This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
The article mentions that 1,200 papers, reports, etc. have been made with Dunedin Study findings, although it doesn't say what these are. It'd make sense to include some of these, right? —Panamitsu(talk)05:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well someone could definitely summarise the major findings of the study for the page, which would be useful (not something I have time for atm). I also think there is potential for a Scholia button too, but would need to scrape the list of pubs. I'll look into that when I have time. DrThneed (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the only source, the Office of Justice Programs also mentions it here. I'm wondering if this really is pro fringe if it's just discussing results of the study, the diff you cited puts it into proper context by mentioning that the mainstream is different, so I'm not sure. See WP:FALSEBALANCE which mentions We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. —Panamitsu(talk)02:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot the part which says: and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. I think the mention of the majority of studies saying that 80% of perpetrators are men is proper context. —Panamitsu(talk)02:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 'proper context' for an article on this study is scholarship, certainly, not cherry-picked and equivocal commentary from a police officer being used to make unsupportable generalisations. And since you have already mentioned the Office of Justice Programs source, I'd recommend reading it. All of it, including the part where it discusses whether perpetrators of domestic violence have also been victims. The part where it discusses whether such violence is likely to result in actual injury. And perhaps most significantly of all, the part where it discusses the factors which most closely correlate with domestic violence. All of which make it abundantly clear that reducing complex results to simplistic assertions about 'men' and 'women' has no place in scholarship. Or in Wikipedia articles reporting on such scholarship. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump: Okay great, thanks for the clarification. Do you think we should now include results with this 'proper context'? Please I ask you to provide better explanations next time, it's really hard for me to understand when you make generalised statements. For example here you said WP:OR - it is entirely inappropriate to compare different studies in this manner. You can't compare a narrow cohort as in the subjects of this study with the general population, and definitions of 'domestic violence' differ widely. At the time it was really hard for me to understand why it was inappropriate to compare different studies when the source itself did. I recommend reading this essay, thank you for your cooperation. —Panamitsu(talk)03:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you cited wasn't the study, it was a newspaper report on a particular aspect of it, selected to support the same arguments you have been made elsewhere, presented in a simplistic manner, and reaching a conclusion the source didn't support.
As for whether this article should discuss findings on domestic violence amongst the many possible aspects of this fascinating study, I'd have to say that would depend on the degree to which such findings have received secondary commentary, in scholarly (or at least expert) sources. You have found one such article, which goes into a great deal more detail, and avoids making assertions about existing studies being 'contradicted' concerning a complex topic. If we are to discuss the domestic violence aspects of the study at all, we should do the same. It needs a paragraph, not a sentence. A paragraph giving due balance to all the study says, not one single statistic that appears (to my non-expert eyes at least) to be less significant than much else it has to say on the matter. If the Office of Justice Programs commentary is correct (I've not read the original study results), the factors which are most predictive of future domestic abuse have only limited relationship to gender. People who have difficult and/or abusive childhoods are then more likely to become abusive themselves and/or find themselves in abusive relationships. This is hardly a new concept, but one where studies like this can add depth to existing evidence. But not by reducing it all to context-free 'men' vs 'women'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clear explanation, it can be quite difficult for me to understand. I hate to bring this out further, but are you able to clarify one more thing? For the record I agree with you entirely, there's just one thing I don't understand, apologies if you've said it multiple times. For the newspaper source, are you able to clarify why this isn't 'contradicted' (ignoring the OJP source)? I understand your part on the constable, just not how the source says The data did not fit the male-dominance model, which attributes aggression mostly to men, the researchers concluded, to me this looks like 'contradicted', although in hindsight it looks to be too strong of a word. Would it be appropriate to say something like that the "data did not fit the male-dominance model" if we didn't have the other sources? —Panamitsu(talk)04:37, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer not to comment further on what we should write about the study until I've had the chance to read the Moffitt paper, and seen what other commentary it has generated. Basing comments on scientific research on what local newspapers have to say about it is rarely advisable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump: Sorry for further bringing this out yet again, but are you able to clarify what you meant by WP:OR? To me it seems like my revision wasn't OR as it said what the source says (ignoring missing context/bad source). It seems that we have shifted away from OR to missing information, so was the thing about OR a mistake or am I interpreting this incorrectly? Apologies, I just want to properly understand what counts as OR so I don't make a similar mistake again. —Panamitsu(talk) —Panamitsu(talk)02:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
