Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 2

message: " Men control the content and masculine ideology infuses the communication process, pandering to the relevant market niches and their prejudices to maximise sales revenues. Thus, themes of violent behavior are often portrayed in an uncritical style which reinforces stereotypes and may appear to condone the use of violence in certain specific situations." This whole section seems to be totally POV. Where are the facts backing up this 'Men control". It is written as if it is a known, undisputable fact. If we are going to discuss violence in the media, why stop here? We should discuss all of it. Music, TV, movies... There is a fair bit concerning violence against men (both physical and emotional) that could easily be included here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhkelly (talk • contribs) 08:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the media whether be film or news reports there's always negative press centred towards a male figure. I thought both races were equal and that violence, especially domestic violence occurs against males as well as females. Friggit 18:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violent Men in Media 

message: I work in the field of domestic violence and have no reference to the privilege of female gender roles as being a common contributory cause for domestic violence.  I'm not a priori against claims of "female privilege" in individual cases, but my beliefs are not at issue, without a citation tying those gender roles to domestic violence, there's no place for this claim in this entry.
My mistake here. I should have discussed this in advance.  My intention was to balance the POV that is mistakenly all too commom which is that male privilege exists with no countering female privilege.   Wives and mothers often use a backhanded form of female privilege by claiming (falsely) to be victim-saints with NO responsibility for their contribution to DV disputes and mothers often use motherhood as privilege because it is taboo to challenge the false idea of the always nice, selfless, loving martyr mother.  I suggest a glance at Relational Aggression, and Parental Alienation to see my concerns here.  My intent is to show both male and female forms of privilege so that 'mad' men (see Bullies in the Family/Female Violence in the external links) become heard as well.  I excuse NO violence here but I insist that we call female Psychological violence what it is too.  There has been far too much of this 'cute' claim that all men are monsters and all women are saints.  The reality is far more balanced and far more complex.  Please suggest ways we can include these corresponding privileges here in NPOV.
Anacapa 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of ref. to Female Privilege 

message: RE::Image:Violence_against_women_burney.jpg
Per some sleuthing, the image needs to be removed at this time. 
Sorry. We'll try to find another if this one doesn't work out. --DanielCD 22:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: "Several studies have indicated that partner abuse among same-sex couples (both female and male) is relatively similar in both prevalence and dynamics to that among heterosexual couples."
Would it be possible to get sources for these "several studies"?
:(With no intention to appear snide,) Have you tried Google? I know that NPR reported just such a study quite a few years (a decade?) ago, showing the rate of violence in lesbian relationships paralleled the rate of violence in straight relationships, so I know that at least one such study exists.
I've provided a citation to a summary report on studies in this area prepared by the DOJ in association with the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.  This article references several studies and summarizes their findings, supporting the conclusion currently included in the article - John724
:Atlant 16:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic violence in same-sex relationships 

message: I have removed the PTSD section from this article completely.  This
reflects several concerns.
1.  The section was organized under "cause", as in "causes of DV".
This seems to be backward.
2.  The content of the description of PTSD is far inferior to the
PTSD page itsef.
3.  The section does not textually link PTSD to domestic violence.
4.  Much of the section may have been taken from another site as
listed above, alternatively, the other site could have ripped the
text from Wikipedia. (http://www.actabuse.com/RTS.html)
I'd be for a section that describes the effects of DV on survivors,
but think that references to PTSD might be best left to the PTSD
article save where there are important things that are specific to
the DV-PTSD connection.  --Joe Decker 02:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all reasons for INCLUDING a section on PTSD and then linking to the PTSD page itself. 202.0.106.130 02:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of PTSD section 

message: Under the "Gender" section, there currently reads:
"There are women and men who seek to put forward the disturbing and sick idea, that abusive men are in their warped and disturbed view sexy. This can be shown in the media with the tedious genre of bad boy romance novels. This promotes a sick culture of supporting abusive men, and of even seeing good men as somehow missing something for not being horrible. This is a problem that society should tackle. It is a big cause of women looking for abusive men. Abuse wrecks lives, and is not sexy or funny or exciting to decent people, it is traumatic and miserable."
Need I explain this one? This is unreferenced story telling. Plenty of value-loaded interpretation here. Stick to facts, yes? --Thomi 09:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwanted advice? 

message: I have attempted to impose a better structure, have added some material and deleted some (mainly for NPOV). -- Paul foord 12:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Table of contents
*1 Definitions 
*2 Forms of domestic violence 
*3 Victim and author of domestic violence 
**3.1 Violence in partnerships 
***3.1.1 Female victims 
***3.1.2 Male victims 
***3.1.3 Indirect victims: the children 
**3.2 Violence between adults opposite children 
**3.3 Violence between brothers and sisters 
**3.4 Violence against older humans 
*4 Political and legal situation in <different jurisdictions> <Victim protection> <Violence prevention> 
**4.1 European union 
**4.2 US 
**4.3 etc
*5 Public bringing up for discussion of domestic violence 
*6 Problem of the investigation and data acquisition 
**6.1 Criminal statistics 
**6.2 Conviction statistics 
**6.3 Statistics of the victim assistance 
**6.4 Empirical research 
**6.5 Problem of the determination of the dark field numbers to partner Violence 
**6.6 The Conflict Tactic Scale method 
*7 Problem of the not provable reproaches 
*8 Data situation and political interpretations 
*9 External links 
*10 References
Paul foord 16:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt to better structure article 

message: I added a number of forms of psychological violence or vice that females often prefer to use against males to the well-known and extensively politicized forms of male violence against females already in this article.  I in no way want to minimize or discount male-female violence.  However, on the other hand it is clear that women are rarely the innocent victim-saints that second-wave feminist would like to have us all believe they are, so that they, as an entire gender, can escape accountability for their often covert, and insidious psychological contributions to the cycle of domestic violence.  Is this going to be a NPOV article or is it going to shamelessly pander to false gender-focused feminist POV at the expense of NPOV? 
To me the gender-focused feminists rightly included psychological violence as DV here.  But since fair is fair, THEIR forms of psychological violence have got to be shown here too because aggression is aggression IMHO whatever its ugly form.  I insist on acknowledgement of female aggression here just as it is NOW shown in rape and incest.  I note according to a highly credible Health and Human Services data, that mothers commit the majority of child abuse ahead of fathers who commit the majority of known child sexual abuse (see link on Child Abuse).  We have to go beyond false politically inspired steoreotypes here to have a NPOV article.  Please comment or suggest ways to define domestic violence in the opening PP's that is welcomes complete, balanced, NPOV content below.  Anacapa 06:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender-neutral, non-sexist, balanced NPOV?

message: Do not men no longer have more lower body strength than women? --Thomi 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body strength 

message: What???? The link on this page to the "Bullies" article contains rhetoric which not only isn't neutral, but is downright misogynistic: This passage in particular:
"Serial bullies can be male or female - the main difference is that female bullies are more devious, more manipulative, more cunning, more sly, more psychological, more subtle, leave less evidence and will often bully with a smile. Female bullies will often manipulate a male into committing their violence for them." 
WHAT???????
Would you provide a link for that quote please?  It seems absolutely brilliant to me and I'd like to read the whole article.  Also if you put 4 tildes at the end of your post it lets everyone know who you are and when you posted.   Barkmoss 00:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What on earth are you thinking to include links which include wholly unbased assertions/rhetoric like this? 

message: This article ranges all over the place and covers numerous related but different issues arising in any number of jurisdictions. I think it would greatly benefit from creation of a Portal and urge you please to vote in favour on page Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals#Family_Law  - -  Kittybrewster 22:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal needed 

message: I think some evidence is required for this section (if any exists).
I think something needs to be said about the trite and frivolous usage of the terms domestic violence and abuse. In addition, I think something needs to be said about the terrorizing of men with false, petty and hackneyed charges of domestic violence and abuse. I think domestic violence has become an industry that is rife with misuse and abuse and that has somehow managed to corrupt our criminal justice system. Without mentioning that in the article it does seem to be extremely P.O.V. I would suggest a section on criticism in the article.   Barkmoss 00:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CRITICISM 

message: The topic of domestic violence is broad enough to have multiple articles. Having multiple articles would allow controversial topics to be discusses separately without spilling over into discussions of less controversial topics. This does not require a portal. Examples of other articles that have been broken into sub-articles include Monogamy and Attachment theory. Kelly 16:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Break this topic into multiple articles

message: I added this tag because though there is a bibliography at the end, there are no citations inside the article that state where each fact is brought from.  This has the credibility of a high-school paper for that reason.  In order to defend or attack specific points (especially when the neutrality is under question) there needs to be specific citations for specific areas.  You can do this using (Author's last name p. x)
Then use  to automatically list and link the references in a section at the bottom.
KV(Talk) 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited tag 

message: There's been created an entry Domestic Violence Against Men, yall who edit this may want to take it as a merge.  Or a redirect.  Or leave it and do that "take a stub from an article and make it a section here with the 'this is just a stub, for the full article, click here'" thing.  Whichever.  Just figured yall'd want to know, and I figure it's important for the editors of the Domestic Violence entry to take a look at an article about a type of domestic violence. The Literate Engineer 17:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest merging into domestic violence.  This article's subsection, domestic violence#Violence Against Men, could use some work anyway. –Gunslinger47 19:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If we do the merge, I suggest reviewing the entire article(s), preferably by a professional.  In particular, I would recommend making gender-neutral links more prominant so that people will be able to identify which resources can help rather than having to wade through links that only provide help to a subset of victims.  --32.60.78.135 11:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yall Ought To Take A Look. 

