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.)

WP:Alternative name policy and separating terminology on an arbitrary basis

Issue closed per ANI case

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. As seen with this and this edit (note here and here), Charlotte135 has chosen to ignore the WP:Alternative name policy and has separated the terminology on an arbitrary basis. Graham11 already had to correct one of the mistakes. See Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 5#Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title) for what I mean about the terms. The article's own Definitions section also supports what I mean. And as if all of the following only concerns couple violence, Charlotte135 removed the following: "Domestic violence can take a number of forms, including physical, verbal, emotional, economic and sexual abuse, which can range from subtle, coercive forms to marital rape and to violent physical abuse such as female genital mutilation and acid throwing that results in disfigurement or death. Domestic murders include stoning, bride burning, honor killings and dowry deaths." Charlotte135 made all of this text part of the intimate partner violence paragraph, as if all of this violence is only attributed to couple violence. I await other opinions. I will likely start a WP:RfC on it, with various WP:Reliable sources proving my point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC) Extra comment: And just so we're clear, I do not like how the new lead sentence "Domestic violence (also known as family violence or domestic abuse) is a pattern of behavior which involves violence or other abuse by one person against another in a home or family setting." makes it seem like intimate partner violence (which obviously does not only pertain to couples living in a home together) is not also domestic violence, and as though the terms domestic violence and intimate partner violence are generally considered distinct. As the literature on domestic violence, and as the Domestic violence article, clearly show, that is not the case. These two terms usually mean the same thing. The vast majority of the Domestic violence article is about intimate partner violence (which, yes, makes the existence of the Intimate partner violence article seem unneeded). That lead sentence failing to connect domestic violence to couple violence is not something I can agree with. Charlotte135's distinguishing is moot not only by so much of the literature and this article, but also by the "Domestic violence can take place in heterosexual and same-sex family relationships" sentence in the same paragraph. To me, these latest changes by Charlotte135 are perhaps yet another attempt to combat the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such violence." sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC) That whole block of text seems pretty confusing to be honest. And just for the record, for the 100th time over, I completely and utterly agree with the "Globally, however, a wife or female partner is more commonly the victim of such violence." sentence, which you, for some reason appear fixated on, to the detriment of improving the rest of this article. Please drop it now Flyer22reborn, your accusations are boring and patently unfounded.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Note: If what I stated above is truly confusing to anyone, it will be less confusing once I list various sources showing why Charlotte135's distinguishing is moot and is not best for the article. Then again, the truly confused can assess the Definitions section for themselves, as well as the many sources in the article that are about intimate partner violence while using the term domestic violence or some other alternative. Bottom line is this: Charlotte135 made changes to the lead after being pointed to the aforementioned archived discussion, where the WP:Consensus was indeed to go with all of the alternative terms in the first sentence. In that discussion, I also stated that I could be fine with "intimate partner violence" not being in the lead sentence, but nowhere did I indicate being okay with the type of lead Charlotte135 has constructed. And this entire talk page shows which one of us has been obsessed with the "Globally, however..." sentence. Charlotte135 keeps focusing on the lead, for reasons I've been clear about, including with regard to the rearranging noted in the #Presentation of the Adolescents and young adults section section above. But just like I've handled Charlotte135's other problematic editing, I'll handle this as well. Another WP:RfC is what will be. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Give the personal stuff a rest Flyer22reborn. Based on the 5 archived sections of this talk page dating back to 2004, and which you look like being involved in over the past few years at least, and your long history of edit warring, blocks and suspected sock puppetry, it appears that you may be the problematic editor, even though you appear to be the type who believes they are never wrong. On a constructive note though, and quickly back to content, a WP:RfC seems like a good idea!Charlotte135 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Again on a constructive, content related point, the reason I made these changes was that we already have an article on intimate partner violence. Seems redundant. Perhaps a solution may be to call this article family violence instead, and keep the intimate partner violence article? Family violence currently re-directs to the DV article. Family violence encompasses so much more than spousal abuse, as does the body of this current article.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Note: Like I told another problematic editor, anyone looking into the history of my block log should get it right before they speak on it. Only problematic editors get it wrong, as is the case yet again. Charlotte135's "02:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)" comment is false with regard to me (as various editors who watch my talk page can attest to), and is nothing but a misguided attempt to get a rise out of me. But, yes, that WP:RfC will be coming. As for the latest name proposal, that is a huge no, per WP:Common name and what the vast majority of the literature states. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC) I really don't care about your personal history of blocks, edit warring and suspected sock puppetry to be honest. But again, back to content you really have confused me now. Weren't you saying that DV is the same as IPV? My suggestion (and it was only a suggestion) was to change the title to family violence which would then encompass all of the other areas this article is attempting to cover as well as IPV. Haven't we already got an article on intimate partner violence? I'm trying to build a lead that actually covers all forms of violence and abuse in the domestic or home environment. Family violence is not just about spousal abuse Flyer22reborn, which for some reason you seem perpetually fixated on.Charlotte135 (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Note: My suggestion to anyone who doesn't understand what I mean is that they read the Definitions section and thoroughly read the Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 5#Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title) discussion. The term domestic violence is the WP:Common name, not family violence. Despite the term domestic violence covering all forms of domestic violence, the vast majority of the literature on domestic violence concerns intimate partner violence. This is reflected by this very Domestic violence article. That is not going to change by retitling this article away from its common name and moving most of the material in this article to the Intimate partner violence article. Having this article titled "Family violence", while the term domestic violence redirects to the Intimate partner violence article is not a solution since family violence is also a synonym for domestic violence. And if the term domestic violence redirected to the Family violence article, with that article mostly focusing on family violence, it would be problematic since domestic violence does not solely mean "family violence" and since it most commonly refers to intimate partner violence. The best solution is to keep the article titled "Domestic violence" and include the alternative terms in the lead, per the WP:Common name and WP:Alternative title policies. I will later gather sources for my points on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC) It is impossible to put up with Charlotte's disruptive edits and get much of anything else done. Flyer22 thanks for your endless patience and please continue to revert Charlotte as needed. Gandydancer (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Are you serious Gandydancer? Enough with the childish nonsense. Either contribute to the discussion on the scientific content of this article and how to present it, or please, just keep your childish comments to yourself. This is not a school yard. I hope you are not going to tell everyone you have an IQ in the top 5% again either? How was telling me you supposedly have an IQ in the top 5% of any relevance to this discussion? I now see that you are still livid that I politely pointed out a few weeks ago your use of primary sources and single studies in this article's content was not allowed, but it was nothing personal Gandydancer. I think your friend Flyer22reborn could articulate precisely why we can't use primary sources in this article.Charlotte135 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Gandydancer, I will get back to this soon. I've been busy with other matters on and off Wikipedia. The sources speak for themselves, as I've already stated in this section. If we have to do a WP:RfC every time Charlotte135 reverts me for whatever invalid reason, always making it seem like it's me who has to make my case despite what the sources state, what past WP:Consensus is clear, and despite the WP:STATUSQUO, then so be it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Note: I was looking at the previous discussion on this topic in October, and Penbat’s discussion was noteworthy, I thought. Penbat presented a particularly strong case with these comments and presented with a clearly NPOVCharlotte135 (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Comment: Given that the discussion with Penbat, where Penbat's views were challenged, is already linked above, I don't see any advantage in Charlotte135 having linked to that response. If Charlotte135 thinks naming the article "Family violence" is WP:NPOV, Charlotte135 is more than free to start a WP:Requested move discussion. But I'll be supporting WP:Common name on that matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC) WP:RfC: Is the current lead sentence best for the article? This, this, this and this edit show the heart of the concerns. For those viewing this from the WP:RfC page, click on Talk:Domestic violence#WP:Alternative name policy and separating terminology on an arbitrary basis for the initial part of the discussion. One concern is that the current wording of "Domestic violence (DV) (also known as family violence or domestic abuse)" neglects the "spousal abuse, intimate partner violence, battering" terminology, which, per WP:Alternative names, is well-served there, and subsequently makes it seem that domestic violence is different than couple violence. The current lead sentence neglects defining domestic violence as a couple issue at all. The other concern is that "family violence is not spousal abuse," and "Perhaps a solution may be to call this article family violence instead, and keep the intimate partner violence article? Family violence currently re-directs to the DV article. Family violence encompasses so much more than spousal abuse, as does the body of this current article." Previous WP:Consensus, seen at Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 5#Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title), was to keep the "spousal abuse, intimate partner violence, battering" terminology in the lead sentence because domestic violence generally refers to intimate partner violence (as does most of the article); it was agreed that we'd leave the Definitions section to address the ways the terms are at times distinguished; see Domestic violence#Definitions. So is the current lead sentence best for the article? Below are what sources state on the terminology matter. I will alert WP:Med to this WP:RfC. Click on this to see the sources. 