Talk:Domestic violence

Factor: education-difference between spouses

I read an abstract once of a study saying women with higher education married to men with lower education than them had higher risk of being abused. Does anyone happen to have the citation of this? (I know the reverse seems to be the case in Bangladesh, so presumably there's some confounding factor here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwibird (talk • contribs) 08:03, 24 February 2009‎ (UTC)

Ah, now I found it. Martin (2007) , cites Johnson (2003) as saying that "women with higher education were at greater risk of being physically and sexually assaulted by their partners", although other studies have also shown that unemployed women are at higher risk of marital rape, not sure how to interpret all this. (Martin 2007 seems to be a very good review.)

Violence against children: UN Secretary-General's study (2006) and UNICEF report (2014)

I am placing citations to these sources here in the hope that some editors will find the material useful for working into the article. I haven't had time to go through them myself, but may add material later. In the meantime, I have placed links to the source Web pages in the External links section. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Pinheiro, Paulo Sérgio (2006). "Violence against children in the home and family". World Report on Violence Against Children. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Secretary-General's Study on Violence Against Children. ISBN 92-95057-51-1. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• United Nations Children's Fund (2014). Hidden in Plain Sight: A statistical analysis of violence against children (PDF) (Report). New York: UNICEF. ISBN 978-92-806-4767-9.

Thank you Coconutporkpie. I think this article is in desperate need of such material. It appears terribly weighted toward couples only (for some unknown reason and which already has its own article page intimate partner violence) rather than the many other dimensions of family violence that this article should be covering.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to know why this article focuses so much on couple violence, all you need to do is look at the literature, since the domestic violence literature is mostly about couples and since the term domestic violence is used interchangeably with the term intimate partner violence. You've already been told this repeatedly. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Undue weight in lede

The lede reads: "In the United States, 35.6% of women and 28.5% of men have experienced some form of domestic violence (including rape, physical violence, or stalking) by an intimate partner in their lifetime.[2] Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such violence.[3][4]"

Why is the United States singled out this way in the lede? It's giving WP:UNDUE to the US, and it appears to be here to push a POV. The lede should not focus on a specific country. And it is also inappropriate to present this figure, 35.6% of women and 28.5% of men, as unequivocally correct. The estimates of DV vary by study, depending on methodology, definition of DV, etc. 2A02:2F01:503F:FFFF:0:0:BC1B:570C (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, and removed. I didn't like when it was added either, since it focuses on the United States and since studies on that aspect vary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion [1] of these stats from the CDC, that were sitting in the article for 4 months, seems unnecessary Flyer22reborn. What is the reasoning here exactly? I know the IP address above, mentions the USA, but the USA is used in isolation in many articles, without challenge? I mean the intimate partner violence article edited heavily by Flyer22reborn is almost entirely USA centered and is filled to the brim, with isolated and cherry picked statistics, and you have no problems with that Flyer22reborn?Charlotte135 (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

You not understanding why it was removed is because you do not understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. If you restore it, it will be removed again. And if it takes a WP:RfC to make that removal stick, given that you are so often tempted to revert me with no valid reason at all, it will happen. Also, the more you go on and on about your perception of my viewpoints, and other baseless commentary regarding me, the more evidence I have for your inappropriate behavior at this talk page. Like I noted in the #"Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence section below, "You do not heed warnings well, that much is clear. And I will deal with all of this in due time." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No need to put me down further, and say how superior your editing and knowledge of policy is to mine and other editors. Don't worry. Not going to revert. It was just a valid observation. You don't even need to discuss why you and the IP address did it. No problems at all. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence

Charlotte135 has returned to this article soon after being restricted from it for three months, and immediately focused on text that was previously disputed; in this case, the text is the "Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence. I reverted yet again. The text does not belong because it is redundant to the first paragraph. That domestic violence affects men, women, and children is quite clear from that first paragraph. Furthermore, this sentence that Charlotte135 insists on adding is not a good topic sentence since the paragraph focuses on couple violence, not on children at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22. The sentence you deleted recently was not disputed it was agreed on and settled and stayed in the article for months. Gosh, true to form though you immediately and predictably bring up my now well expired issue. Is that necessary? I mean with your extremely long history of blocks from all articles, not just a single topic and your sockpuppetry cases involving you and your little brother (who you said was using your account apparently without you knowing) in your mum and dad's house, and you being in tears over it as you told administrators at the time, why would you be slinging mud in a desperate attempt to discredit me?

I knew this would happen though. That's why I tried to get advice from an actual administrator, Diannaa. This discussion is here [2] and my reply to administrator Diannaa is here [3]

I realize I am giving as good as I get here and I wish you had just decided to be civil and leave the past in the past. I think policy even talks about that principle somewhere I've read. Why not just discuss your issue in a civil manner instead, like we all should Flyer22reborn? Why do you need to try to discredit other editors? Why bring up their past? How do you like having your very long history of blocks and sockpuppetry thrown in your face every time you try to edit in good faith? And the edit you deleted recently, which had been in the article for months, I reverted today, once. But then you again deleted. Are you not supposed to instead take it to talk first and discuss? I may revert back and discuss instead, if you can be respectful that is. Is that okay with you Flyer22 reeborn?Charlotte135 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing agreed upon when it comes to that sentence. And since you've repeatedly mischaracterized me on your talk page, continue to do so, have shown up here engaging in the same disruptive behavior, including with inaccurate and irrelevant comments about my block log (when the fact that it is inaccurate and irrelevant commentary has been made thoroughly clear to you before, as seen here and here), it's obvious that you did not learn your lesson when you were banned from this article for three months. It's also obvious that you did not take the advice that Diannaa gave you. You clearly have not headed anything Mark Arsten told you either. And you've been recently tracking the articles I edit, including the Sex reassignment surgery article; that is not a coincidence. You could have easily focused on the edit. I did focus on the edit; it's an edit that I disputed in the past on this very talk page, and it ties into the problems I had with you editing this article before you were topic-banned from it. Coming to this article and continuing past disputes soon after your topic ban expired is relevant. Your inaccurate commentary on my block log is not relevant. And to boot, you got it wrong yet again even. There was no "my mum and dad's house." It is my house; you already know that. My brother used my account once, and I was blocked for that by Boing! said Zebedee to protect my account. Really, how many administrators do you need to talk to before you get commentary on my block log right? Must you talk to Boing! said Zebedee, Alison, The ed17? Or do you simply want to keep commenting on it wrongly so that you have some imaginary dirt to throw my way, to try to make me look as bad as, or worse than, you? Whatever the case, you do not heed warnings well, that much is clear. And I will deal with all of this in due time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Flyer 22 you deleted this comment [4] of mine? What's going on please? Even if you are angry and keep making this personal with me, for no reason, when I keep trying to work things out with you, why do you believe you can delete my comments please? and then accuse me of doing so? What a dirty trick to try and discredit me? You should know better. Anyway I will restore my comment you just deleted in anger.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I won't revert your deletion of this statement from the article you made and breached the WP:BRD cycle guideline, and you instead inviting/encouraging an edit war. I will instead immediately take this matter to dispute resolution, rather than get entrapped in an edit war with you. I do invite you though, before I do so, to revert yourself and us try to work this out here on the talk page?Charlotte135 (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice that, with this edit, I was reverting your deletion of my comment. I do not care that your deletion was accidental, if it was, and I did not care to restore your comment in the process. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22. After looking at the editing, my edit must have been added the same time as your last one. That's all I can think happened. That means it was not just accidental but completely innocent. However your deletion of my text, 10 minutes after, seemed quite obviously to anyone, malicious, and your comment "I do not care that your deletion was accidental, if it was, and I did not care to restore your comment in the process." seems both angry and disregarding of the community standards? Can you apologize to me please.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi again Flyer22. Is this [5] what you were referring to above, when you distorted what Mark Arsten actually told me? You see, I asked Mark as well. Was it the bit about he was not sure how other editors (you) may treat me? Here was his comments on my talk page anyway, given you chose not to include the truth. [6] I'm wondering what both Mark and Diannaa, or any administrator, would think about you maliciously deleting my comments here in anger? As I said, would you consider apologizing, first? Charlotte135 (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2016‎ (UTC)

Flyer 22. this is ridiculous. This is a public space, correct? Redundancy is a opinion. I don't understand this either. DV does affect men, women and children. this can be stated more than once. it is to emphasize the reach. --Shy1alize (talk) 06:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy is not an opinion. The sentence is not needed in the least. If you want to go to WP:Dispute resolution over it, be my guest. For example, I don't mind wasting editors' time at all by starting a WP:RfC on this trivial matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

you see it redundant, i don't. i think that is perception. I may be corrected, i assume you will attempt to belittle my trivial matter. This website cannot even be utilized for any real academic works. marinate in that ok. public space. not real source of information. Shy1alize (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You stated, "DV does affect men, women and children. this can be stated more than once." Seems like you were arguing for redundancy to me. Stating essentially the same thing twice, or more than twice, in the lead is not how good Wikipedia articles are written. It is easy to see from the very first paragraph that domestic violence affects men, women, and children since the very first paragraph talks about domestic violence affecting heterosexual and same-sex couples, and children. No need to state it again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree with Shy1alize, Flyer22reborn. And I find your response toward Shy1alize quite rude and demeaning. It seems our views outweigh your revert. Please also discuss here and show some respect for the WP:BRD cycle guideline. You boldly deleted that sentence recently and the sentence had remained in the article for a long while. I then reverted your bold edit once. You should have then discussed here, rather than provoke a potential edit war, by then again reverting the edit. You know better, as you say to everyone, very often that you hold much experience here on Wikipedia. You are also going against two other editors opinion on this one so please respect consensus. Further the word "affect" in that sentence is not mentioned in the first paragraph nor is therefore the intent of that sentence. Let me explain. Some synonyms for the word affect are: upset, troubled, overwhelmed, devastated, damaged, hurt, pained, grieve, sadness, distress etc. So, no it is not redundant as the first paragraph does not discuss the fact that men, women and children are "affected" by domestic violence.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It's redundant. Your "affects" argument makes no sense. And WP:BRD is an essay, not a guideline. If you really want me to start a WP:RfC on this issue, I certainly will. I will start a WP:RfC on something each time I disagree with you on a matter if need be. WP:Consensus is not a vote; WP:Consensus is about the weight of the arguments. And rarely does two against one equate to consensus on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I'm certain that Gandydancer agrees with me that the sentence in question should not be included. And, for the record: I couldn't care less what you think about my behavior, especially since you mischaracterize it all the time, as is clear by my initial reply to you above, and by Boing! said Zebedee's comment below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:42, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop bullying your edits out of the article. You and Gandydancer are very close affiliates on Wikipedia. Everyone knows this fact. The two of you always back each other up, without fail. Your opinions count as one opinion Flyer22reborn. You know that, especially given your experience and how you are "not a newbie" line you keep jamming down other editors throats. Whereas I don't know Shy1alize but agree with their logic. You're outnumbered and both mine and Shy1alize's logic are sound despite your opinion. Do whatever you want. But stop edit warring and respect other editors and respect WP:BRD.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

There you again with the silliness: "Stop bullying." More silliness is you stating "The two of you always back each other up, without fail. Your opinions count as one opinion Flyer22rebon." And these two aspects are yet more reasons for why that sentence will not be staying. You do not grasp how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You never do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Stop it and let it go. You are wrong. Go and read policies on canvassing too. What I guarantee very soon though and as sure as the sun rises of a morn, is that your close affiliate Gandydancer, will come flying in soon after you have contacted them over this, and revert the edit, for you so you don't breach the revert rule. Without fail. Just watch. And this Flyer22reborn. will ultimately illustrate my point.Charlotte135 (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The sentence will be removed, per my arguments, and you will have to accept it. There was no WP:Canvassing violation; this is yet another guideline you have misinterpreted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I just said your close affiliate with identical opinions and ordered by you, will come in soon, and delete it, like clock work, after you contact them outside of Wikipedia. Like clock work I say, and without even thinking, or considering the solid arguments put forth here on talk. My point Flyer22reborn, is that my argument and Shy1alize's separate argument both make a lot of sense. And we are are actually independent editors with separate minds of our own, and separate opinions I'm sure. That's the difference.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick update here after reflection. I can only talk for myself, but I regret not following Diannaa's excellent advice on my talk page, particularly her advice, not react to 'put downs'. Hard to do, when you're being demeaned and belittled and your past keeps being dragged up. The discussion with administrator Diannaa is here [7] and my reply to Diannaa is here [8] Anyway my sincere apology for insinuating you and Gandydancer hold the same opinions Flyer22reborn. Please accept my apology. I retract that comment, which was only in reaction to you belittling me and the other editor's Shy1alize's valid points and you putting us both down and not respecting the WP:BRD cycle guideline. But again, I will try not to react to demeaning comments like that in the future. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be best if you cease replying to me, or citing guidelines or policies you do not understand; your arguments are weaker with each response, and you cannot help but throw out insults such as "ordered by you." I do not like discussing anything with you, and I will likely make it so that I never need to discuss anything with you in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, please stop following me around and trying to entrap me. I should not take your bait. And yes, perhaps you and I should have an interaction ban? But you saying things like: "policies you do not understand; your arguments are weaker with each response" is an attack. Your recent attacks [9] on editor Shy1alize's good faith comments can be seen by this editor saying "...i assume you will attempt to belittle my trivial matter." says a lot too. You keep attacking demeaning and belittling other editors and their understanding of policies. I'm sure there are other editors on Wikipedia you have demeaned and belittled too and thought your understanding of policies are superior. In this case your redundancy argument is overruled and in IMHO makes no sense nor have you provided any argument or logic only demeaning comments and stating your superiority.Charlotte135 (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Me following you? No. You are following me. You have suddenly taken an interest in any article I heavily edit, and your contribution history shows that. You are clearly seeking a confrontation with me any and everywhere you can get it. No worries. I will deal with that just like I deal with every disgruntled editor who becomes obsessed with me. I will not agree to a WP:Interaction ban unless it's a one-way interaction ban where you are not allowed to comment on me or focus on any article I heavily edit. For example, visiting an article I heavily edit and then reverting me on it? That would be a no. And you should know that it's a no without an interaction ban. Common sense should tell you to stay clear of me unless necessary. It's nothing but a WP:Hounding attempt by you. If I revert you at any of these articles, you get your confrontation. If someone else reverts me, and I revert back, you can simply show up and invalidly support that person's revert with the excuse that you've edited the article before. You are quite easy to read. Everything you do is so transparent (predictable) to me. And any denials you make in that regard will not be believed by me. But, yes, feel free to reply with denials and inaccurate commentary...as expected. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I want to confirm that Flyer 22's block log is the result of a genuine "My brother did it" episode. I communicated with Flyer by email at the time (as did other admins), and I was convinced that she was not guilty of any abuse herself - and the block that I made was indeed to help her secure her account, as I noted in the log. In fact, none of the blocks is a result of any misbehaviour by Flyer 22. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte135 has not changed a bit and is using the same tactics as she did that caused her to be blocked. She can wear us all down and get her way to bias this article or she can again be blocked. There are no other choices. Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Gandydancer. If you keep up the baseless personal attacks, I am going to report you straight to ANI. Period.Charlotte135 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What personal attack? For when it is needed, it is this ANI archive which shows the three-month topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What the hell has that got to do with anything Johnuniq. I realise you are a close friend of Flyer22, but hey, why don't you drop the stick and act with some neutrality eh. Any comments on content, while you are here? Anything to say about the discussion Johnuniq and drop the personal stuff?Charlotte135 (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Redundant sentence?