message: Let it not go unnoticed that section on religious ideas supposedly supporting or forbidding violence are biased.  From the references included, for instance between Christianity and Hinduism, one might interpret these "scriptures" in either direction.  There is no direct reference to back up the claim that Christianity forbids domestic violence, and clearly from statistics alone the conclusion may be drawn that DV occurs in the same numbers across the board.  It could also be concluded from the references given that both religions are patriarchial by nature, although this would be a gross overgeneralization.  Hinduism is divided into many different followings.  While the Bhagavad Gita is a so-called "scripture" for the Vaishnavas, it would not suffice for a Shakti.  Any attempt to assess the fundamental beliefs of any religion and their relationship to a social problem should include more detail than these meagerly paragraphs.  They should be revoked until further research can be conducted.  
My bias:  I am a victim of psychological abuse raised in a fundamentalist Christian family.  I have not renounced my religion, but I have a great deal of insight into the fundamentals of what causes abuse in the mind of the Christian householder.  I will be happy to append if it is the only action I can take to level the playing field.
"There is no direct reference to back up the claim that Christianity forbids domestic violence ............. While the Bhagavad Gita is a so-called "scripture" for the Vaishnavas, it would not suffice for a Shakti."
Thank you for the important POV issues you have raised. 202.0.106.130 05:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Section on Religion 

message: Ive just spent a half hour re-formatting entries in the links and further reading sections which were highlighted in bold. My concern arose when I realised that only the selected links pointing to violence against man were highlighted. [Please see my recent editing where Ive noted each action]
If Wiki wants to keep its articles neutral then allowing obvious bias and personal POV to be used to spread propaganda is not the way to go about it. Ive tidied up the links sections as best I can to give more balanced view.
Gamete 19:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Questioned 

message: "Although traditionally not reported in domestic violence studies, violence against a male partner does happen in a relationship. Erin Pizzey, the founder of England's first domestic shelter for battered women, noted in her book Prone to Violence, that women often went from one violent relationship to another.
According to the Nov. 2000 Domestic Violence Report, men accounted for approximately 35% of the amount of total victims of domestic violence. Further, this discrepancy is also cited that men were less likely to report violence by women, as they do not view it as a crime.
full report can be read here.
Domestic Abuse Helpline For Men And Women.
Stop Abuse For Everyone or S.A.F.E.
Gay Men's Domestic Violence Project."
the link no longer works, please update.
: I couldn't agree more. It seems a lot of people seem to forget there's another gender that does receive violence, males. It's rarely reported but saying it does not happen is quite daft and stupid. Unfortunately it seems like some goose has merged the article, yet for some strange reason kept the violence against women article active. I thought we're all equals here. Friggit 18:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Violence Against Men Section - Broken Link 

message: Just wanted to point out that I deleted the following language due to its clearly misleading nature:  "The county's family judges are retrained to ignore due process in domestic violence petitions. Federal programs like Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) fund this training (Bleemer, New Jersey Law Review, 1995)."  First, the proper cite was to the New Jersey Law Journal, not the New Jersey Law Review.  Second, the article cited discusses a state-mandated training session for New Jersey judges and never mentions federal funding or the violence against women act.  Finally, the article is a discussion of one training session in one county in New Jersey and is hardly representative of the state of domestic violence jurisprudence throughout the country.  
This article clearly needs a LOT of work.  I'd love to see someone who actually works in the field take the time to provide some more realistic assessments of domestic violence.  The vast majority of the evidence points to a greater impact of domestic violence on women and children than on men.  But regardless, the disgusting thing about people who turn this into an anti-feminist tirade is that they are taking the discussion away from the central issue - that domestic violence is a terrible problem affecting millions of people.  If the real concern was that violence against men doesn't get enough attention, that could be discussed in a succinct paragraph or two.  The fact that this whole article is peppered with blurbs trying to "disprove" that women are more often victims of domestic violence instead of simply discussing domestic violence as a phenomenon is an indication to me that the people inserting those blurbs care very little about domestic violence, but care very much about how threatened they are by women's advocacy and rights groups championing this issue.  The fact is, we should all be glad that womens' groups talk about this, because it opens up the discussion about how it affects everyone in our society. Loafsta 01:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Section 

message: I think I am more-or-less with you Loafsat.
It is hard to create a brief treatment of domestic violence.  It is a controversial field of study, and gender politics muddies it up even more.  
As a male survivor of domestic violence I can understand why men are touchy about this subject--particularly men who have been victimized or who have been falsely accused.  But I want this article to be a great article; emotionality based on gender politics from either side is not going to help this article. 
I think it would be alright to mention that there is controversy about just who are the victims and perpetrators, but that should perhaps be a separate article.  The subject matter also branches into the the subject of "child abuse."
I would like the article to be more about the phenomenology and consequences of domestic violence. I notice that the article doesn't really work with the concept of "abusive relationship."
I am also missing discussion of "signs of a battering personality," or the "cycle of violence."
And maybe I'm missing it, but haven't seen any mention of "Battered Syndrome."
Cyclopiano 02:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I couldn't agree more there should be a violence against males page or stronger references in the article or even making the article neutral, but I doubt we have any support despite us trying to reflect that violence against males DOES indeed happen and that we are trying to be equal. Friggit 18:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'd go for a leaner, more gender neutral approach

message: Since the Legislature has made domestic violence a top priority, municipal court judges are instructed that they can do their part by issuing temporary restraining orders pronto.
"Throw him out on the street," said trainer and municipal court judge Richard Russell at a similar seminar a year ago, 'give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, 'See ya' around.'"
At the same time, even former and current municipal and Superior Court judges who are have words of admiration for the candor of trainers Russell, Somerset County Superior Court Judge Graham Ross and Nancy Kessler, chief of juvenile and family services for the AOC. One municipal court judge says that while the statements reflect an incorrect approach, "I wouldn't be real keen to inhibit the trainers at these sessions from exhibiting their honest opinions." 
Judges who have seen the training presentation say that if anyone objects, they keep it to themselves. Russell says that sometimes "those with no background express disbelief, until we explain the intent of the legislation." 
"If I had one message to give you today, it is that your job is not to weigh the parties' rights as you might be inclined to do as having been private practitioners," Russell told the judges. "Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating as you grant a restraining order. 
Moreover, Russell says there is nothing wrong with the teaching approach. Abuse victims, he says, may apply and relinquish TROs repeatedly before they finally do something about breaking away. Once they do so, he says, the Legislature's prevention goal has been met. 
Russell continues: "So when you say to me, am I doing something wrong telling these judges they have to ignore the constitutional protections most people have, I don't think so. The Legislature described the problem and how to address it, [and] I am doing my job properly by teaching other judges to follow the legislative mandate."
Gruccio, who says he is familiar with the work of Russell and Ross on the bench and that both are top notch judges, strongly disagrees with the approach. "My view is that you just can't say, 'Forget about the defendant's rights.' You can't say that. It is wrong to say that. It is wrong to train people that constitutional rights aren't important."
Gruccio, a professor at Widener University Law School in Wilmington, Del., and director of its judicial administration program, concludes "I think what has happened is, for emphasis purposes, somebody has lost their way."
Siting judges interviewed for this article readily agree with Gruccio. Says one: "The constitution is being ignored in order to satisfy a particular legislative objective. And if the judiciary should feel that it is obliged to close its eyes to constitutional considerations in order to assist the Legislature in attaining a currently popular objective.
Melanie Griffin, executive director of the Commission to Study Sex Discrimination in the Statutes, a legislative commission that drafted much of the 1991 law, says that for every individual who files a false report, "there are 100 women who don't come in at all and stay there and get beaten." 
New Jersey Law Journal April 24, 1995
Comment to this point - I assume this was added in response to my removal of the section citing to it.  I would like to point out that if you read my comment above, you will seen that I did not remove the language solely because it was inappropriately cited (which it was at the time), but because it was grossly misleading.  The language I removed implied (i) that judges are generally trained to ignore constitutional concerns when dealing with domestic violence cases and (ii) that this was related to the violence against women act and tied to federal funding.  The article, on the other hand, clearly describes training for judges in a single county in New Jersey in 1995, and makes no mention of the violence against women act.  As the article generally addresses domestic violence on a national or international scale, rather than domestic violence in New Jersey (in 1995), I felt the language should be pulled and I did so.Loafsta 19:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Jersey Law Journal. April 24, 1995 

