Talk:Violence Against Women Act

message: It points to the "Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005". Surely a copy of such a monumental act exists somewhere. I suggest somebody find it and put it there. I'm bloody exhausted. Kire1975 (talk) 08:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think the word 'restitution' is used wrong: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=restitution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.150.235.215 (talk • contribs) 
:Where and why to you think 'restitution' is used wrong?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kire1975 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: restitution

message: In addition to the fact that this article needs to be cleaned up, someone needs to include the fact that many men claim to have been unfairly proesecuted, denied their constitutional rights, ect . .  . under VAWA. As for Schlafly I believe her views should be included as representing one side of the arguement as she is both a constitutional lawyer, and the countries leading feminist basher and opponent of VAWA. It isn't POV to include major critics critism as long as you give both sides a mention. 216.255.40.133 07:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please be more specific? Also please sign your contributions with four tildas I.E. ~ * 4. Thank you. YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I've opened an RFC on this page to establish whether Criticism section is violating WP:NPOV or not.  The criticism section that has been posted into this article and parts of it into Pro-feminist men may be a povpush by User:Loneranger4justice.  
This diff shows the most recent re-insertion by Loneranger4justice.
What I see wrong with the section is that it violates neutral point of view, borders on soapboxing, is possibly synthesising sources and in other places is unverified.
The final sentences of the second paragraph have been added to 2 other articles: Feminazi and Pro-feminist men.  These lines are unsourced pov: "Critics of VAWA reject inferences that instill gender politics of radical feminists and pro-feminist men by portrayal of women as victims and men as perpetrators and view the VAWA as discriminatory toward men as would be a Violence Against White's Act toward blacks. False allegations of violence or of a sexual nature was also a main tactic of the WKKK to encourage discrimination of black men."  These lines have been removed.
The external links to eagleforum.org are also violations of WP:EL.
This material is not neutral and not properly verified by reliable sources and has been reinserted by revert by Loneranger4justice twice this month here and 6 times since February 2007 on Profeminist men.  Loneranger4justice has few other contributions to wikipedia outside of adding these criticisms and making these reverts.  They have twice been warned at level 4 (final warning) for NPOV about this.--Cailil  talk 13:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The material is not neutral, but that is irrelevant as to whether it violates NPOV.  It is appropriate to include non-neutral things (in fact it is a requirement of NPOV to do so) in order to make the article NPOV.  Good and appropriate challenges to the position of some main pov in the article is appropriate.  The edit that is presented here has some failures though. It should not weasle word saying "some critics say X".  It should simply point out the criticism with a reference. So the introductory phrase in the first sentence, first paragraph should be deleted.  The second paragraph may be true but it is unreferenced.  Without a reference it should get a  tag and then if it fails to get a cite in a month, take it out of the article.   In both cases, the relevance of the criticism to the main article should either be clear or it should be made clearer. --Blue Tie 16:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: Another blow for justice by men (and a female victim of female violence) in a decision by a California appellate court. 
Victory! CA Appellate Court Says Excluding Men from Domestic Violence Programs is Unconstitutional
http://mensnewsdaily.com/glennsacks/2008/10/14/victory-ca-appellate-court-says-excluding-men-from-domestic-violence-programs-is-unconstitutional/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.254.172 (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics Win Again

message: The following things probably need to be addressed in this article. --Lendorien (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup to do - 2009

message: I suggest that this article be reorganized as follows
*Introduction - Solid as is. Needs better sourcing.
*History - containing backgrouns ont he bill. Impetus for writing the bill, sponsors, the debate on the bill, bill passing, subsequent legal challenges to the bill, etc. subsection as needed.
*Bill provisions - Specific provisions of the bill
*Criticisms and debate - info on the debate over the bill, arguments for and against
** There must be discussion on the Green Card loophole issue.  Thousands of innocent Americans are being arrested each year because of this, and no Wiki article on VAWA would be fair or neutral unless the topic is dealt with.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kops2222 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed reorganization

