Talk:Domestic violence

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)

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)

Partner Abuse State of Knowledge data about gendered violence

I think it would be an improvement to the "Gender differences" section to add the data provided by the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge, I added at the end of the paragraph

From 2010 to 2012, scholars of domestic violence from the U.S., Canada and the U.K. assembled The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge, a research database covering 1700 peer-reviewed studies, the largest of its kind. One of their findings is that 57.9% of IPV reported was bi-directional, 13.8% was unidirectional male to female and 28.3% was unidirectional female to male.

My edit got reverted with the reason "misleading way of presenting the study, since it doesn't address different degrees of violence between genders; it would be more informative, for example, to know the percent breakdown of men vs women murdered by their spouse/partner", I don't see how is this related to the topic and why this should be a valid reason to revert the edit instead of integrating it. Fab1can (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason why the wording of your edit is very misleading is that it suggests an equivalence between women-on-men violence and men-on-women violence (or even that there's more of the former), whereas in reality the men-on-women violent incidents tend to be much more serious. NightHeron (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The goal of the research was precisely to dismantle the false belief that domestic violence perpetrated by men is a more serious issue than that perpetrated by women. If you have data that can complement what the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge says to make it more clear we can integrate them into my edit. If you think the data I cited is false or misleading I ask you to explain why citing the sources. Fab1can (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

From the US National Institutes of Health [1]

"According to the CDC, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men will experience physical violence by their intimate partner at some point during their lifetimes. About 1 in 3 women and nearly 1 in 6 men experience some form of sexual violence during their lifetimes. Intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking are high, with intimate partner violence occurring in over 10 million people each year.

"One in 6 women and 1 in 19 men have experienced stalking during their lifetimes. The majority are stalked by someone they know. An intimate partner stalks about 6 in 10 female victims and 4 in 10 male victims.

"At least 5 million acts of domestic violence occur annually to women aged 18 years and older, with over 3 million involving men. While most events are minor, for example grabbing, shoving, pushing, slapping, and hitting, serious and sometimes fatal injuries do occur. Approximately 1.5 million intimate partner female rapes and physical assaults are perpetrated annually, and approximately 800,000 male assaults occur. About 1 in 5 women have experienced completed or attempted rape at some point in their lives. About 1% to 2% of men have experienced completed or attempted rape."

Note that it's not clear (especially in the case of the 1 in 6 and 1% to 2% statistics) how many of the male victims were victimized by other men rather than women. NightHeron (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the NIH data into the discussion. After reviewing the statistics I initially shared, I now realize that they may not align with the broader, well-established data from authoritative sources like the NIH. For example, the NIH data provides essential insights into the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV), such as the fact that 1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men experience physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in their lives. These figures present a more significant gender disparity in victimization rates than the statistics I had previously cited.

However, I believe there's still an important aspect of IPV that is underrepresented in the NIH data: the directionality of violence. The research I referenced from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project, while potentially flawed in some respects, highlights a key finding that 57.9% of IPV is bidirectional—meaning both partners engage in violence. This is a critical dimension of domestic violence that is often overlooked and might be valuable to include in the Wikipedia page for a more comprehensive view of IPV dynamics.

Acknowledging bidirectional violence can contribute to a more balanced understanding of domestic violence and inform the development of more targeted interventions. While I fully agree that any changes to the Wikipedia page should be based on the most reliable and widely accepted data, I think it would also be worth exploring whether reputable sources offer data on this particular aspect, as it could enrich the overall discussion of intimate partner violence on the page. Fab1can (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I realized that both sets of data can indeed be accurate, as they address different aspects of intimate partner violence (IPV). The NIH data provides statistics on the overall prevalence of IPV, showing how many men and women experience violence from an intimate partner over their lifetime—1 in 4 women and 1 in 7 men, for example. This looks at how widespread IPV is within the population.

The data from the Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project, on the other hand, examines the directionality of IPV—whether the violence is bidirectional (both partners engaging in violence) or unidirectional (one partner as the sole perpetrator). According to their findings, 57.9% of IPV cases are bidirectional, while the remaining 42.1% is unidirectional.

Mathematically, these two sets of data don't contradict each other because they are looking at different dimensions of the same issue. The NIH data is about how many people experience IPV, while the Partner Abuse data focuses on how often the violence is mutual within relationships where violence occurs. For instance, it's possible that the higher rates of IPV victimization among women reflect not only cases where women are the sole victims but also many of the bidirectional cases. Similarly, the lower rates for men may reflect fewer cases of sole victimization but could still include men in relationships where both partners are violent.

In other words, the NIH data and the Partner Abuse findings are not mutually exclusive. The prevalence data describes who experiences violence, while the directionality data provides insights into the nature of that violence within relationships. Together, these data sets offer a more complete understanding of IPV, both in terms of its reach and its dynamics. Fab1can (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be WP:SYNTH, that is, a lot of speculative theorizing by an editor based on an unreliable source, and that cannot substitute for finding a reliable source that directly addresses the issues you're raising. NightHeron (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

No. It is not WP:SYNTH. You have provided no proof that the source is unreliable. You however do provide a claim which is difficult to prove reliably i.e. the effects between male and female violence, due to men being less likely to report crimes against them, and the existence of external weapons: broken bottles, knives, poison, ... 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:5C93:31F2:D0F2:F257 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

'Partner Abuse State of Knowledge' is a paper by John Hamel, sponsored by and published in a journal with a low impact factor (0.6) which is edited by John Hamel, and according to the citation databases I've checked, the vast majority of the few papers citing it are written by John Hamel. Are we sure this is WP:DUE in the first place? MrOllie (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I again reverted the IP's edit, where their edit summary wrongly claimed that a consensus had been reached to add it. A really important issue is degree of violence. Did the studies deal with vastly different levels of "violence"? In a society that regards slapping the face of someone who insults one's wife as a serious case of violent assault (Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident), resulting in banning a famous actor from the Academy Awards for 10 years, we really have to distinguish between slap-on-the-face level violence and violence resulting in major injury or death. For example, it would be useful to have a gender breakdown of domestic murders. NightHeron (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not Fab1can. While murder is certainly one aspect, there are plenty others like poisoning. Each of which would "favour" one party more than another. Having a simple unbiased "frequency" seems most apt. Don't you agree? 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:B936:B3F:4EDC:3E37 (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No, because it equates a slap on the face with a bullet from a gun. NightHeron (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

So, you're against the very idea of crime rates:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country

No one states that they are equal, ever. People know this. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:E5A3:7E84:4BE5:4CB (talk) 09:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you going to mark https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate for deletion for being stupid according to you? Because others find it handy and useful. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:E5A3:7E84:4BE5:4CB (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

All I'm saying is something very simple. Suppose, hypothetically, that the HOA of an apartment complex reported that "this month we had a very high incidence of domestic violence: 2 reports of men-on-women DV and 4 reports of women-on-men DV," to which people reacted with surprise that the women were twice as violent as the men. Suppose also that in the 4 women-on-men incidents she insulted him and slapped his face, and he was so angry at her that he reported it to the police as an assault; and suppose that the 2 men-on-women incidents were murders. Wouldn't you agree that people had been badly misled by the statistics? NightHeron (talk) 09:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

> Wouldn't you agree that people had been badly misled by the statistics?