Opinions are needed on whether or not the "Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence in the lead is redundant. One concern is that the sentence is redundant to what the first paragraph states because it is easy to see from the first paragraph that domestic violence affects men, women and children, and that the sentence is at conflict with what was the topic sentence in the third paragraph. The other concerns are that redundancy is an opinion, and that, even if the content is redundant, we can state the same thing more than once in the lead, and that the first paragraph doesn't use the word affects.

If seeing this from the RfC page or your talk page via an RfC alert, the discussion on the matter can be found above at Talk:Domestic violence#"Domestic violence affects men, women, and children." sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It's clear, and common sense, that domestic violence affecting men, women, and children is supported by the following content: "is a pattern of behavior which involves violence or other abuse by one person against another in a domestic setting, such as in marriage or cohabitation. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is violence by a spouse or partner in an intimate relationship against the other spouse or partner. Domestic violence can take place in heterosexual and same-sex family relationships, and can involve violence against children in the family." There is no need to plainly state the obvious in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Leave it out. Besides Charlotte's inappropriate editing, for which they've already been blocked, it sounds sloppy. It's not just redundant, but it makes the paragraph sound like a middle-school essay. Domestic violence affects men, women, and children? Wow, you don't say? There is nothing wrong with the lead as it is, without these kinds of unnecessary personal touches some editors wish to add. This isn't a class presentation. Ongepotchket (talk) 08:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not redundant - "Takes many forms" and "affects men, women and children" are not redundant sentences. Likewise "affects people" is not a replacement for "affects men, women and children" because "affects people" is true even if it only affected male gay Hispanic midgets, because they are people. There are possible alternatives like "Affects people regardless of gender and age", or also pointing out that both men, women and children can be victims, etc. I do think it's important to somewhere in the lead point out that it's not only women or not only children or not only men that are victims, as it is a common misconception that it is primarily women and children that are victims, but it does not necessarily have to be in this exact form. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"Affects people regardless of gender and age" is not a bad idea. It's an addition I'd support if the previous paragraph didn't already state it. I don't see the need to repeat it at every turn, just like I wouldn't see the need to add how DV affects your example of gay Hispanic "midgets". The article likewise doesn't say only women or only children are victims. If the article is implying women and children are primarily the victims, it's likely because (according to sources) women and children are primarily the victims. This is especially true on a global scale. The article should be allowed to reflect what sources say without being challenged constantly. Ongepotchket (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Verbal Violence

why is this section so small? Verbal abuse (gas lighting) is what causes learned helplessness, battered woman syndrome, and Stockholm syndrome. Did any one cut this section out. no i did not look in the history. but i feel that these phenomenon is a essential component to the pattern of violence. --Shy1alize (talk) 06:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree Shy1alize. I believe that it needs to be expanded too, as there is certainly a lot of reliable sources out there to support its inclusion to a larger degree than it currently is. There seems to be too much focus and weight being placed on physical violence and violence between partners in this broad article on family violence.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)