1. This 2007 Battered Women and Their Families: Intervention Strategies and Treatment Programs source, from Springer Publishing Company, page 17, states, " Intimate. partner violence, also known as family violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and spouse abuse, is all too pervasive around the world." 2. This 2007 A Practical Approach to Trauma: Empowering Interventions: Empowering Interventions source, from SAGE Publications, page 224, states, "Domestic violence is also referred to as spousal abuse, partner violence, family violence, intimate partner violence, wife beating, and wife battering." 3. This 2010 Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 390, states, "Domestic violence (also known as intimate partner violence, spouse abuse, and battering) is the willful use of violence and other forms of abuse to establish control and fear within a current or former intimate relationship." 4. This 2010 The War Against Domestic Violence source, from CRC Press, page 71, states "[...] domestic violence, also known as intimate partner violence (IPV)." 5. This 2010 Child Abuse and Neglect: Diagnosis, Treatment and Evidence source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 23, states, "Although often used interchangeably, the term intimate partner violence is distinct from other, more inclusive terms such as family violence or domestic violence, which may encompass additional forms of violence, including child abuse and elder abuse." 6. This 2012 The Reasons of Family Violence source, from GRIN Verlag, page 1, states, "Domestic violence has many names, including 'intimate partner violence'. Additional terms that are or have been used include 'spouse abuse', 'domestic abuse', 'domestic assault', 'battering' [...]." 7. This 2013 Social Work and Intimate Partner Violence source, from Routledge, page 1, states, "Domestic violence, also known as intimate partner violence, is an issue which has been seen to be problematic within social work practice." 8. This 2013 Encyclopedia of Community Policing and Problem Solving source, from SAGE Publications, page 129, states, "Domestic violence, also known as intimate partner violence [...]." 9. This 2013 Psychology and Crime: An Introduction to Criminological Psychology source, from Routledge, page 140, states, "Indeed, the issue of domestic violence is one that has attracted attention across the members of the European Commission (2010). ... Among the various terms used in the literature, Robinson (2010: 245) lists: 'Wife abuse, battered women, domestic violence, domestic abuse, spousal abuse, spousal assault, family violence, violence against women, intimate partner violence, gender-based violence'. Some of these terms have become outdated; for example, it is now judged entirely appropriate to include within this grouping partners who are not married and partners of the same sex alongside those who are married." 10. This 2014 Child Welfare for the Twenty-first Century: A Handbook of Practices, Policies, & Programs source, from Columbia University Press, page 312, states, "Domestic violence, also known as intimate partner violence [...]." 11. This 2014 Encyclopedia of Human Services and Diversity source, from SAGE Publications, page 541, states, "Domestic violence has been referred to as domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence, and intimate partner violence." 12. This 2014 Maternity and Women's Health Care source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 97, states, "Other terms such as partner abuse and domestic or family violence are common. Older terms such as wife battering or spouse battering are generally not used." 13. This 2014 Violence: From Theory to Research source, from Routledge, page 162, states, "Intimate partner violence is a term that is specific to intimate relationships and is preferred to other terms, such as domestic violence or family violence, because the latter terms can refer to violence against elders or between other family members, including children." The same source, however, notes, "Some of the common terms used to describe intimate partner violence are domestic abuse, spouse abuse, courtship violence, battering, marital rape, and date rape." 14. This 2015, Massachusetts General Hospital Comprehensive Clinical Psychiatry source, from Elsevier Health Sciences, page 897, states, "The term domestic violence may be broadly interpreted to include child and elder abuse. [...] Other terms for this phenomenon include battering, spouse abuse, and wifebeating." Yes (if yes, how so?) yes it is consistent with the references cited, and helps introduce/define the article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC) Ozzie10aaaa, did you look at the sources I included above? Sources on domestic violence usually do not divide domestic violence and intimate partner violence in the way that the lead is currently formatted. In any case, I've closed this WP:RfC per what I stated below in the Discussion section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC) No (if no, how so?) Alternative proposal Discussion 2 As is clear by my having included a few sources above that support distinguishing some of the terms, I am well-aware of what those who argue for distinguishing some of the terms mean. As seen at Talk:Domestic violence/Archive 5#Alternative names for domestic violence (WP:Alternative title), I also noted that "I can be fine with leaving 'intimate partner violence' out of the parentheses of the first sentence, since it is addressed/linked to in the same paragraph; however, since it is domestic violence, I don't think that we should refer to it as simply closely related to domestic violence." and "One point that has been made [...] is that some of these terms are more interchangeable than others; a few of them (intimate partner violence, spousal abuse and family violence) are aspects of domestic violence, and so are not used as interchangeably as the others." But that is what the Definitions sections is for. My concern is that the current lead sentence focuses on "violence or other abuse by one person against another in a home or family setting," as if domestic violence is separate from couple violence (including couples who may not be living in a home together). The literature generally does not limit "domestic violence" in that way. Also note that Charlotte135 added "also known as spousal abuse" to the lead of the Intimate partner violence article as if it's spousal abuse that is the term intimate partner violence is usually used interchangeably with, and not domestic violence. This is also despite the fact that intimate partner violence is not solely or even mostly about married couples. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC) The RfC is useless because a) it is not neutral. b) the question is ill-posed. How can someone reply whether something is the "best"? What exactly are we comparing against? The most fruitful way to proceed is to have a draft lead. And then post it in the RfC and ask if it is better than the current lead. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) I fail to see how the RfC is not neutral, since I presented both concerns. That I listed sources showing what the literature states also is not problematic. I additionally fail to see how the question is ill-posed, given that I provided background on the issue. I had considered asking "Should all the WP:Alternative names be in the lead?", but that's not exactly what I'm looking for. There are various alternative names; my concern is the specific alternative names that were removed, and that "such as in marriage or cohabitation" was removed from the lead sentence as well. The question "Is the current lead sentence best for the article?" allows editors to assess the situation and propose an alternative lead sentence, which is what the "Alternative proposal" section is for. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC) On a side note: I added "Discussion 2" to the heading above to keep editors from being taken to the previous WP:RfC Discussion section currently on the talk page when they reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC) It's simple: When you have an extended conflict with another person, you should not characterize their position. They can write it out themselves. Also, asking whether something is the "best" is meaningless. This is why I said, make a draft proposal, and let people comment on it. And you don't need to list a bunch of sources. People who make the argument for or against will do so. Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_policies.2C_or_other_non-user_issues, point 3. Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. The current statement is neither brief, nor neutral, nor does it give a well-posed question. Also, If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and save the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and signature. The RfC header should be short and sweet. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC) It's simple: I did not characterize that person's position; I stated what the concerns are, including having directly quoted that person. That is very much allowed, and is common practice in WP:RfCs. It is not practical to post a WP:RfC about a dispute without noting what the dispute is about, which ideally means noting both concerns, not just my concern. Waiting for another person to post their concern would also mean that their statement does not show up on the WP:RfC page. I disagree that I "don't need to list a bunch of sources." I do when the matter at hand is specifically about what the literature states, and when outsiders are unlikely to be familiar with the literature. Expecting others to list a bunch sources is usually expecting too much; I've seen various WP:RfCs where the matter at hand concerns what the body of literature states and people haven't a clue as to what that body of literature states, and acknowledge so, often stating that their opinion is limited or may be useless because they are not too familiar with how sources cover the topic. You and I have disagreed on the matter of WP:RfC formatting before. Here, we disagree once more. I know what I am doing with WP:RfCs, which is why my WP:RfCs always work, including the above WP:RfC you had an issue with. That stated, I will remove the WP:RfC tag in this case, essentially closing this WP:RfC, because I have far too many other things to do, and I am tired of interacting with Charlotte135 and certain others enabling Charlotte135 or not doing enough to stop Charlotte135's editing when it is problematic. I am taking this and the Intimate partner violence article off my WP:Watchlist, which is what certain POV-pushers wanted anyway. If others are willing to let Charlotte135 roam free doing whatever it is Charlotte135 wants to do, so be it. But I don't have to watch it. I've been clear that I'm taking a WP:Don't-give-a-fuckism approach. I might check back in to see any additional replies you make to me about this WP:RfC or something else, but that's it. At some point, since I work on policies and guidelines in addition to all the other things I do at this site, I will see about rewording Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues, since certain editors are interpreting it in ways that make for sorry WP:RfCs. As shown at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All (WP:Permalink here), there is no one way to create a successful WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DV legislation by country

Many countries have their own Wikipedia pages for DV. Some of those pages include relevant legislation, the lack of legislation and/or attempts at legislation. I'm interested in a definitive and comprehensive reference on a per country basis. What would be the best way to go about this? Themoother (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

More to Domestic Violence

The general overview and definition of domestic violence is covered by the editors on this page. The references and sources on the page are reliable and bring a valid point to the discussion. In the opening paragraph, there seems to be a clarification of what domestic violence actually means to society. Many times society in the United States think that domestic violence only pertains to the abusive actions of the male father/husband to the female mother/wife. This is not necessarily the case, because there are many diverse spouses and families where the domestic violence could be occurring between two females or two males. As the article goes on, I feel the editors confuse the reader by referring domestic violence to a man and woman, and not leave the options open to whomever may be participating. I believe the reader gets distracted as to what type of societal group refers to domestic violence. The general outlook on this article is for the most part not biased, the article does start to lose its focus when giving examples of what group can refer to domestic violence, so in a way that could be biased towards not listing that information and giving a narrow perspective of this topic. The viewpoint of domestic violence referring to any group but a man and a woman seems to be underrepresented, so it is essential for when the next editing comes along, domestic violence needs to be a bit more broadened up. In general, the article's links are all functioning and there does not seem to be any plagiarism or paraphrasing in this article. Any information that still needs to be published should include more current events of people being involved in domestic violence issues. There could be more scholarly articles that cover more recent years in order to cover public issues that have happened today. Vareyzag (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC) By: Veronica Areyzaga

Hello, Vareyzag. What do you and/or others from your class have planned for this article? One thing to keep in mind with WP:Class editing is that this article is already huge. And so we keep WP:SIZE issues in mind when a new class comes along to edit the article. As for "domestic violence could be occurring between two females or two males", do you mean same-sex couples (as in romantic) or just two males or two females in a general way? Besides noting same-sex couples in the lead, there is a "Same-sex relationships" subsection in the "Gender aspects" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm also not sure what you mean by "The viewpoint of domestic violence referring to any group but a man and a woman seems to be underrepresented." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

"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 [1] and my reply to administrator Diannaa is here [2]

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. 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)