We should add a warning/clarification, because I know and agree with you that some fraction of people people will misinterpret it. Would you agree then? 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:CD81:8D36:7967:2116 (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no. The point is that the statistic is meaningless unless you know how either figure splits among different levels of violence, ranging from a slap on the face to murder, with many possibilities in between. There's no reason to think that the proportions will be the same in men-on-women violance as in women-on-men violence. If we have to put in an explanation to the readers of why the statistic is meaningless, then why have it (see [WP:UNDUE])? NightHeron (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

> If we have to put in an explanation to the readers of why the statistic is meaningless

No! It is very far from meaningless! It might be meaningless to you, but not to others. The issue you have is that the source does not give you enough information, but more detailed sources exist. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:CD81:8D36:7967:2116 (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you going to say something or are you going to block this forever? 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7521:C823:6BF0:7F51 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Good - you say "but more detailed sources exist". As I already said, a reliable source that gave detailed stats about partner violence disaggregated according to level of violence would be meaningful, because it could not be so easily misunderstood and misused. If you've found such sources, we could resolve this issue. NightHeron (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

An objective "level of violence" does not exist afaik.e.g. how much more violent is a punch compared to a kick? Multiple people believe that an aggregated summary is beneficial to their understanding.

If you want to we can add the FBI numbers next to it because they are extraordinarily contradictory IF you ignore reporting bias and sexism.

If I quote the source about which we're talking:

"Data gather from a variety of other sources stand in stark contradiction to this assertion; lead some to argue that crime surveys because of their context are likely to significantly underestimate the overal rate of domestic violence assault while excessively minimizing the rates of assaults that are perpetrated by women compared to men."

Thus the type of source you wish for can sadly not be accurately used for disaggregation. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:D489:656:886F:1E93 (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Changing the lead image

It seems to me that we should change the lead image, as a purple ribbon doesn't actually convey any information about the subject matter, explicitly or otherwise.

It's a symbol, rather than a representation. A Wikipedia reader is accessing articles to learn about the subject matter. The image should tell them something about the subject matter. MOS:LEADIMAGE introduces the concept of lead images as follows: "It is common for an article's lead or infobox to carry a representative image—such as of a person or place, a book or album cover—to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page." This is not a representative image and does not give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page.

It's just an image of a ribbon that some people have decided to adopt as a symbol of solidarity for domestic abuse victims, though at least as many have used it to stand with the victims of pancreatic cancer, and still more have used to raise awareness of Alzheimer's. The article for purple ribbon lists eleven causes this shade of purple is used to raise awareness of, and another seven that use various other shades of purple. As such, I don't think it is a "natural and appropriate representation of the topic," and it does not "illustrate the topic specifically", which is the core requirement in MOS:LEADIMAGE.

I am also concerned that someone may have made the call that any representation at all could be "triggering" and therefore "harmful" to survivors, and so made the lead image this euphemistic symbol that neither provides any information about the topic nor depicts it, instead signaling a vague "we stand with you." This is an inherently political statement and would violate WP:NPOV, both because the entire notion of harm from triggers is highly controversial and because, as unfortunate as it is, WP:NPOV is non-negotiable and we should aim to avoid taking such anodyne and near-universal opinions as "domestic violence is bad" and "we should stand with survivors."

I'm taking such a strong stance here because I'm worried about the precedent it sets. If we start relaxing our editorial standards on issues 99.9% of editors agree with, like domestic violence being bad, what about issues at 95? 80? The second we start curbing Wikipedia's core mission of serving as a repository of knowledge to take a stance on a universally-popular issue or to avoid making domestic abuse victims feel bad, we open the door to doing the same to the pages for Palestine or Israel. Everyone is perfectly justified in his own head, so we can't use a subjective standard. And, unfortunately, pedantic and unpopular calls like getting rid of the ribbon are part of that.

That the ribbon is an "internationally recognized symbol of solidarity with victims of domestic violence and a call to action to end this violence" is persuasive but not dispositive; in light of all the other issues presented I think the image should be moved down even if this is the case. And, again, a "call to action" runs contrary to WP:NPOV, so, while we can lead with an image constituting one if it provides visual information about the topic, the call to action cannot be coming from us as editors, and I'd be especially concerned if that was part of the case for it.

Again, this is an absurd, overpunctilious, legalistic point that's predicated on notions of objectivity rather than anything about the subject matter itself. (Domestic violence IS bad.) But I do think we should move the ribbon into the body, and replace it with a representation, but nothing too graphic or evocative as per MOS:OMIMG. Bruhpedia (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)