Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:19, 18 February 2015

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Systems: Systems psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the field of Systems psychology. Feminism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Family and relationships (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Intimate partner violence. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Citations of Michael P Johnson

Johnson's methodology for his claim, paraphrased as

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

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

Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation

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

"Gender symmetry"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2009 systematic review source states that it was important to use consistent definitions of domestic violence, and that: Results of this review emphasize that violence against women has reached epidemic proportions in many societies. Accurate measurement of the prevalence of domestic violence remains problematic and further culturally sensitive research is required to develop more effective preventive policies and programs. There are no WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that state that domestic violence against men has reached epidemic proportions in many societies.

This 2012 systematic review article states, "Although IPV affects both men and women as victims and perpetrators (4), more women experience IPV and most studies about screening and interventions for IPV enroll women. Approximately 1.3 to 5.3 million women in the United States experience IPV each year (5–6). Lifetime estimates range from 22% to 39% (7–8). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey indicated that 30% of women experience physical violence, 9% rape, 17% sexual violence other than rape, and 48% psychological aggression from their intimate partners over their lifetimes (4). Costs related to IPV are estimated to be between $2 and $7 billion each year (9)."

The 2014 scholarly source (page 961) states, "Interpersonal violence disproportionately affects women and includes child sexual abuse, rape, and domestic violence. Women who have been victims of any kind of violence at any age are at greater risk of developing a mental disorder."

The World Health Organization source states, "Intimate partner and sexual violence are mostly perpetrated by men against women and child sexual abuse affects both boys and girls. International studies reveal that approximately 20% of women and 5–10% of men report being victims of sexual violence as children. Violence among young people, including dating violence, is also a major problem."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global

Hello editors,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________

• Associations between Intimate Partner Violence and Health among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Ana Maria Buller, Karen M. Devries, Louise M. Howard, Loraine J. Bacchus, Published: March 4, 2014 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001609
• Adult experience of mental health outcomes as a result of intimate partner violence victimisation: a systematic review. Lagdon S1, Armour C1, Stringer M1. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2014 Sep 12;5. doi: 10.3402/ejpt.v5.24794. eCollection 2014.
• Intimate partner violence and HIV infection among women: a systematicreview and meta-analysis. Li Y1, Marshall CM2, Rees HC2, Nunez A2, Ezeanolue EE3, Ehiri JE4. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014 Feb 13;17:18845. doi: 10.7448/IAS.17.1.18845. eCollection 2014.
• A systematic review of African studies on intimate partner violence against pregnant women: prevalence and risk factors. PLoS One. 2011 Mar 8;6(3):e17591. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017591
• Intimate Partner Violence and Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Interventions, An-Sofie Van Parys,* Annelien Verhamme, Marleen Temmerman, and Hans Verstraelen PLoS One. 2014; 9(1): e85084. Published online 2014 Jan 17.doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085084 PMCID: PMC3901658
• Maternal and fetal outcomes of intimate partner violence associated with pregnancy in the Latin American and Caribbean region. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Jan;124(1):6-11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.06.037. Epub 2013 Oct 5. Han A1, Stewart DE2.
• Associations between intimate partner violence and termination of pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2014 Jan;11(1):e1001581. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001581. Epub 2014 Jan 7. Hall M1, Chappell LC1, Parnell BL1, Seed PT1, Bewley S1.
• Disclosure and health-seeking behaviour following intimate partner violence before and during pregnancy in Flanders, Belgium: a survey surveillance study. Roelens K1, Verstraelen H, Van Egmond K, Temmerman M. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008 Mar;137(1):37-42. Epub 2007 Jun 1.
• Domestic Violence and Perinatal Mental Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Louise M. Howard,1,* Sian Oram,1 Helen Galley,2 Kylee Trevillion,1 and Gene Feder3 PLoS Med. 2013 May; 10(5): e1001452. Published online 2013 May 28.doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001452 PMCID: PMC3665851
• Intimate partner violence victimization and cigarette smoking: a meta-analyticreview. Trauma Violence Abuse. Crane CA1, Hawes SW, Weinberger AH. 2013 Oct;14(4):305-15. doi: 10.1177/1524838013495962. Epub 2013 Jul 22.
• Prevalence and risk of experiences of intimate partner violence among people with eating disorders: a systematic review. J Psychiatr Res. 2013 Sep;47(9):1134-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.04.014. Epub 2013 May 22. Bundock L1, Howard LM, Trevillion K, Malcolm E, Feder G, Oram S.
• Forced sexual initiation, sexual intimate partner violence and HIV risk in women: A global review of the literature AIDS Behav. 2013 Mar; 17(3): 832–847. doi: 10.1007/s10461-012-0361-4 Stockman,1 Marguerite B. Lucea,2 and Jacquelyn C. Campbell2
• Killed in the name of honour, The Lancet, Volume 373, No. 9679, p1933–1934, 6 June 2009 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61049-7
• Violence by Intimate Partners Heise L, Garcia-Moreno C. In: Krug EC, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, Zwi AB, Lozano R, eds. World report on violence and health. 2002: 88–121.http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2002/9241545615_chap4_eng.pdf (accessed March 9, 2009).http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2002/9241545615_chap4_eng.pdf
• Bride burning, Dr Virendra Kumar, Sarita Kanth DOI:The Lancet, Volume 364, Special Issue, p18–19, December 2004 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17625-3

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed psychology articles
• Unknown-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Unassessed Crime-related articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• Unassessed sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• Unassessed Systems articles
• Unknown-importance Systems articles
• Systems articles in systems psychology
• WikiProject Systems articles
• Unassessed Feminism articles
• Unknown-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles
• Unassessed medicine articles
• Unknown-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages