV", (they/we actually don't, that's just the feminist concern here, all we care about is domestic violence against men being unreported, and unrecognised) other than seeing a hidden motive to somehow allow MRAs to cover up the "real", undeniable, most prevalent domestic abuse which is that of women by men. I put "real" in brackets because even this article struggles to allow the utterance that women can be provably violent to male partners to any notable degree.. but "MRAs" are not mentioned. However I would argue that MRAs are no-where near a cohesive school of thought as that of foundational feminist theory, which is where the denunciation of studying and exploring violence against men is coming from, a point of truth until it needs to be repressed, evidently. If the inclusion of a demographic representative of this viewpoint was in use, unsourced before, I see no reason to not include it now.

Characterising the feminist theory of domestic violence as being validated by knowing .. " from research that domestic violence disproportionately affects women and that more severe forms of domestic violence are perpetrated against women by men." is to miss entirely the points of the feminist theory of domestic violence that are being disputed as a result of these enquiries into domestic violence against men. The "MRA" researchers (for want of a better word) would verify the same statement, they just make further statements on men as victims, and consequently (but not the aim) females as abusers, which are incompatible feminism.... hence the evident controversy!CdOl0lO (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"Predominantly, advocates of the feminist theory of domestic violence" is not sourced. The source states "Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse" in its title, but you have not shown shown that it states "feminist theory." We go by what the sources state. We do not engage in WP:Synthesis. Well, we are not supposed to. We should not frame the matter as simply a feminist matter. Firstly, as is clear from the Feminism article, many people do not agree on what feminism means and feminism is often associated with radical feminism, which is even more controversial than plain ole feminism. And we already mention radical feminists in the lead. We don't need readers equating general feminism with radical feminism, if they haven't already done so on their own. Secondly and thirdly, a number of researchers who doubt gender symmetry and/or have reported on the severity of male-perpetrated IPV with regard to women may not identify as feminists and/or are clear that the research is not political for them. It's more a health issue for them. I did not characterize the "feminist theory of domestic violence" as being validated by knowing so and so; I noted that things feminists state on the matter are not simply theories. Facts are involved. We have the World Health Organization (WHO) supporting a lot of what feminists state on the matter and the WHO does not frame it as "feminist theory."

Men's rights activist (MRAs) are mentioned in the article; see the Criticism section. But men's rights views commonly fall under WP:Fringe, and issues with some of their views are noted in the Men's rights movement article. Because of some editors pushing these views at the domestic violence articles, Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation exists.

As for you changing "female-perpetrated IPV" to "domestic violence against men" and "male-perpetrated IPV" to "domestic violence against women," the issue is that the debate is specifically (rather mainly) about "female-perpetrated IPV" vs. "male-perpetrated IPV." Although "domestic violence against men" often means female partners' violence against men, it covers male-male domestic violence as well. Similar goes for domestic violence against women additionally covering female-female domestic violence. We should be clear, and that is why I reverted you on that change. Well, that and because the sentence is long enough as it is. I did restore your use of "cast into doubt." Yes, "female-perpetrated IPV" can also mean female-female IPV and "male-perpetrated IPV" can also mean male-male IPV, but readers will surely recognize that the text is focusing on opposite-sex IPV. The "female-perpetrated IPV" and "male-perpetrated IPV" wordings get that across better than "domestic violence against men" and "domestic violence against women."

As for your addition of "underreported," the research is clear that domestic violence/IPV is significantly underreported for women as well. We should not make it seem as though the underreporting is solely a problem for men who face IPV, even considering that they are more reluctant to report IPV perpetrated against them. Also keep in mind that one reason that males (teenage boys and men) do not report IPV perpetrated against them is that the IPV tends to be less severe or not severe at all (including things like slapping, scratching, pushing or pinching). It is severe at times for teenage boys and men, but IPV committed by males (teenage boys and men) against females (teenage girls and women) comes with far more injuries, some of which are life-threatening. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

CdOl0lO, regarding this, it is not me who is adding POV language and things not covered by the sources. I already made my arguments above, and I will make them with scholarly sources if you want or if needed. Your additional words are unnecessary and/or not focused on what the debate is mainly about; I already explained that the debate is mainly about "female-perpetrated IPV" vs. "male-perpetrated IPV" (meaning female-on-male IPV and male-on-female IPV), not "domestic violence against men" and "domestic violence against women" as a whole. I don't see the sources talking about children physically attacking their parents, for example. The sources are mainly concerned with charges that women hit or verbally abuse men as much as, or almost as much as, men hit and verbally abuse women. In your edit summary, you stated that "this article is about domestic violence victims - not perpetrators." No, per the sources, it's about both. Equally. It's about men who have domestic violence perpetrated against them, and the debate regarding men's use of domestic violence against others, especially women. The domestic violence against men topic, including this Wikipedia article, is mostly concerned with the gender symmetry debate.

As for use of "believe" in place of "argue," what is the point other than trying to soften the language? One side arguing something does not make it fact. I've gone ahead added "argue" for both sides. But, in writing, different words are commonly used for flow/to be less redundant. Furthermore, per WP:Due weight and the so-called feminist side being widely supported in the literature, the other side does not automatically get the same treatment with regard to weight.

As for "underreported," the lead already states, "it has been argued that men who experience such violence often encounter pressure against reporting, with those that do facing social stigma regarding their perceived lack of machismo and other denigrations of their masculinity. Additionally, intimate partner violence (IPV) against men is generally less recognized by society than IPV against women, which can act as a further block to men reporting their situation." It also states, "Some researchers believe the actual number of male victims is likely to be greater than law enforcement statistics suggest due to the high number of men who do not report their abuse." Above, I noted that implying that underreporting is solely a problem for domestic violence against men is problematic. Because of this, I added the following (followup edit here) right after that bit: "For both men and women, domestic violence is among the most underreported crimes worldwide." And before you state that it should not be there because this article is about men, per WP:Due weight, yes, it should be there. And, again, this article is also about men's abuse of women. Because the "underreported" aspect is covered in two earlier paragraphs, there is no need to add "underreported" to the final paragraph, especially if the sources in that paragraph don't support those authors arguing that. Either way, "underreported" is what the "feminist side" argues for their case as well. So why present "underreported" for one side's argument, but not for the other side's argument?

I retained your removal of "be shown to." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes you need to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Making_necessary_assumptions, you are nit picking where you were previously happy to accept a demographic description of “advocates of battered women”, which suggested if you care about domestic violence against men you cannot care about battered women, and think “battered men” are more important than “battered women”, an absolutely non WP:NPOV an incorrect.

Though this was incorrect, it was not WP:synthesis. It is not synthesis to characterise people with this fringe view (described below) - that wishing to further analyse domestic violence against men is a ruse to hide male perpetrated IPV - as generally emanating from feminist sources. It is not taking one theory in one source, and combining it with another, to get a different, unsupported conclusion, just as it was not synthesis to characterise the group as “advocates of battered women”, which was far too general, with incorrect implications (real implications, not imagined).

Your points about which side has been validated on which issue on the topics of Domestic violence, Domestic_violence#Gender_differences, and Domestic violence against women are largely irrelevant. Those are a different, but related topics. The literature on domestic violence against men shows researchers of domestically abused males have broadly been shown to be correct on the existence of DV against men, domestic violence against men exists. Much of the feminist derived literature on this subject involves a disputed, and widely held to be incorrect and outdated [1] “man as perpetrator/woman as victim” conception of domestic violence. Regardless of how greatly feminist's studies on DV against women are supported – despite making this incorrect assumption - this does not apply to their views on DV against men, where they are equally as disputed as male DV researchers in general, with some different weightings on different issues. E.g. the men’s DV research group view that “domestic violence against men is being suppressed” is disputed, but not shown to be either correct or incorrect, however the predominantly feminist, DV against women research body that suggests “man as perpetrator/woman as victim” is not only disputed, but widely held to be incorrect, and outdated. I can supply references for this.

Also, what you stated above That wording also suggests that what feminists and others are stating on the matter of domestic violence perpetrated on women by men is merely a theory. That's not true. We know from research that domestic violence disproportionately affects women and that more severe forms of domestic violence are perpetrated against women by men. ..contains irrelevant facts for a similar reason, and suggests no such thing. We also know, as just mentioned, from research that “man as perpetrator/woman as victim” conception of domestic violence against men is disputed, but also is outdated and generally thought to be incorrect.

Likewise you are suggesting "the matter of domestic violence perpetrated on women by men" to be the only meaning of "the feminist theory of domestic violence". It is simply not the case that this is all "the feminist theory of domestic violence" means, especially in this (DV against men) context.

Regarding the use of “theories” - "theories" do not, as you seem to imply mean there is little or no evidence for something, or that it is not true. Theories are not "merely theories", they can be wholly accepted facts (theory of gravity, theory of evolution), they describe general bodies of thought.. and as such is wholly applicable in this context.

People holding the disputed, fringe view that men are only perpetrators therefore cannot be victims, can fairly be described has people holding these views due to (disputed) feminist theories. In fact it is WP:Synthesis to think that because these researchers are supported on some issues (DV against women), they are supported on others! The point that feminist theory driven researchers of DV against women hold widely accepted views on DV against women, does not give you carte blanche to suggest they have the strongest weighted view on every other topic.

It is purely a demographic description of people who are referenced as having this disputed, fringe viewpoint. As before, there is no reason to exclude a more accurate demographic when one exists so centrally to the points and body of research being referenced. It was not “synthesis” to do this before, and it is not now.

Also "We don't need readers equating general feminism with radical feminism" .. any implication is not the aim, nor does it exist, and your concern is unwarranted. You could equally say one side thinks the others must all be radical feminists, whereas in fact they are run of the mill feminists, and could be almost entirely uncontroversial/accepted. CdOl0lO (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I characterised one side as the ‘MRA side’ and one the ‘feminist side’ for ease of use, we both know the pitfalls of these descriptions. Some researchers that look into DV against men and find evidence counter to the man as perpetrator/woman as victim stance are not in any way “MRAs”. Also some researchers on DV against men, generally but not exclusively “the MRA side” hold the widely supported view that DV against men is significantly underreported, and unrecognised in society. They also address the question of gender symmetry in DV, but do not state a theory that suggests it is equal, and evaluate evidence without their findings being possibly controversial due to any pre-conceived theory. Generally speaking, the view coming from “MRAs” that would be considered fringe that you are concerned about is that “that radical feminists have purposely tried to suppress results on domestic violence against men”, and generally only this view in this entire topic. Addressing the question of gender symmetry is not fringe, but the results in respect to domestic violence against men, are disputed by relative levels over at Domestic_violence#Gender_differences (or should be). I am also not for mentioning "MRAs" in the lead, due to the issues to raised, and the articles simply do not state "MRA views", or anything of that nature. They just look at domestic violence against men. CdOl0lO (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

“sentence is long enough as it is” – past history of this page would disagree with you. You concern for the length of this sentence is also unfounded. I will edit it so split up the opposing viewpoints in this debate, to represent them most accurately, and frame this debate in the context of this article.

I am staggered you are prepared to argue the toss on " domestic violence against men (and by association female-perpetrated IPV)” vs “female perpetrated IPV”.

Perhaps there is one thing we could agree on, that “domestic violence against men” and “female perpetrated IPV” are not synonymous, and both know of and can give examples of the distinctions. I don’t see the sources on domestic violence against men talking about lesbian IPV, or indeed children physically attacking their parents for example. Your focus here, as is one side in a related debate, is on perpetrators, yet this article is about victims, male victims, and what "extreme feminist", "feminist", "apolitical DV researchers", "MRAs", and any relevant viewpoint makes of domestic violence against men. Lesbian IPV is absolutely an issue of debate, but this has almost no bearing to this article, which is sourced on articles that deal with DV against men.

My wording covers the situation most accurately, is sourced, is on topic, and your objection to using this terminology is baseless, and a POV issue, that you are attempting to frame as mine. Please stop this. The question being addressed here is "is domestic violence against men a bigger issue than is widely credited, is it worthy of greater study or not?", with implications on "does this article have enough merit to exist" - or is it a ruse to detract from a debate on perpetrators where feminist theory claims "men as perpetrators/women as victims" and that is why you are trying to willfully omit the simple statement "domestic violence against men", on the article of the same name, causing an WP:NPOV violation, specifically false_balance “…omit[ting] information that would [could] establish one side's claims as baseless.”. There is no other reason to object to placing "domestic violence against men" in the context of a debate where much of it's evidence comes from. This is not the place to outline the debate about “female vs male perpetrators”. The discussion for the debate you are referring to is covered at Domestic_violence#Gender_differences (or should be). Also many "advocates of female perpetrated IPV" are not at all accused of being anti-feminists, when many of these are lesbian IPV advocates, and a significant issue. Simply - stay on topic, and don't object to using WP:NOPV language. CdOl0lO (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your addition of “For both men and women, domestic violence is among the most underreported crimes worldwide.[5][6]” further up in the lead instead of using the (sourced), word ‘underreported’ in “.. and those who believe that IPV against men is both a significant and underreported problem" .. for fear that it would suggest this is solely a problem for men who face IPV, and because you say it’s minimal in relation to the violence women face .. even though its mainly shown to be even more underreported...

Minimal in relation to the violence women face” is both disputed, and irrelevant. What you are doing is against WP:NPOV, specifically [False_balance]. You are wilfully “…omit[ting] information that [might] establish one side's claims as baseless.”. Also related to this WP:NPOV issue - Whataboutism, and Argument_to_moderation. Please do not do this.