message: "In a human love affair between a man and a woman, the secrets of meeting and personal experiences are fully guarded for reasons of their own. Only then are they sweet, enjoyable, memorable and above all, undisturbed by others."
The author, Dr. Ravindra Kumar, does NOT have a WP article.
The publisher is Llewellyn Worldwide.
The publication, Kundalini for Beginners, is currently footnote 7 in the past life regression article.
Any thoughts on whether the above quote is appropriate to include in the criticism section? Kammel Toe (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Quote for the Criticism section

message: I'm a real person really appealing VAWA in the U.S. Supreme Court.  I appreciate other people's view however I do not appreciate the deletion of mine.  What I stated were not view but facts and legal concerns which concern men and women's needs equally.
I do not appreciate technocrats nor feudalism.  Leave my words alone unless there is better criticism to replace them with.  But deleting all criticism might just get you sued.
No. 09-2291,	John Hendrickson v. Loudoun County et al
				1:09-cv-00563-CMH-IDD
This was first filed In the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia
Alexandria Division
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven nestle (talk • contribs) 18:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: added VAWA criticism

message: Their editor review guidelines are  and . You may also select from one of hundreds of other reliable sources or the primary source however i seem to recall SlimVirgin writing in one of her wiki-policy docs that we dont have a hierarchy of reliability on WP. thanx YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See this discussion  - I've brought this up before and others agreed with me. I think if you want to use it, you need to get agreement at the RSN board. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've linked to the press release. But why was this under criticism? I've changed the section heading, removed the bit about high school and suicide as that was just one small part, and put in the main thing which was domestic violence month. Dougweller (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the focus of the press release was no criticism of VAWA and the bit about high school and suicide was just one small part of the press release. YouAndMeBabyAintNothingButCamels (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism section - reliable sources

message: There are a number of sections within this article that claim VAWA helps children. Aside from the fact they are very poorly sourced (if at all), and should never have been put up, it is also demonstrably false...
VAWA's STOP funding guidelines for several states (I only checked a few, but all I checked had it), specifically prohibits programs applying for funding to exclusively benefit children...
For those that actually believe VAWA is intended to help children...
Hawaii VAWA STOP funding guidlines.
:Page 2-6
::Section 2 Service Specifications
:::I. Introduction
::::G. Limitations on STOP Program Funding
:"Children’s services supported by STOP Program funds must show an inextricable link and be the direct result of providing services to an adult victim of violence against women."
::http://www.state.hi.us/spo2/health/rfp103f/attachments/rfp7411265074918.pdf
Louisiana STOP VAWA application instructions
:Page VAWA-4
::General Funding Information
:::Funding Priorities
::::Prohibited Activities or Uses of Funds
:"Prohibited Activities or Uses of Funds
::6: Supporting Services that focus exclusively on children"
::http://www.cole.state.la.us/programs%5Cuploads%5CVAWA%5CVAWA_App_Instruct_rev_072010.pdf
Kentucky ARRA & VAWA STOP Formula Grant Guidelines
:Page 13 of 30
::Administrative Requirements
:::Applicant Eligibility
::::Additional Considerations
:"Children’s services supported with the funds must be a direct result of providing services to an adult primary victim. VAWA grant funds may not be used to support services that focus exclusively on children …"
::http://justice.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/19707F82-27E3-4A19-A282-7865F287DE3E/0/VAWA_arra_guidelines_instructions.pdf
Now, I acknowledge that this can not be included in the article, as it constitutes original research, but it clearly demonstrates a need for any claims that VAWA helps children be thoroughly, verifiably sourced with more then simple hearsay. --Kratch (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sound like it helps children, but not independently of spouses.  That would be a pretty simple, 'yes, it helps children' then.  76.21.107.221 (talk) 23:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any claim to helping children needs to be removed or verified 

message: Why is that adding a criticism section is not allowed to where the entire article is locked from being edited? Boobymonster (talk) 15:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  criticism not allowed 

message: I've seen lots of comments as to the budgetary costs of this law, but no citations.  Has anyone seen such?  It doesn't seem to be a large bill. 76.21.107.221 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section says $1.6 billion, though there is no citation for this. I assume that's annually, not a lump sum, but it would be nice to confirm this. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a source to the budgetary impacts of this law? 