message: ===Part 1===
Here is part one of my review of this article. I am writings this while reading, so it may make more sense if you try to follow along with the article from top to bottom.
*There is a whole lot of unsourced material, as noted by the tag at the top of the article.
*The reference style is not consistent, and I would propose converting everything over to inline cite.php style citations with proper <ref> tags.
*I would get rid of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the intro. The 5th paragraph is misleading. While what it says may be important, we should also say what sort of people are statistically more likely to be victims. I think the unordered list in the intro is not a good idea, and should be made concise and summarized in prose form. The 2nd to last paragraph is also problematic. I feel that perhaps some of the information from the 3rd, 2nd to last and last paragraphs could be combined to have a section on the Men's rights movement's take on DV, make sure to substantiate and qualify all statements, and avoiding NPOV undue weight.
*I think it is redundent to have a table of contents, then an unordered list of the types of DV, then detailed description of the types. I'm not a big fan of the quoted blocks of text after the psychological types (also, the italic type doesn't help.) The economic and spiritual abuse need sourcing.
*The article lacks overall cohersion. The sections do not really follow a logical order, and there isn't much connectivity between the sections, or within the article as a whole.
*Violence against children is just 2 statistics. Obviously, this section needs expansion and probably a complete rewrite (should there be a main link to the Child abuse article?)
*The "World Health Organisation Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence against Women 2005" section seems misplaced. Was it part of a stub merger? Maybe there could be a section on history or law that this could be included in?
*"Violence Against Men" is problematic because it is not only very poorly formatted, but also poorly written. There are random external links and a weird list of italicized (what appear to be) organizations. I think this section should also contextualize the abuse by comparing it statistically to DV against women (as the 2000 DoJ study does).
*The Allegations section is ok, but the David Letterman example seems anecdotal at best (off topic at worst). The third-party abuse sentence doesn't make sense, and this section seems too sypathetic. This isn't about "false allegations", so we should discuss actual instances of DV in divoce cases. Having some statistics (if they exist) may help this section as well. The fault may also be in the parent article. If we are simply summarizing content from there, and the content is poor to begin with, we may not have much to work with. (I'm trying to review this article first, not that one).
*"Causes" is decent, but like the rest of the article, needs sourcing/citations. There are some random things thrown in that seem a little ackward. 
**"As with many phenomena..." 
**"resentment toward men misandry" Seems like it was added just to counter ballance misogyny, and lacks proper puncuation.
**"This does not necessarily confirm that domestic violence..." seems overly skeptical for no reason. (citation may help, or combining with the previous sentence)
**The whole poverty section seems to be giving undue weight to a minority position that some hypothetical prevelance of upper class DV is secretly going unreported. A citation may help, but this section seems weighed poorly from a NPOV stance.
**"Modes of abuse are thought by some" weasel word. This claim needs substantiation. The whole sex and gender section doesn't seem like it belongs under "causes"
**"Unless or until more men identify themselves..." this sentence is misplaced, and almost reads as advice. It is loaded and has a large number of very controversial assumptions underlying it.
**The Power wheel section could use some work.
**The "Drug Abuse and Alcoholism" is good, but could probably be improved by citing more sources than just 2.
**The "Bullying" section seems out of place. Maybe it could be merged as an intro to the causes section? Or does it need its own subsection and perhaps expansion?
*The "Statistics" section seems to overemphisize the conflict in data. (something the CDC and DoJ do not do in their literature about DV). And I feel that this is giving undue weight to a minority view (which is that men are secretly equally as much victims as women). Furthermore, I feel a good analysis of the CTS (such as Kimmel's) and where and how it is a good tool, and its failings, criticism should also be included (and I think it is an overstatement to unqualifiedly state that CTS finds that men and women are equally as violent, because that simply is not true. )
**The US section seems to be padded strongly with pro-male-as-victim bias (undue weight). I'm not saying this stuff isn't important, but the manner in which it is treated currently is problematic. I suggest creating a section for this POV and represent it in a NPOV manner, or qualify and substantiate and make much more concise to avoid undue weight.
**Cost seems misplaced.
*Wow, the "Gender differences" is a mess. more later.--Andrew c 03:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  problems with this article 

message: Here is part one of my review of this article. I am writings this while reading, so it may make more sense if you try to follow along with the article from top to bottom.
*There is a whole lot of unsourced material, as noted by the tag at the top of the article.
*The reference style is not consistent, and I would propose converting everything over to inline cite.php style citations with proper <ref> tags.
*I would get rid of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the intro. The 5th paragraph is misleading. While what it says may be important, we should also say what sort of people are statistically more likely to be victims. I think the unordered list in the intro is not a good idea, and should be made concise and summarized in prose form. The 2nd to last paragraph is also problematic. I feel that perhaps some of the information from the 3rd, 2nd to last and last paragraphs could be combined to have a section on the Men's rights movement's take on DV, make sure to substantiate and qualify all statements, and avoiding NPOV undue weight.
*I think it is redundent to have a table of contents, then an unordered list of the types of DV, then detailed description of the types. I'm not a big fan of the quoted blocks of text after the psychological types (also, the italic type doesn't help.) The economic and spiritual abuse need sourcing.
*The article lacks overall cohersion. The sections do not really follow a logical order, and there isn't much connectivity between the sections, or within the article as a whole.
*Violence against children is just 2 statistics. Obviously, this section needs expansion and probably a complete rewrite (should there be a main link to the Child abuse article?)
*The "World Health Organisation Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence against Women 2005" section seems misplaced. Was it part of a stub merger? Maybe there could be a section on history or law that this could be included in?
*"Violence Against Men" is problematic because it is not only very poorly formatted, but also poorly written. There are random external links and a weird list of italicized (what appear to be) organizations. I think this section should also contextualize the abuse by comparing it statistically to DV against women (as the 2000 DoJ study does).
*The Allegations section is ok, but the David Letterman example seems anecdotal at best (off topic at worst). The third-party abuse sentence doesn't make sense, and this section seems too sypathetic. This isn't about "false allegations", so we should discuss actual instances of DV in divoce cases. Having some statistics (if they exist) may help this section as well. The fault may also be in the parent article. If we are simply summarizing content from there, and the content is poor to begin with, we may not have much to work with. (I'm trying to review this article first, not that one).
*"Causes" is decent, but like the rest of the article, needs sourcing/citations. There are some random things thrown in that seem a little ackward. 
**"As with many phenomena..." 
**"resentment toward men misandry" Seems like it was added just to counter ballance misogyny, and lacks proper puncuation.
**"This does not necessarily confirm that domestic violence..." seems overly skeptical for no reason. (citation may help, or combining with the previous sentence)
**The whole poverty section seems to be giving undue weight to a minority position that some hypothetical prevelance of upper class DV is secretly going unreported. A citation may help, but this section seems weighed poorly from a NPOV stance.
**"Modes of abuse are thought by some" weasel word. This claim needs substantiation. The whole sex and gender section doesn't seem like it belongs under "causes"
**"Unless or until more men identify themselves..." this sentence is misplaced, and almost reads as advice. It is loaded and has a large number of very controversial assumptions underlying it.
**The Power wheel section could use some work.
**The "Drug Abuse and Alcoholism" is good, but could probably be improved by citing more sources than just 2.
**The "Bullying" section seems out of place. Maybe it could be merged as an intro to the causes section? Or does it need its own subsection and perhaps expansion?
*The "Statistics" section seems to overemphisize the conflict in data. (something the CDC and DoJ do not do in their literature about DV). And I feel that this is giving undue weight to a minority view (which is that men are secretly equally as much victims as women). Furthermore, I feel a good analysis of the CTS (such as Kimmel's) and where and how it is a good tool, and its failings, criticism should also be included (and I think it is an overstatement to unqualifiedly state that CTS finds that men and women are equally as violent, because that simply is not true. )
**The US section seems to be padded strongly with pro-male-as-victim bias (undue weight). I'm not saying this stuff isn't important, but the manner in which it is treated currently is problematic. I suggest creating a section for this POV and represent it in a NPOV manner, or qualify and substantiate and make much more concise to avoid undue weight.
**Cost seems misplaced.
*Wow, the "Gender differences" is a mess. more later.--Andrew c 03:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 1

message: *"Gender differences" what is with the "so-called male" and "female" business?
*Erin Pizzey's view is the view of one individual, and a minority view at that. Why is it given so much weight?
*"See external links" is not a proper citation.
*"Men or women as violent" frames the whole debate in light of a minority POV. "What is often missing" "There continues to be discussion" "This can overwhelm any other issues" are all loaded statements.
*This section needs a rewrite that is more NPOV, better sourced, and less sympathetic to POVs. There are paragraph after paragraph trying to rationalize that women are equally aggressive as men, even if this doesn't show up in the hospital and police records, and even though this isn't true for any other crime besides DV. Why is this section arguing so strongly for gender symmetry when the majority of professionals in the field acknowledge gender asymmetry. This isn't the sort of debate that should take up this much space. Users are not trying to read about this when they are researching DV. Maybe this topic deserves a spinout article? But I feel it could be made more concise and neutral.
*"Same-sex" section is an important topic to cover, but the "so it appears to be gender independent." seems like POV commentary. There isn't enough info on male same-sex relationships.
*"Response..." section starts off ok, but of course needs citation. The last sentence of the first paragraph is a bit odd. 
*The quote from "Richard Russell" seems out of place. It doesn't follow from the previous paragraph. At the very least it needs contextualizing, but sure the point (if there was one) could be summarized, instead of quoted in full. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of quotes.
*"The Hope Card Project" seems like an ad. Why describe this one specific organization here? I'd cut that paragraph.
*I wish there were a little more meat to the "The Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project", but not too much because there is a spinout article. I also feel the controversy needs to be qualified to say how significant it really is (is it just a couple of websites being critical, or do most scholarly sources talk negatively about the project?)
*"Treatment and support" the first sentence starts off completely argumentative. Why are we rehashing this POV again in this section? This article isn't "Why minority POVs feel women on men DV is secretly much more significant and important than the authorities lead people to believe". We should discuss "treatment and support" in the "treatment and support" section, right? Not rehash the 'gender differences' argument again. The last paragraph is much better (if it had citations), though the term "Men's behaviour change programs" seems a bit odd to me.
*The police section is ok, but maybe should include more than just the UK police.
*"Bias against men in service provision" like I've said before. I don't feel this article should be so argumentative. This isn't a debate, it is an encyclopedia. I feel that we should have one section dealing with these similar POV, instead of having commentary throughout the whole article, and sections that are just argumentative in tone. To be continued..--Andrew c 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 2

message: *"Abusive men in the news media" appears well cited, but seems a little off topic. It is more like a feminist critique of the media/popular culture. I'd like if it were a little more focused and dealt more specifically with domestic violence.
*"In Film" having a list like this isn't really helpful. Maybe if there were brief descriptions of how they relate to the topic at hand.
*"Cultural and Religious Teachings" the intro to this section is poor, and I don't see how it relates to DV.
*"Christianity" this section only consists of bible quotes. We should have encyclopedic commentary explaining I guess Christianity's view on DV. The second two quotes seem off topic, and the first one should be cut shorter.
*"Hinduism" again, we should contextualize the quotes, and explain in more detail the Hindu view.
*"Islam" this section is much better than the previous two. However, since there is a spinout article dealing with this topic, perhaps we could make the section more concise. And it looks like it needs some formatting help as well.
*"Accepted behavior" doesn't seem to fit in this section that well, but it is written fairly well, and it is sourced.
*"References and further reading" is a mess. The two concepts shouldn't be combined. Furthermore, because of the many different conflicting citing notations used, and the fact that some content probably dates back to a time when wikipedia did not require inline citation, weeding through this section is going to be very hard. Some sources may be used somewhere in the article, but we won't have any idea where. Furthermore, technically, these references aren't formatted in the same manner. We should choose a citation style and stick with it (converting the necessary references to the proper style).
*The external links are surprisingly not a mess. The list is not bloated, the seperation is decent, and the links seem mostly relevent per WP:EL guidelines, although there are a couple that seem misplaced (such as the one with the quote).--Andrew c 02:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Part 3

message: The organization "Jennifer Ann's Group" was deleted. As this is the only listed organization whose focus is on teenage relationships, its inclusion is important and necessary. Studies of abuse in teenage relationships estimate that between 10% - 30% of all teenage relationships are classified as "abusive."
This information is not well-known or disseminated. The primary focus of this organization is to educate teenagers, teachers, counselors and parents about the prevalance of this abuse. As part of this education process "Jennifer Ann's Group" has established a list of TEN WARNING SIGNS as well as a list of how to BE PREPARED.
The inclusion of this organization within the Domestic Violence category is appropriate. The rationale for its removal is not clear.
Below is the listing that was deleted:
*Jennifer Ann's Group, Jennifer Ann's Group (focus on violence in teenage relationships)
Below is the message sent to my "Talk" page regarding this deletion:
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizations 

message: In the "Statistics" section, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, it says:
"... on the prevalence of family violence in the and other countries"
which doesn't parse grammatically.  The best fix perhaps would be to expand
it by adding references to use of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) in various countries.  A quick search on  for "Conflict Tactics Scale Australia" yields 
this, for example -- 
which might or might not be relevant to mention in this section -- a quick scan suggests it might only be talking about violence against women;  also they've used a modifed form of the CTS.  Maybe someone could take the time to do some more searching.  --Coppertwig 17:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations of Conflict Tactics Scale? 

message: In the section "US", the link to (Young, Independent Women’s Forum, 2005) went to the home page of an organization.  I searched around on that website and found an article by Young in that year, so presumably it's the article that's meant, and I've made it a more specific link so readers don't have to search around for it.  The article is rather long, is called " Domestic Violence: An In-Depth Analysis" and has a longer pdf version directly accessible from the same page.  It may be a useful source of other statistics to help further improve the article.  I haven't verified whether it contains the 85% statistic mentioned in the article.  I think I'll also add it to the "references and further reading" section.  --Coppertwig 18:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation of Young, 2005 

message: This sentence in the subsection "Men or Women As Violent" needs to be improved:  (3rd paragraph 1st sentence)
"The statistics cited by Women's Aid and Ahimsa are that violence by women against men is a tiny proportion of all domestic violence is rejected by advocates for male victims of domestic violence."
It is not grammatical, having two main verbs.  It needs a more specific citation:  Are "Women's Aid" and "Ahimsa" two separate citations, and
where exactly are the original publications?  Here are some
statistics from Women's Aid but I don't see anything there about a "tiny fraction".  A citation of
the advocates for male victims would also be nice though not as vital
here IMO.  --Coppertwig 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahimsa?? 

message: I reverted the following edit:
: 06:25, 19 November 2006 Andrew c (Talk | contribs) (rv link that isn't an organization)
I followed the link ("Biased Indian Domestic Violence Act") in the list of Organizations in the article.  It appears to me to be the website of an organization called My Nation and also links to a website about Save India Society which appears to be a larger organization which includes My Nation and other groups.  Therefore it seems that the reason given in the edit history for removing this link was not justified. There may be other grounds for reducing the number of organizations listed. --Coppertwig 11:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have linked to the parent organization. Maybe we should instead move this to internal links and Save Indian Family? --Andrew c 16:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Wikipedia page Save Indian Family has a link to the MyNation website.  Your suggestion sounds fine to me.  --Coppertwig 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is MyNation an organization? 

message: i have added quotes as per Wives Submit To Their Husbands which also offers interpretations of the quoted material —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.154.16.31 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity  

message: I think that the time has come for Violence against men to have it's own page seeing the amount of information that is available and that it is being passed through the House of Commons in the UK, please can someone create it?  Winstonchurchill2nd 13th, December 2006. 18:51 GMT.
:Do you have any more information on this? Doesn't seem that notable. I searched around google news, and the parliment.uk website and couldn't find this information. I still think it is best to focus on creating a single article about domestic violence. If we make an article about male victims (the minority group) but not an article about female victims, we are giving undue weight. One article for both should do. You may want to review Wikipedia:Content forking to help understand our guidelines for these matters.--Andrew c 01:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a violence against women page, I can't see the reason why there should not be a violence against men page. It would be nice to have some equality and fairness. There's often a lot of bias in the media towards males, especially with regards to domestic violence or gaining custody of a child after an incident of domestic violence. To say that domestic violence does not occur against males is completely ignorant. No culture, no race, no gender is immune to this, especially males. Friggit 18:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing matters. A) You first say there should be a "violence against men" page because there is a "violence against women page", you next say bring up "domestic violence". These are two different issues. We do not have a "Domestic violence against women" article. No one is saying that domestic violence doesn't occur agaist males. Just read this article, there is a whole lot of space given to the domestic violence against males. Per our content forking policy, I do not believe we are at a point where we need to fork the content. Having one article about domestic violence seems good enough for now. Are there specifics about this article you'd like to address or change before discussing other hypothetical articles?-Andrew c 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Violence against men needs it's own page

message: Someone reverted anon's contributions regarding bible quotes. This was discussed on talk. I'd encourage Winhunter to join that discussion above, instead of reverting non-vandalism using popups. Winstonchurchill2nd's edits were problematic. Under the child abuse section, the word "men" and "fathers" was added to a section that was referencing an article called “On the Relationship Between Wife Beating and Child Abuse.” I think it is obvious why putting words in the mouth of our cited sources is wrong. Also, Winston added that violence against men was always from wives and girlfriends, ignoring that the vast majority of DV against men (as reported by the big 2000 Tjaden and Thoennes study) is committed by other men. Finally, all new information needs citation. Such as In 2006, more and more organsiations and groups are being set up for men-only and are available on the high street and the internet. Also in 2006 an order is being passed in America and in the UK House or Commons making 'Violence against men' an act under common law. This information is helpful, if properly sourced. I urge Winston to read WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:RS to get a grasp on what content is acceptable, what sources are acceptable, and how we cite our sources. I'd be glad to help out if there are more questions, but we need to watch out for inserting our own POV and opinions in the article, and instead summarize reliable, verifiable sources. --Andrew c 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed CN tags next to the new content in question and restored a verify tag that was removed out of process. I changed the wording of Wife, Girlfriend or Fiancee (which has obvious capitalization issues) to the more inclusive "intimate partner". I removed The assumption that woman cannot be physically violent towards men has been 'alleged' for many years, and until now men have 'shyed away' from the fact that they can be victims of domestic violence or even rape by their Wife, Girlfriend or Fiancee. because that is saying the exact same thing as the next paragraph, only in less encyclopedic terms and what is with the "until now" business? Finally, I removed "by being beaten by their Wives or Girlfriends." because it is not only gramatically incorrect in the sentence, but because it is ignoring same sex violence against men. Hope these changes are ok. Thanks.--Andrew c 22:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation of revert 

message: "The New Testament in places describes relationships:"
Intimate_relationship "An intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship with a great deal of physical and/or emotional intimacy. It is usually characterized by romantic or passionate love and attachment. Sexuality may or may not be involved."
The New Testament in places describes life-long marriage characterized by romantic or passionate love and attachment. 137.154.16.30 23:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  relationships 

message: New research shows bias in restraining orders "Provisions include removal from one’s own home......removing all legal and physical custodial rights to his children, also extends the no-contact provisions to those children." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.154.16.30 (talk) 03:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  restraining orders 

message: This section could be written one line at a time. If you are unable to contribute content you may contribute to a list of reliable sources which could be the springboard for the content......
The Meaning of Life according to 500 small business owners in the USA
Ladies Against Feminism meaning of life from a conservative POV
Wives Submit To Their Husbands from a commercial (for profit) reseller of Christian literature
 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License legal argument from a Christian preacher in the USA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.0.106.130 (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Teachings in Respect of Domestic Violence 

message: I read the article hoping to find some examination of the process where two people in love can eventually end up hitting each other. Maybe an expert in these matters would care to contribute. EdX20 06:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deterioration of Relationships 

message: DrZuckerman states that Family court is not within the scope of this article. Accordingly i have removed the following content:
Beating of women was accepted in western culture for centuries. For example, the English writer and churchman, Thomas Fuller (1608-1661) said, "A woman, a dog and a walnut tree, the more you beat them, the better they be."  This accepted behaviour continued in English and British Commonwealth countries until at least the 1950s, and was finally removed from tacit acceptance in Australia only on the enactment of the Family Law Act 1975 and establishment of the Family Court of Australia in 1975.
If Family court IS within the scope of this article than please revert my edit. 210.87.18.77 03:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  family court 

message: Christianity instructs that wives are to honour & obey their husbands. The material below could be helpful in further articulating this POV. 210.87.18.77 05:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity - explaining Christian teachings