Why do you think every mention of any effect negative to men in this article needs to be explained in relation to women if it is different, else not allowed to be mentioned because of an imagined ‘undue bias’ or assumed ‘weighting’? It doesn't, neither does it on the article on domestic violence against women for any negative effect they suffer where men have a different rate (either higher or lower, or what either side says about this, or how prominent these views are, it does not matter). Why do you think every mention of any detrimental effect that men have, that is somewhat comparable to women in this article needs this pointed out, for fear of creating ‘undue bias’? It doesn't, just as the equivalent qualification is not needed and absent on the article on domestic violence against women, regardless of what either side says about this equivalence. This is not simply an issue of “weighting”, this is fundamental to any article, and is addressed on their common article, not here. We do not, for example stop people writing on an article about wild dogs, that one group of advocates believes wild dogs have abuse rates that could be underrecognised, and instead give underreporting rates on both domestic and wild dogs, for fear of implication about domestic dogs. That would be stated on the “dogs”, “dog abuse”, or “animal abuse” article, not the “wild dogs abuse” article. We should instead be stating one side’s views, in this paragraph that explains their views, in relation to the topic, DV against men, and whether it needs further independent study. Exclusion to mention one side thinks rates are both underreported, and wilfully ignored is false_balance because you are trying to “…omit information that [might] establish one side's claims as baseless.”. If you want to state the "female DV research" side think men also underreport, that of course can be mentioned in the sentence that outlines their position. This is clearly a contentious issue, hence as I stated I will separate these two viewpoints into bullet points so they can be accurately expressed independently. CdOl0lO (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

You are making unnecessary equivalences, and statements on domestic violence against women, by men, that are off topic, that should be made at Domestic_violence#Gender_differences. You have not shown that "feminist" research on this topic has greater weight, and therefore can make whatever unrelated statements, from different topics with their own articles. The findings of their research on DV against men is as disputed as "predominantly male DV researchers". As previously stated, the point that feminist theory driven researchers of DV against women hold widely accepted views on DV against women, does not give you carte blanche to suggest they have the strongest weighted view on every other topic.

The sources that are mainly concerned with charges that women hit or verbally abuse men as much as, or almost as much as, men hit and verbally abuse women address the argument you describe, at Domestic_violence#Gender_differences. You cannot change the topic being addressed in an article titled one thing, because most of its sources address it from a debate that is expressed elsewhere, and then define the article to be about that debate. The POVs of that debate are highly polarising, and I believe you cannot remove yourself from that debate. The article is about DV against men, and whether it deserves further independent study, rightly as you suggest with much information coming from sources that often deal with related debate about perpetrators, and sex ratios (that should explained fully) here Domestic_violence#Gender_differences.

Discussion of “the debate regarding men's use of domestic violence against others, especially women” is absolutely off topic. This has nothing to do with Domestic violence against men, regardless of DV against men’s prominence in any other topic or debate, or the prominence of any views in those debates. This page is not Domestic_violence#Gender_differences. CdOl0lO (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I was going to bring it up with you, when my other edit that replaced “argue” with “believe” for the ‘feminist side’ was reverted with no qualification what the issue with this was. I think we can agree they do imply different things, as you seem to think carefully about implications too, either should be backed up by sources. I see no reason for different implications on who simply holds beliefs, and who is forming arguments. Both sides have comparable unproven, or disputed aspects to their body of thought on domestic violence against men, unlike you suggest. Again the point that feminist theory driven researchers of DV against women hold widely accepted views on DV against women, does not give you carte blanche to suggest they have the strongest weighted view on this topic, where there are inherent NPOV issues, with one side reporting that the other is trying to “omit information that would establish one side's claims as baseless.”. Anyway thanks for leaving it in, I think it's safe to say they both argue their different viewpoints. Proving either simply holds beliefs would be much harder. CdOl0lO (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Complying with WP:Due weight is not permission to change the subject of the article. Yes, the feminist view of the underreporting of domestic violence against men should be stated, if significant, or different but this is absolutely not the same as thinking "womens underreporting of domestic violence against them" should be reported on the page on domestic violence against men. You are so far off the beaten path as do be in the wilderness. Female, or male DV researcher views on the relative ratios of reporting should be stated at Domestic_violence#Gender_differences. Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Stay_on_topic. This is also whataboutism, and False_balance and not a WP:NPOV.

"And, again, this article is also about men's abuse of women.” ... Domestic violence against men will never be about mens abuse of women, regardless of any weighting of any source, or anything. Somewhat related Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_.22equal_validity.22_can_create_a_false_balance

You are being totally blinded by undue weight of sources, due to their prominence on other articles.

Continually casting your POV issues as mine, when you cannot remove yourself from the debate at Domestic_violence#Gender_differences (or should be there) will not wash. CdOl0lO (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

CdOl0lO, per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing others' comments, do not break up my comments the way you did with this edit. Wikipedia recently had an RfC about that. Per this, I restored my comments to their intact versions. As for your comments above, it is unfortunate that you chose Thanksgiving to continue this dispute. I would rather be relaxing than dealing with this. I do not have an interest in disputing you on every point. It would not be a good to spend my time since it is clear that you are here to push a certain POV and do not understand our rules. For example, WP:Equal validity is something you are trying to do. On this talk page, you are also framing this matter as a "feminists have stated this and they are wrong" issue. No, again, the research has repeatedly shown that they are right about a number of things. What feminists are stating that domestic violence again doesn't exist at all? Radical feminists? Because, if we look at reviews today, we see that what feminists have often stated is that domestic violence against men is not as severe a problem as domestic violence against women, which is supported by male researchers who have looked into the topic of gender symmetry. It's right there in the "Gender differences" subsection of the Domestic violence article you have pointed to. You speak of a "man as perpetrator/woman as victim" conception of domestic violence, but the research today still shows that domestic violence, specifically IPV, is still mainly a "man as perpetrator/woman as victim" matter. As for your use of "theory," we both know that, to the general public, "theory" is commonly taken to mean "unproven" and/or subject to debate. This is not the Big Bang we are debating here, which is a widely held theory that is considered a fact by the scientific community (I state "fact" because I have yet to see a well-respected scientist talk about it as anything other than fact). This is a gender debate issue, which MRAs are constantly calling into question.

You stated that "past history of this page would disagree with me" on stating that the sentence in question is long enough as it is. Where? I am not trying to omit the "domestic violence against men" title. It's already on the page. I am trying to stop you from framing the paragraph in question as a "domestic violence against men" and "domestic violence against women" in general matter. It is not. And, yeah, many advocates of female-perpetrated IPV are accused of being anti-feminists, and I am specifically speaking of the MRAs. The lesbian issue doesn't negate that. Stay on topic, you say. You do the same. You asked, "Why do [I] think every mention of any detrimental effect that men have, that is somewhat comparable to women in this article needs this pointed out." I don't, and have focused on your POV lead edits. The article mainly does, though, because the article is mostly about the gender symmetry topic, which is what domestic violence against men is mostly about. There is no Domestic violence against women article, by the way. This is because domestic violence mainly concerns women and the Domestic violence and Violence against women articles cover the topic enough.

You have repeatedly engaged in WP:Synthesis, including with this latest edit, which I reverted. Your "Predominantly female DV researchers" and "Predominantly male DV researchers" pieces are unsourced. It's WP:Synthesis. You changing "For both men and women, domestic violence is among the most underreported crimes worldwide." to "Domestic violence is among the most underreported crimes worldwide." is POV-pushing, pure and simple. The sources are specifically about the fact that domestic violence against men and domestic violence against women are both significantly underreported. Noting this aspect in the lead is not a matter of whataboutism; it is a matter of WP:Due. It seems that you are trying to mislead the reader into thinking that underreporting is solely a problem for men, or is far more significant for men. IPV underreporting is a matter that is commonly reported for women; it is reported as a problem for women far more than it is reported as a problem for men. So it is a widely reported aspect that, per WP:Due, should not be excluded from this article. You stated that IPV against men is "mainly shown to be even more underreported." What sources do you have stating that it's even more of a problem for men than women? I ask because the following piece in the article is just an argument on prevalence rather than a fact on prevalence: "Some researchers believe the actual number of male victims is likely to be greater than law enforcement statistics suggest due to the high number of men who do not report their abuse." And as for bullet points in the lead, they do not belong in the lead. Per WP:Lead, the lead should typically only be four paragraphs long. And per WP:Prose, bullet-point style is not preferred.

I would rather this issue not be taken to WP:ANI. I'm going to go ahead and alert WP:Med to this discussion for further input. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I just restored some of the comments that were deleted in your reshuffle. Apologies for replying in-line, I thought that would be the easiest way to address the points you made, and was the done thing.. I see it's not. Am I allowed to suggest it’s fine by me..?

Apologies for the wall of text, this was not my intention. Yes, I am not an experienced editor of Wikipedia, and know some of these points may not be relevant to editing Wikipedia. I'm not sure what has editing-argument weight, and what does not, so my filter that would normally block walls-of-text is very badly tuned - I feel I've got to leave stuff in for fear of missing the valid points I might make. Hence putting (some) of the deleted wall of text back - indeed, I don't know if it contained valid points, or I was shooting myself in the foot. Feel free to ignore what you know to be waffle. I'm not sure who I can trust to confirm when a point is valid. All I can do is edit, else I can’t get any confirmation of where I am correct and making a valid point on talk – I imagine people rarely "gift" that to someone on a talk page with an topic as disputed as this. My edits are in good faith though. I genuinely think what looks like POV pushing really are POV differences. To me much of this article is POV pushing, and I am generally (not provably ofc) a rational person. I am very happy for anyone to tell me where anything I have said is irrelevant or wrong, I know I have to learn and am prepared to. I am also happy to have this discussion mediated if need be (ideally with someone who is impartial, despite us all simply following the rules, POVs matter when one doesn’t know a lot of the rules). It is somewhat daunting to have an experienced editor with an opposing POV revert almost all edits, based on the opposing POVs, instead of keeping the (small) bits to add back later, and just editing it. This may be WP:BRRR, it may be entirely warranted, I don't know. There appears to be no experienced editors sympathetic to the viewpoint of abused males engaged in this article at the moment, which makes it somewhat harder to learn.

I was not aware of it being Thanksgiving. The founding fathers of the US I'm currently getting familiar with in relation to another article.. Contrary to popular belief, their support of Estate Tax. Just so's you know I'm not a ranting Conservative-MRA, which I appreciate I may look like. Despite the waffling.

I do care that DV against men is recognised as a legitimate topic of concern without it being weaseled as controversial in it's own right due to a controversial debate, i.e. treated impartially, but I don't think that's a POV that is undue given the conflicts of interest claimed on this topic. Of course DV of women is a more serious issue, but I do wish it didn't need this qualification, for fear of further implication. Anyway I'll address the points raised later. Hopefully without it being too heated if we have different POVs, which the ranty wall I admit really doesn't help. CdOl0lO (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

CdOl0lO, yes, you do indeed look like a ranting MRA or someone right at the MRA doorstep but not quite there. Regarding your your re-added ranting, it's mainly you repeating yourself, and I was not aware that my reorganization had deleted any of your text. As for you stating that I "have not shown that 'feminist' research on this topic has greater weight, and therefore can make whatever unrelated statements, from different topics with their own articles," you are the one making this into a "feminist research" matter. It is not just "feminist research." And it is a fact that feminist research has more weight than MRA claims, which is exactly what I stated above. MRA claims are considered WP:Fringe by the Wikipedia community in general; this has been supported time and time again on Wikipedia, including by Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation having had to be formed. You stated, "You cannot change the topic being addressed in an article titled one thing, because most of its sources address it from a debate that is expressed elsewhere, and then define the article to be about that debate." I am not changing the topic to be about anything but what it is. Whether you like it or not (and it's clear the you do not like it), the domestic violence against men topic is mostly about the gender symmetry debate, which is exactly why this article is mostly about that debate. I'm not going to address the rest of your re-added redundancy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

@CdOl0lO: your latest edit (as of now) heavily relies on SYNTH. You would need to cite a source that women argue one way and men the other. You would also need a cite for authors being feminist, etc. Also, please stop the wall-of-text postings? Jim1138 (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll second that - the wall-of-text approach is not helping matters at all, and the recent edits change a lot of things in one diff which make it hard to see what exactly is at issue. But in general I agree that labels like "predominantly male," or "feminist," etc need to be properly sourced. If we're to chose between the two versions as is this diff I'll side with Flyer here - the other version seems a bit too reductionist, and I'm not sure that the "predominantly male/female" angle is even true. That said, can we not call them "proponents of female/male-perpetrated IPV?" That makes it sound like their advocates of domestic violence (ridiculous, I know - but that's what a literal reading of the text suggests). If we're going to argue about this further I'd suggest narrowing the terms of debate a bit (ie, not try to re-write half the lede in one go, but rather focus on fixing issues one by one). Makes it much easier to make headway. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn As you mention, many MRAs would hold anti-feminist views, and we’d probably agree many feminists would hold anti-MRA views. It is not always the case that MRAs views are undue, and can be often WP:DUE. Both have views supported on some topics, both have views generally discredited on others, depending on how centrally/fringe you go. I agree the MRA side consists of more fringe views as a whole. I am not trying to say they have WP:Equal validity on everything, but that they might or might not be on any topic, or even point. Each point needs sources where “Feminist” claims and “MRA” claims can be evaluated as to their support. Most evidence backs MRAs central view on DV against men, that it is under-recognized. You are simply calling MRAs Fringe, and Feminists widely supported for anything you want and is WP:UNDUE on many points in this article, despite the WP:Equal validity you keep adding. When I make counter examples for feminism on this topic, e.g. that their views are widely discredited on the status of men being victims, you say that’s only a minority view of feminism, but they still get to have a majority view of any point, including redefining the article to be a wider debate about relative rates between men and women, along with perpetration, despite being called “DV against men”?

On weighting and POV issues here – It seems this article is worded in a way as to continually answer the question "is focussing on DV against men a ruse to distract from the DV of men? (backlash)", which is a disputed POV. Mainly research shows it just exists, and evaluate types, prevalence, and, especially, relative prevalence with concepts like gender symmetry. However some people do express the opinion that this whole topic is a ruse or part of an anti-feminist backlash, but these are typically articles like web sources, media interviews etc. than research journals, where it is a journal it is simply stated as an opinion without evaluating, or attempting to get any evidence of whether it is true. [2] (bottom of page 2). One might be an anti-feminist because you hold the (somewhat disputed) view that some feminist-philosophy-motivated researchers of DV are attempting to conceal DV against men, yet wish no hiding of any DV to any woman, or DV done by any man. The Straus article (the predominant “MRA” source – of course doesn’t call himself that) would be an example of this. He states "As just indicated, women are physically injured by PV more frequently and more severely than men. Empathy for victims results in greater concern and sympathy for women victims-as it should, because women are more often injured"[3]. He states the view on DV-against-women which is being used as the prime example of “why feminists are basically right” .. on DV-against-men .. while being anti-feminist in the same paper, and asserting “gender symmetry”. Being anti-feminist is not the same as being motivated by hiding DV by men on women, clearly. This is WP:SYNTHESIS, so can’t be mentioned. However I have seen no evidence that the predominantly DV-against-men researchers (“MRAs”) are either motivated to hide DV perpetrated by men on women, or do hide male perpetrators. You could even go so far as to say this view is a conspiracy theory, there is no evidence that any research body on DV tries to hide DV done by men (thankfully). On the other hand there is evidence to suggest feminist academics (source below) have been acting to conceal DV against men, and descriptions of why they would be motivated to. Disputed evidence is alot better than none at all, and mere assertions. They should not, from what I've seen have equal weight, the male DV researchers are due more weight than feminist-philosophy driven researchers on this controversy. So, detail on the concealment of DV against men is due greater weight, e.g. methods, reasons etc. than any “undermining of the problem of male-perpetrated IPV”, or suggestion of this. And the article should not lend credibility to the view that DV against men, and women’s IPV is already recognised adequately by much of the DV support industry (previous sources), or that regarding it as under-recognized is part of an anti-feminist backlash to hide abuse of women.

The article should be focussed primarily on what is known to exist about DV against men, i.e. types, abuse patterns, etc. along with prevalence, and relative prevalence, rather than e.g. giving undue weight to an unverified argument in the lead. I'd suggest largely the "male vs female", "perpetrator vs victim" aspects, would mainly be outlined on the broader article on Domestic_violence#Gender_differences which applies to males, females, perpetrators and victims, or any combination, as opposed to “male victims”. The "concealed" vs "backlash/ruse" controversy should be addressed with due weight. There is evidence for “concealed”, there is none for “backlash/ruse”, only assertions. Giving the controversy such all-encompassing weight here compared to at Domestic_violence#Gender_differences gives credit to the notion that this is mainly a "backlash/ruse" - a debate on theories, and not really a type of DV worth recognition - a viewpoint almost exclusively held in feminist literature, despite claims of stating this being WP:SYNTHESIS, this view should not predominate here based on evidence.

I think it's also an issue that there is little on WP about "Domestic abuse" other than Abuse#Domestic_abuse_or_domestic_violence - with almost all abuse group-topics being stated as violence. Perhaps this is just the done-thing and consensus, or perhaps, as this is generally the article that is closest to addressing males' concerns with regard to domestic abuse issues, it could be e.g. changed to "Domestic abuse of males" to encompass discussion of more wider abuse, such as verbal abuse, control, bullying etc. that males face, as this is largely absent from WP - or this be addressed in some other way. I would suggest it is significantly less controversial to suggest gender symmetry in regard to domestic abuse, and that domestic abuse is a wider (ofc no less serious) issue than domestic violence. There isn't gender symmetry in DA of course, but it's often regarded as e.g. 40-60, whereas DV something like 30-70. (E.g. Straus' source states “victimized women must not be allowed to obscure the fact that men sustain about a third of the injuries from PV, including a third of the deaths from attacks by a partner”, along with many other sources on pages regarding DV that have meticulously cherry picked statistics and misrepresent the info in them to give conclusions that are compatible only with feminist views - like this one [4] (I suggest reading it and objectiveley summarising the findings) over at Domestic_violence#Gender_differences which concludes "A 2013 review examined studies from five continents and the correlation between a country's level of gender inequality and rates of domestic violence." oh? something relating to the first sentence? something relating to the near gender symmetry overall, or majority of countries reporting higher victimisation of males? " 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" Oh OK..).

I think it is tenuous that I am engaging in WP:Synthesis. I am describing what’s in the sources are, with titles like "Feminist Views on..". The previously long standing "Advocates of battered women" was not considered Synthesis, with no source, and you all seem very familiar with every word of this article, but it was OK then on what basis?. For every article where there is a view found in “some sources”, and people write "Some sources state", you do not need a piece of literature that states that "only some of the sources state that". This WP:MNA happens all over Wikipedia. The line between necessary assumption and synthesis is a POV issue. Regardless I am not at all going to make a point of insistence here; leaving out a demographic description of the sources is fine by me.

Some of the WP:Synthesis I see happening is that because feminist researchers have generally widely supported views on other pages, that they must do here. Yet they have some central views here that are generally shown to be incorrect and outdated [5] - but are given a greater weight on the whole topic of DV against men, to project WP:OWNership of this article by people with that viewpoint, and all others “POV Pushers”. Some sources also state there is evidence to suggest feminist researchers have a motivation to hide DV perpetrated on men, and engage in concealing DV perpetrated on men, though this of course is a disputed view, but still a reported inherent conflict of interest to this page and possible/probable NPOV violation.

"it is clear that you are here to push a certain POV". I think it's safe to say we would both think that of each other. Neither WP:OWNs this article, and it will probably always be different to what either of us would write.

"IPV underreporting is a matter that is commonly reported for women; it is reported as a problem for women far more than it is reported as a problem for men" is unsourced POV pushing, and contrasts with your earlier statement "We should not make it seem as though the underreporting is solely a problem for men who face IPV, even considering that they are more reluctant to report IPV perpetrated against them.". Not only is underreporting widely viewed to be a large (and almost always larger) issue for men, it has gender specific reasons, e.g. loss of masculinity, ridicule, handling by police etc. The gender specificity is widely stated, along as being a bigger problem. I see no reason to have "For men and women" in the lead here, when "for men and women" was correctly (in my view) removed from the sentence on the Conflict tactics scale to eliminate redundancy, other than an issue of whataboutism. It's clear what this means, without the need to address women's underreporting by name, the public already knows this Wikipedia:Advocacy, from e.g. Domestic violence, an article where this POV is rightly prominent. What is “simpler wording” to remove “men and women” from the Conflict tactics scale by another editor, becomes “too reductionist.” here ?

In general, regarding "underreporting", I think the body needs to be updated to state that it is a larger issue for men, which is widely sourced i.e. change "Statistics indicate that under-reporting is an inherent problem with IPV irrespective of gender." to something more appropriate to the sources on DV against men.

However for the sides in the controversy debate in the lead, I don't think my old "wilfully underreported" did make much sense. I agree "underreported" was not the right word there. The word I was looking for was “concealed”. e.g. Straus’ (the view being referenced) topic says "Method 1: Conceal the Evidence".. [6]. I also think "unrecognized" is a very good word, and widely sourced. Being “not recognized” is in this source anyway unless ([un] = not) is WP:SYNTHESIS? Also he states "It is important to recognize that the terms conceal, deny, and distort apply to academics who have produced or know about research evidence that could be concealed, denied, or distorted. Thus, this section refers to the academic community, not to service providers." so I suggest qualifying the people who have suppressed research as being those in the academic community, or academics.

Also “radical-feminists” appears not to be in the sources, only feminists – therefore “radical-feminists” is WP:SYNTHESIS. Hence radical-feminists should be changed to feminists.

So due to the views presented in the sources, all I’d suggest is to change for the lead is this part (that represents the POV I obviously most associate with as someone that cares about the abused males I see daily) to this:

...and those who argue that IPV against men is a significantly unrecognized, and concealed problem, due to feminists in the academic community that have purposely tried to suppress research so as to further their own ideology; if female-perpetrated IPV is recognized, much of the foundational feminist theory behind domestic violence in general, specifically that IPV is an extension of patriarchal dominance, would be cast into doubt.

The other sentence clearly does not cover the view I most associate with, so am happy to leave it to the people valiantly protecting this whole article for the sake of feminism and the abused females they claim it aims do damage to, with no references on how this is possible, or even motivation to want to attempt this if it were possible.

and whatever else here I have no interest in disputing. It’s all fine, there is no WP:UNDUE bias clearly.

Your message is received; this is not the place for me. I’ll make the edit for the "sides" bit of the lead, enjoy the revert. Yes this may be assuming bad faith, but at least I can own up to my imperfections, and not simply define someone else to be POV pushing, because they hold views not tolerated by my ideology. Yes, it is another wall – genuinely not my intention, but some things are important. At least you're at the end and it'll be the last one you see here.

I appreciate you other two trying to break this down and keep it simple - you might well be right about WP:SYNTHESIS, but the double standards are questionable, all in all I just don't want to edit WP under these conditions. Moderation won't be needed with regard to this thread. CdOl0lO (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Putting aside for the moment the assumptions of bad faith, those statements are appalling English. The first talkquote above runs two sentences to over 120 words. It begs to be misunderstood. If it can't be made simple, it won't be read. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

yep...too long--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

LeadSongDog and Ozzie10aaaa, "too long" is part of what I argued in the third paragraph of my "18:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)" post above. Fyddlestix has tweaked the wording, as noted below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Fyddlestix, what do you suggest "proponents of female-perpetrated IPV" be changed to?

CdOl0lO, above you stated, "Yes, I am not an experienced editor of Wikipedia, and know some of these points may not be relevant to editing Wikipedia. I'm not sure what has editing-argument weight, and what does not." And yet you are trying to teach me, a significantly experienced Wikipedian about our rules. I know what I am talking about and you are not listening because of your own ideology and need to categorize me as some feminist who is out to twist the literature and as WP:OWNING the page. I do not identify as a feminist, by the way. If one has an actual look at the literature, it is easy to see that the topic of domestic violence against men is mainly about the gender symmetry debate. And yet you want to go on and on about this article being the Domestic violence against men article and not the Gender symmetry article, despite the fact that the topic of domestic violence against men is mainly about the gender symmetry debate, and despite the fact that the term gender symmetry currently redirects to this article, and despite the fact that the lead currently states, "IPV against men is a controversial area of research, with terms such as gender symmetry, battered husband syndrome and bidirectional IPV provoking a great deal of debate."

You stated that "when [you] make counter examples for feminism on this topic, e.g. that their views are widely discredited on the status of men being victims, [I] say that’s only a minority view of feminism, but they still get to have a majority view of any point, including redefining the article to be a wider debate about relative rates between men and women, along with perpetration, despite being called 'DV against men'?" To begin with, that is a mischaracterization. And what reliable sources do you have stating that feminists views "are widely discredited on the status of men being victims"? What reliable sources do you have stating that feminists in general claimed that men are never victims of domestic violence? And like I stated above, "it is a fact that feminist research has more weight than MRA claims [...] MRA claims are considered WP:Fringe by the Wikipedia community in general; this has been supported time and time again on Wikipedia, including by Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation having had to be formed." We do not use MRA sources for any domestic violence research or commentary, except for their own; we attribute their claims directly to them, per WP:Due and WP:In-text attribution. By contrast, we use so-called feminist research for much domestic violence material.

I wonder how you are defining "feminist research," considering that a number of male scholars who have studied gender symmetry have found asymmetrical aspects, and conclude that 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. And, yeah, scholars on this matter include the 2013 source you cited above. I have read that source, and it was a matter of dispute on Wikipedia before. The current text at the Domestic violence article is the result of that dispute. That source states that partner abuse is pretty even when "partner abuse" is defined broadly to include emotional abuse, any kind of hitting, even who hits first, but also adds that their definition is not mainstream and that if one examines who is physically harmed and how seriously, expresses more fear, and experiences subsequent psychological problems, domestic violence is significantly gendered toward women as victims. The section, however, used to state the broad aspect as well; I will go ahead and re-add that. Some scholars on gender symmetry findings, which still find asymmetrical aspects, might identify as feminists. We don't know. We do know that Michael P. Johnson has stated the following in his 2008 "A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence" source, from UPNE, page 37: "While it is true that as many women as men acknowledge that they have committed at least one act of situational couple violence against their partner in the previous twelve months, this so-called gender symmetry is virtually meaningless in the face of dramatic differences in the nature and consequences of men's and women's situational couple violence. In fact, the data have always shown that among these violent respondents, men have engaged in more frequent violence during the previous twelves months and their female partners are more likely to be physically injured, to fear for their safety, and to experience negative psychological consequences of violence." That's similar to what the aforementioned 2013 source states, and to what other reviews in recent years have stated.

You stated, "However I have seen no evidence that the predominantly DV-against-men researchers ('MRAs') [...]." Let me stop you right there. When we state "MRA," we are not speaking of legitimate researchers who have looked into the topic. For any researchers who are MRAs, we really should take what they state with a grain of salt. You stated that "the male DV researchers are due more weight than feminist-philosophy driven researchers on this controversy." That is absolutely false, per the WP:Due weight policy. Domestic violence against men is a far more controversial and less studied topic than domestic violence against women. It is far more controversial mainly because it is plagued by the highly controversial gender symmetry debate. Depending on how gender symmetry is defined, the argument of gender symmetry has far less support than the argument of gender asymmetry. Stating that women are as violent as men, for example, is highly contested. And WP:Due weight is clear that we give most our weight to the majority view, even in articles about the minority view. You stated, There is evidence for 'concealed', there is none for 'backlash/ruse', only assertions." What evidence? Where are your reliable sources showing this evidence? You even commented, "'Some sources also state there is evidence to suggest feminist researchers have a motivation to hide DV perpetrated on men, and engage in concealing DV perpetrated on men, though this of course is a disputed view, but still a reported inherent conflict of interest to this page and possible/probable NPOV violation." A claim is not the same thing as evidence. And a highly disputed claim is nothing to use as proof for not giving the literature the weight it is supposed to have at this article.

As for "abuse," the terms domestic violence and domestic abuse are used interchangeably. You should know that. "Domestic abuse" is a WP:Alternative title for the Domestic violence article. We are not going to have a WP:POVFORK titled "Domestic abuse." And there is no valid justification for titling this article "Domestic abuse against men" instead of "Domestic violence against men." If you want to make that argument, I suggest you start an official WP:Requested moves discussion and bring your sources.

As for the rest, it's clear that you still don't fully understand WP:Synthesis or WP:Undue weight. We certainly should not simply be going by what the title of a source states, for example. But the latest edit you made is better than what you did before. Also, since this is a very controversial topic, you should propose any significant changes to the article here first. WP:Consensus is an important aspect of Wikipedia. Working with others on Wikipedia does not mean suggesting something and then going ahead and making the edit without waiting a reasonable amount of time for others to comment on the suggestion. And you should probably create a separate section for any suggestions you have since this section is already so lengthy. And do keep in mind that WP:Too long; didn't read is real. Editors are less likely to comment when they see walls of text, especially when it's walls upon walls of text. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

re: "proponents" I have made some changes which float "researchers who focus on..." as an alternative. I also made broader changes to clean up the phrasing and more closely accord with what the cited sources say. These are WP:BOLD changes so I am happy to discuss or see them reverted, although I hope some constructive changes (grammar, phrasing, replacing the dead link) can be preserved in that case. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Fyddlestix. Regarding this, I argued "radical feminists" above, but you see how that turned out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What WP:NPOV means

Jayx80, regarding this, this, this and this, are you certain that you understand what WP:NPOV means? Because I don't think you do. It does not mean changing a text's words to downplay matters when the sources state differently. It does not mean removing what you don't like. As stated before, I gave you ample warning about these types of things. I will not be warning you again. Instead, I will simply report you at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Yet many sources show that men are openly encouraged to report DV?

Also Straus claims they ignored the data on women's IPV perpetration and did not discuss it. There was no mention of "intentionally obscurring" data?

What I mean by this is that Straus literally states the data is there, it's just not discussed.

Jayx80 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for probably (from your perspective) seeming as though your repeated attempts to help me understand my less than acceptable editing have fallen on deaf ears. I've been reading everything you link me to. I really thought my edits were sound this time around. Though I should provide a source showing that women are also frequently discouraged from reporting abuse, right? Isn't it therefore misleading to have the claim that women are usually encouraged to report abuse when they face many barriers such as being blamed for their abuse?

To elaborate further on what I mean: battered women who fight back are not considered victims in the eyes of the legal system and are not always encouraged to report. -

http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2460&context=fac_pubs

Jayx80 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Causes of Female Perpretrated IPV

Why was the info from Hamby's report removed? It was a review of the relevant literature and everything that I said was explicitly stated in the report. So how is it not acceptable? Also, Straus didn't "suggest" that female perpetrated IPV is motivated by control rather than self-defense. He explicitly said it. Sewblon 17:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talk • contribs)

I explained here. For this article in particular, my main issue was with how much detail you were giving to the studies and to Straus. The "not for self-defense at all" viewpoint is the minority viewpoint. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The argument that Hamby and Straus are making, and by extension I am making, is not "no self-defense at all." it is "The same rate of self-defense for women as for men." Sewblon 20:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sewblon (talk • contribs)

Like I just stated at the Domestic violence article talk page, I am concerned about your edits are trying to make it seem like self-defense is not a primary motive or the main motive, despite the literature repeatedly and overwhelmingly supporting self-defense as at least one big motive for why women commit IPV. You added Straus stating that "most IPV committed by women against men is not in self-defense." That statement is focused on "a little bit of self-defense," in that it is stating that few women use self-defense, or that self-defense is only used occasionally by women, in these cases. The literature repeatedly supports self-defense as being one of the main reasons, or one of the suspected main reasons, that women commit IPV. There is debate on what women's primary motive is; self-defense is a big part of that debate. Self-defense as a motive is commonly reported for women while it is significantly less reported for men. This is why the "One study found that male violence is more likely to be in self-defense than female violence." piece you added was very much WP:Undue weight. The Domestic violence against men article already challenges the self-defense aspect. And you seem to be trying to hammer home that challenge. You even cited the Straus research twice, as that edit shows. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There are numerous studies from the 70s to today that show women do not primarily commit domestic violence out of self-defense. How do you explain that violence among lesbian couples seems to be even more frequent than among heterosexual couples? How do you explain more men than women report to have experienced physical violence in the last twelve months? tables 4.7/4.8 on pages 44-45 in the 2010 US National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. Galant Khan (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, literature reviews are preferred to WP:Primary sources. To repeat: "The literature repeatedly supports self-defense as being one of the main reasons, or one of the suspected main reasons, that women commit IPV. There is debate on what women's primary motive is; self-defense is a big part of that debate. Self-defense as a motive is commonly reported for women while it is significantly less reported for men." That IPV is symmetrical is highly disputed for various reasons.

As for lesbians, this is addressed in the Domestic violence article and elsewhere on Wikipedia: Like this 2010 the Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention source, from Sage Publications, page 312, states, "For several methodological reasons – nonrandom sampling procedures and self-selection factors, among others – it is not possible to assess the extent of same-sex domestic violence. Studies on abuse between gay male or lesbian partners usually rely on small convenience samples such as lesbian or gay male members of an association." Some sources state that gay and lesbian couples experience domestic violence at the same frequency as heterosexual couples, while other sources state domestic violence among gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals might be higher than that among heterosexual individuals, that gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals are less likely to report domestic violence that has occurred in their intimate relationships than heterosexual couples are, or that lesbian couples experience domestic violence less than heterosexual couples do. By contrast, some researchers commonly assume that lesbian couples experience domestic violence at the same rate as heterosexual couples, and have been more cautious when reporting domestic violence among gay male couples. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Now you say there is debate. In the articles it is portrayed as if violence against males is not really a problem because usually it is just self-defense: "Findings regarding bidirectional violence are particularly controversial because, if accepted, they can serve to undermine one of the most commonly cited reasons for female perpetrated IPV; self-defense against a controlling male partner." That is not even substantiated with references, it is just POV of editors like you. Interesting you insist so much on reviews when the article is full of primary sources and you pick out the ones that you don't like. Galant Khan (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

As shown above, I'd already stated that there is debate. Do I need to repeat myself again about WP:Due weight? On Wikipedia, debate does not automatically mean that both sides of a debate get equal weight. Actually take the time to read WP:Due weight, including its subsections. I disagree with your view that "In the articles it is portrayed as if violence against males is not really a problem because usually it is just self-defense." And no matter what we personally think, the research is consistent in stating that domestic violence disproportionately affects women (in terms of prevalence, health and fear). Do see Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 6#Should the Scientific American "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women" material be included?, which shows that this was extensively discussed before and that the Wikipedia community decided on the matter. In that RfC, I clearly used high-quality sources to dispute the claim that "rates of domestic violence are roughly equal between men and women." As for being a POV editor, yes, I am so much of a POV editor that I also take the time to combat POV editors on the opposite end of the spectrum (sarcasm). Your statement that I "pick out the [sources] that [I] don't like" is not supported by my edit history; sorry. I do shun sources that Wikipedia does not like. As for "the article is full of primary sources," if you mean this article, it's extremely poor. I'm not mainly responsible for its current state. If you mean the Domestic violence article, I'm not mainly responsible for its current state either, but WP:Secondary and tertiary sources support the "disproportionately affects women" and "self defense" aspects. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you that the research is consistent in stating that domestic violence disproportionately affects women in terms of health and fear, but not so for prevalence if all forms of violence are taken together. You can repeat it a hundred times, I know what due weight means. I meant that this article uses too many primary sources, and numbers from them, instead of condensing the content to their essence. Which on the other hand is difficult if there are editors like you use that to interpret results to match their preferred view. Galant Khan (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Your "but not so for prevalence if all forms of violence are taken together" assertion needs a source to support it. In any case, numerous quality and high-quality sources, like the ones I listed here, are clear that domestic violence disproportionately affects women or that domestic violence victims are overwhelmingly women and that they suffer more severe consequences, and that the notion of gender symmetry is dubious. Many sources state that minor violence reciprocation between the sexes does not equate to true gender symmetry. Those sources show that you can make this about me being a POV editor trying to downplay men as victims (which is laughable, given the aforementioned editor I pointed doing just that) as much as you want to, but it won't make it true. I don't think you understand WP:Due weight at all. And I certainly don't rely on primary sources to interpret results to match my "preferred view." For any topic that has them, I look at secondary and tertiary sources and what they have to state. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

___

References

Interpretation of homosexual violence

I don't understand the sentence "Although the study found that lesbians experienced IPV at higher rates than heterosexual women, it did acknowledge that the majority of IPV perpetrated against both men and women was carried out by men." Of course there are way more heterosexual than homosexual partnerships, so there are much more women who become victims of male than of female partners. The percentages however seem to show that among lesbian partnerships, domestic violence is more frequent than among heterosexual partnerships, and among gay men it is least common. This is in line with findings that violence among heterosexual partnerships is more frequently committed by women than by men. Galant Khan (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

See above when it comes to what the literature states on domestic violence among same-sex couples. And also keep in mind that the United States is not the world. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You don't answer the question. As it is the sentence is just off-context unsubstantiated interpretation, I will thus remove it. Galant Khan (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Statistics in table vs prose

I recently converted a pile of statistics from prose to table format and it was reverted by User:Flyer22 Reborn. Flyer, you provided a lot of links, none of which particularly support your point of view. The statistics are a useless jumble in prose format and are easily compared and understood in list format.

From your comment, item by item:

• "WP:Prose is preferred." - I don't see text that supports your claim that prose is preferred for statistical data. Could you please point it out?
• "Also see WP:Self-reference." - There are no references to wikipedia in the article. Are you referring to my comment asking for double-checking percentages?
• "It also seems to be undue weight to devote that much of the section to that." - The shape of the data doesn't change its importance. I do have doubts that this data is useful but I thought that making the data more comprehensible would make this decision easier.

--TomCerul (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, MOS:PROSE is the link I meant. I will need to fix the WP:Prose link so that it points to the same place. Even in our medical articles, we usually include statistics with prose. See, for example, Cancer#Epidemiology and HIV/AIDS#Epidemiology. Regarding WP:Self-reference, you added "Her results are summarized here." Regarding WP:Undue, WP:Undue states, in part, "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery." Just like it can be undue weight to give material its own subsection, it can be undue to focus on this person's studies to the point that they are emphasized via table formats that take up most of the section. Per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, this WP:Primary source material (the single study material) shouldn't even be there. Her results should be summarized via secondary or tertiary sources. And, yes, per Wikipedia:Biomedical information#What is biomedical information?, where "Population data and epidemiology" is listed, statistics material is covered by WP:MEDRS. There is a lot of stuff in this article that should be cut per WP:MEDRS and WP:SCHOLARHSIP. And the stuff that should be WP:Preserved should be replaced with WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to remove

"Determining the rate of intimate partner violence (IPV) against males can be difficult, as men may be reluctant to report their abuse or seek help.[4][12][13] Male victims of IPV may face socio-cultural issues pertaining to hegemonic masculinity such as judgement by male peers, fear of coming out as LGBTQ, or having their masculinity questioned.[1] IPV against men is generally less recognized by society than IPV against women.[1]:1[3] For a man to admit he is the victim of female perpetrated IPV necessitates the abandonment of the veneer of machismo which society expects from men, and to admit being submissive to a female partner. For some men, this is an admission they are unwilling, or unable, to make.[14]"

This sounds like baseless speculation based off feminist theory. This stuff about Hegemonic masculinity should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.166.108 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like it because it's adding a layer of some of the more problematic aspects of Feminist theory atop of what the citations actually support. Society, and the Feminist movement, have overall embraced the gendered narrative that has women as victims and men as victimizers--which means that a lot of the same problems faced by male victims of IPV by a female partner are faced by all LGBTQ victims of IPV, which is how I got familiar with these issues. Also, that bias is not present in the cited sources, which is possibly worse. I've gone ahead and gotten it much closer to what was actually in both sources, especially the Spanish source which I think was used with the assumption that nobody who could read Spanish (or use a mechanical translator) might turn up. Werhdnt (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Redundancy under "Criticism" Header

It seems unnecessary to me to talk about gender symmetry/asymmetry under the "Criticism" header when there's already a portion of the article dedicated to that subject. There's also a portion of the article dedicated to causes of female-perpetrated IPV. In addition, gender asymmetry in domestic violence doesn't really qualify as a "criticism" of domestic violence against men. It seems to me that all but the first paragraph of the "Criticism" section should either be deleted or moved to either the "Gender Symmetry" or "Causes of female-perpetrated IPV" sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CongaWalker (talk • contribs) 22:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Primary source tag

Why was this article tagged with the claim that it relies on primary sources more than "medical" articles or something? Aren't all these statistics and scholarly reviews -- whichever gender-based violence -- based on assumed-victim accounts to begin with? The tag led to a guideline on "ideal sources for biomedical material". How is this a biomedical topic? isento (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

“ Many critics have rejected the research cited by men's rights activists…”

This first line under “Criticism” should read that these critics reject the research. The question as to whether ‘men’s rights’ groups cite it is redundant unless the intent is to say that critics simply want to reject whatever these groups identify as evidence.

This entire section reeks of bias. In the "Criticism" section, it lists multiple unfounded studies which serve to justify abuse against men, and to manipulate data to imply that when women abuse their husbands/male partners, it is "less bad" than if it were a mal doing the same to a female. The article serves to mention these unfounded, rather biased studies as "factual" when it should be neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feed321 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

That is simply saying which research is being spoken of. As for other material, we don't judge studies by our own opinions, but rather mention criticism only as published in WP:Reliable sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

What is the reasoning for this being in the opening paragraph?

``` Women are substantially more likely to be injured or killed in incidents of domestic violence ```

It makes total sense to have this statement where statistics are talked about, but in this case, what's the point of it? It seems quite out of place and in my opinion, it isn't particularly neutral (in for the context that it's in) Panamitsu (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it fits right in. It is an important followup to the previous sentence. Carptrash (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)