message: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/25/arlen-specter-gop-women-life-among-the-cannibals_n_1378308.html
When asked whether he thinks the GOP is hurting its prospects with women voters, he exclaimed, "Terribly! Terribly!"
"You can't win a presidency, a general election in Pennsylvania with that stand," he said. "The suburbs of places like Philadelphia decide the presidential election. Everybody knows where California and New York are going. Everybody knows where Texas and Mississippi and Louisiana are going. But Florida and Pennsylvania and a few other states determine it. That just won't sell. That's why [Rick] Santorum got drubbed in 2006 [during his Senate reelection race]."
The latest controversy is the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, a landmark piece of legislation that has never before sparked partisan battles -- until now.
On Feb. 2, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation (S. 1925) reauthorizing VAWA, which expired in September. The bill was sponsored by Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) -- who is not on the committee -- and cosponsored by 34 senators from both parties. Nevertheless, the legislation attracted no GOP support among committee members and passed out of committee on a party-line vote of 10-8. It was, according to Leahy's office, the first time VAWA legislation did not receive bipartisan backing out of committee.
Specter, along with then-Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), was an original cosponsor of VAWA.
When asked what he thinks of the law becoming partisan, he said, "I think it's very sad."
"I have followed Sen. [Jeff] Sessions' comments to the press that there are some provisions they don't like. But the basic Act is very very important and ought to be passed. Whatever differences there are can be worked out on the floor with amendments," he added.
Sessions, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, recently said he favors reauthorizing VAWA, but he accused Democrats of being the ones to make it political and argued that the current version has provisions that "almost seem to invite opposition."
“You think that’s possible?" he told The New York Times. "You think they might have put things in there we couldn’t support that maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?” Raymm (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: March 25, 2012 Huffington Post excerpt

message: There is the following link listed in the citations.  At the time of my writing this, it was citation #7:
:"Tell Congress to Support the Violence Against Women Act". (embedded link to https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=251&page=UserAction) American Civil Liberties Union.
This was a citation in support of the following under "Debate and Legal Standing":
:The American Civil Liberties Union had originally expressed concerns about the Act, saying that the increased penalties were rash, the increased pretrial detention was "repugnant" to the US Constitution, the mandatory HIV testing of those only charged but not convicted is an infringement of a citizen’s right to privacy and the edict for automatic payment of full restitution was non-judicious (see their paper: "Analysis of Major Civil Liberties Abuses in the Crime Bill Conference Report as Passed by the House and the Senate", dated September 29, 1994). However, the ACLU has supported reauthorization of VAWA on the condition that the "unconstitutional DNA provision" be removed.[7]
Citation #7 does not support the final statement starting with "However".  It is a link to a donation page on the ACLU site.Tgm1024 (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed -- pointed to the archived page on Archive.org. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus ACLU Citation Link. 

message: I understand that there are people who are angry about the turning over of the Violence Against Women Act, but despite the citations, you *cannot* refer to a "conservative wing" of the SCOTUS!  That's a matter of opinion, and despite any number of statistics you bring up, you need to reword this as "the justices who are commonly thought of as conservative" or better words to that effect.  There is NO officially conservative wing of the supreme court, and to say otherwise sounds like an opinion paper.  Take your partisan anger elsewhere and be careful please.Tgm1024 (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a wing of the Court which is consistently described by reliable sources as "conservative". Our policies mandate that we reflect the content of reliable sources. The reliable sources cited in this article clearly and directly support the text you're questioning. I don't see the need for a contrived, wordy work-around, and would rather we just state the obvious, as do the cited reliable sources. MastCell Talk 20:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non encyclopedic: "the Court's conservative wing overturned the provision".  There *IS* no officially conservative wing. 

