Talk:Domestic violence

Including numbers of male victimisation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've put a clarification needed tag next to the part that says women are overwhelmingly victims. At this moment it's a bit like a weasel word, although I'm not sure if that's the correct term. We currently have that 1 in 3 women experience DV, but it doesn't mention what the number is for men. It's quite vague in its current form. The measured statistics on male victims tend to vary so I'm wondering how you all think we should approach this? —Panamitsu (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No, this is just what the well-established consensus is among editors. And you are, at this point, fully aware of it. The tag is therefore inappropriate. It's time to either bring this to a centralized discussion board like WP:NPOVN (your responsibility, not anyone else's) or drop the WP:STICK. Generalrelative (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative Yes I've already dropped the stick on the "overwhelming" part. —Panamitsu (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative I'm a bit confused what you mean by this. Consensus was made on keeping the "overwhelming" part. It wasn't made on including statistics on men? You know that domestic violence affects both women and men. —Panamitsu (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I really don't know how to be more explicit than I've been above. See my comment of 02:09, 18 September 2023. Generalrelative (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that is relevant. Including statistics on male victims and keeping the "overwhelming" are two completely seperate things. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You could have at least suggested a new statistic. I just googled it and came across 1 in 7-9 men. AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@AGIwithTheBraids Could you provide your source? I haven't been able to find it. I've found 1 in 3 for IPV in US by CDC,[1] and an worldwide(?) estimate between 3% and 20%, though this is quite a big difference for the lead.[2]. This one says 1 in 9 for the US.[3]

This is why it can be quite difficult, the numbers vary quite a bit. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason for us to compare statistics between men's and women's victimization in the lead, Panamitsu. Women are the overwhelming majority of victims of domestic violence, and statistics about women's victimization are much more widely cited than statistics about men. That's why, per WP:DUE, women's victimization is highlighted in the lead. This will be my final response to you on the matter. Generalrelative (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

With respect, there is also no reason not to compare statistics either. I don't think WP:DUE applies here as the CDC is a very reliable source. It is true that women are overwhelmingly affected, but that does not mean that the victimisation of men should be omitted. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

if stats are to go anywhere, they should go in the men/boys section of demographics, but at this point, you have failed to establish consensus for editing the lead. AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

yes this is unbearable. drop the WP:STICK AGIwithTheBraids (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Including numbers of male victimisation

Recently I added statistics from the CDC on male victimisation and it was reverted here, saying that "this is [not] sufficient framing, nor that the statistic is necessarily WP:DUE". This was following a reversion here saying While decently sourced, this edit appears to introduce WP:FALSEBALANCE into the article, since the 1-in-3 statistic given for women's victimization in the lead is clearly using a different metric, but a casual reader may conclude that men's and women's victimization are equivalent, which is false. A much more nuanced presentation of this data would thus be required. I totally agree with this, which is why I added the clarification that women experience higher severity of violence later on.

Personally I believe that the most recent revision was sufficiently framed as it gives the context that women experience violence of higher severity, but I'm happy to help with adding more context. @Generalrelative: could you please explain your reasoning for the most recent revision? I mostly don't understand the WP:UNDUE part as the CDC is quite reliable being a government organisation.

I'm wanting to work collaboratively on this rather than the previous talk page edit war, and reminder that I have changed my mind about removing the "overwhelming" victimisation. —Panamitsu (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Note: Since I believe this is slipping into a behavioral issue (see the WP:ARBGENDER warning above), and have not had success engaging with Panamitsu on their talk page, I've brought the matter to the fringe theories noticeboard. I'd prefer to let others weigh in on matters of content now if they find it necessary, and let my original edit summary speak for itself. Generalrelative (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

You aren't being cooperative here. I'm asking for an explanation on why you think it's WP:UNDUE when it's a perfectly reliable source. I've also asked you why you think including that women experience more severe forms of violence next to it isn't sufficient context. Please listen to my questions. As said, I agree with the first reversion that it creates a false balance, but you aren't cooperating with me to prevent it. —Panamitsu (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The undue issue is not a question of reliability of the source, but rather a situation where inclusion gives a disproportionate emphasis to a minor aspect of the topic. What you added and Generalrelative reverted still (even with the qualifier about severity) would have implied a type of symmetry between male abuse of women and female abuse of men, and that's false balance. NightHeron (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@NightHeron So do you think that it's possible to prevent a false balance, or is it unsolvable? —Panamitsu (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's definitely possible to prevent a false balance. If both studies include men and women, the obvious thing to do would be to give the numbers for both sexes for each study so each comparison is apples-to-apples. If they don't, at least include the full definition each time to avoid WP:SYNTH.

The issue with your edit is not using the CDC statistics (which I agree we should include somewhere), it's using the CDC statistics next to different statistics that were gathered using a much narrower definition. Loki (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I understand now! Thank you very much! I had a hard time understanding and I've finally got it, thank you, it means a lot. —Panamitsu (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to cite the CDC numbers, we should go with "About 41% of women and 26% of men" from here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers That's a much better figure —Panamitsu (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and if we need to include this near the other study, we should also include the proportion of men experiencing DV from it as well if we can. (I haven't looked at it in detail yet and don't know if it includes that number.) That way each comparison is apples-to-apples. Loki (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it does because it says About 41% of women and 26% of men experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner and reported an intimate partner violence-related impact during their lifetime.

It also says that About 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men report having experienced severe physical violence from an intimate partner in their lifetime which we can use to take account in differing severities. —Panamitsu (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the article does mention these numbers, just buried inside the same-sex section.

This same report states that 26% of gay men, 37% of bisexual men, and 29% of heterosexual men have experienced domestic violence in their lifetime. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Domestic violence in lesbian relationships to See Also?

I don't have much experience in adding links to the See Also section. Should Domestic violence in lesbian relationships be added? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 19:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The article already has a section on same-sex relationships which links to the lesbian article, so we don't need to add it to the see also per WP:SEEALSO. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

All right, thanks! JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 22:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Domestic violence of physical abuse

Domestic violence is the act 14.1.89.58 (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

More information needed for different forms of domestic violence based on relationships between perpetrators and the victim

Apart from child abuse committed by parents, there is little information about domestic violence in family relationships other than intimate/spousal relationships (e.g. sibling abuse, elder abuse by family members, etc). For example, honorary killings and dowry-related violence in South Asia are well-known examples of domestic violence committed as collective acts by the extended family, but these two topics are only briefly mentioned in the whole article and no more description of the relationship between perpetrators and the victim exists. There is a separate article for intimate partner violence. What is the purpose of this article if we don't add information about domestic violence under these settings?

Another problem is all examples I mentioned here (sibling abuse, elderly abuse at home, collective domestic abuse acts) are extensively researched with relatively high awareness in the public, yet they cannot make it to this article. Instead, a very controversial concept of minors abusing parents (the article for that one still has a "lack of secondary sources" tag six years after it was added) is here. I suspect that there is a Eurocentric bias here as well, as only abuse within the nuclear family and romantic & sexual relationships matter?

The part about minors abusing parents in this article also has its own problems with citations. The first citation that defines the term is under adoption and permanent placement settings, yet the text does not say anything about that. The last citation is about the effects of child abuse by parents on children. I understand that whoever added that wants to say that being a child abuse victim is a risk factor for violent behaviour during adolescence, but isn't a source more relevant to the topic better? Also, all but that irrelevant citation use sources from the UK, so we have a UK-centric bias now, not just a Eurocentric view. Kaileeslight (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)