message: I don't read Morrison as a state's rights issue, but instead as a federalism issue. I suppose it can be characterized as a states' rights issue in that the states have only given certain enumerated powers to the federal government, but Morrison was more concerned about what the federal government CAN'T do than what states CAN do.
Dustinscottc (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I've changed this passage to link to Commerce Clause. JamesMLane t c 17:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  States' Rights v. Federalism in Morrison 

message: I would suggest that the summary could be pared down to essential information and much of the information incorporated in the body of the article.  For instance, the numerical outcomes of the 2013 votes is not something which helps a brief summary of the topic, but this information should be included in the article, certainly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest moving some material out of summary to article body 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Violence Against Women Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/05/15/scotus.violence/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Clarity needed on the following: "In April 2012, the Senate voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, and the House subsequently passed its own measure (omitting provisions of the Senate bill that would protect gays, Native Americans living in reservations, and illegal immigrants who are victims of domestic violence). Reconciliation of the two bills was stymied by procedural measures, leaving the re-authorization in question"
Protect gays? Does this mean it removed protections for women assaulted or abused by women with whom they are in a relationship? Or does it mean "gays" particularly? Gays is imprecise, many women in relationships with women are bisexual or pansexual, not gay.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.60.230 (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting gays 

message: This is On my : My legal Case On USCIS. 
  This are the Marriages of my Husbands Gary Moon.
   Brigitte Heinrich  Date of Marriage; 2/22/1063   Date of Divorced;10/3/1968 Germany
   June E.Moon        Date of Marriage: 6/22/1968   Date of Divorced;10/1/2012  USA
   Edna Manliclic-Moon  Date of Marriage: 9/28/2003 Barcelona Spain
             Remarried  Date of Marriage; 1/24/213  Summerville SC
 My husband is A Retired Vietnam Vet. I'm sure all this marriages are on his Personal Records on file. June E Moon Complained about me in USCIS.  I was given Lawful Permanent Card and Gary Moon was not divorced at the time we got married .USCIS Condemned me For Reasons that Gary Moon Was not Free to marry me  that time Gray Moon Married me 2003.
 In your judgement and according to the Dates of Marriages  and Divorced Dates of Gary Moon.Who is Illegitimately Married to Gary Moon and he is  not Free to marry.
  My Husband Gary Moon is Very Much Free to marry me No matter how you look at this Dates. 
  Wives that are not truthful,LAW should be imposed strickly no matter if it is American or Alien . There are times Military personnel does things differently.My husband was not even on Begamy.
 Thank you
~~~~
 Edna Manliclic -Moon  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.107.197.161 (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remmarriages After Divorced 

message: Steve Daines of Montana voted Aye for the re-authorization, but the map shows Montana as a No vote.  I know that he later voted to defund it, but the vote the image is discussing is simply the re-authorization.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.103.111 (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect vote in image for Montana 

message: * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/violence-against-women-act-house-vote-b1818845.html
* https://www.thecut.com/2021/03/172-republicans-vote-to-oppose-violence-against-women-act.html
* http://www.therepublic.com/2021/03/18/pence-votes-against-the-violence-against-women-act-which-includes-funding-for-turning-point-in-columbus/
John Cummings (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  172 Republicans vote to oppose Violence Against Women Act 

message: — Assignment last updated by Joy.Zheying.Shi (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Public Writing

message: "Although it's hard to calculate the increase in criminal costs, its influence on social welfare should be negligent regarding the huge amount of decrease in victimization costs."
I'm a little confused by this sentence and hope someone with more experience can reassure me that the changes I'm proposing are appropriate:
"Although it's hard to calculate the increase in criminal costs, its influence on social welfare expenses should be negligible considering the huge decrease in victimization costs."  
I'll leave it to someone else to address the vague and unsourced reference to "victimization costs." Noctuella (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused by this sentence in Background section: