Talk:Duluth model

NPOV

The in response section is extremely biased and not written with a NPOV. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Agree: The effectiveness quotes alone cast doubt that the model works. For NPOV, the article needs a cleanup with emphasis on recent rigorous scientific studies bearing more weight. Its founder casts doubt that the model had confirmation bias at the end of the article: “ Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."[20]”

Article does not describe the Duluth model

This article, despite being almost a page long, completely fails at the basic task of an encyclopedia: Properly describing the subject.

All we get is one sentence: "This experimental program, conducted in Duluth, Minnesota in 1981, coordinated the actions of a variety of agencies dealing with domestic conflict". We also learn that it "is based on a "violence is patriarchal" model".

This is not nearly enough. What does the Duluth model actually do? How would I notice the Duluth model being implemented? Who would act differently if the Duluth model was implemented?

As a reader who did not know the Duluth model before visiting this page, I feel that I learned nothing. --Xeeron (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. This page never actually describes the Duluth model or what it is. Srnec (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I tried to make it clearer Aapjes (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Added an implementation section to help alleviate this problem. I don't know enough about the practical implications of a legal system which follows the Duluth model however the fact that I cannot find such information on this page shows that such a section is required. 71.246.206.64 (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree a basic description of the model is needed. Is the model non biased, or does it favour one group of victims?

Multiple references to one newspaper article

And no reference to the actual studies that article refers to. Has no-one managed to *find* these studies? jae (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duluth model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728094345/http://www.theduluthmodel.org/history.php to http://www.theduluthmodel.org/history.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.malesurvivor.on.ca/files/uploads/.../menandhealingfinal.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319081107/http://www.bwjp.org:80/files/bwjp/files/Countering_Confusion_Duluth_Model.pdf to http://www.bwjp.org/files/bwjp/files/Countering_Confusion_Duluth_Model.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is a great reference page to study the Duluth model. The people requesting its deletion are ideologues who will split hairs until pigs fly. If they would like to add content from their own sources and perspectives they are free to do that. What they don't want are people educating themselves and learning about their model. I see that the person requesting deletion was writing about it being a coordinated community response and trying to split hairs about that. The reality is the it is less of a "community" response and more of a bureaucratic response. It is a system whereby the arrested are sold at auction to the nearest treatment bidder. There is plenty of valid criticism against the Duluth model, especially where it concerns LGBT issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.21.226 (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep its probably Evergreen doing his best to coverup anything that makes brainwashed lefties look bad. Same with Cultural Marxism, which allegedy "Doesn't exist" ahahaha. Better delete this page!!! It's waking too many people up!!1 Let's all pretend Duluth model doesn't exist and isn't real !!!

The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duluth model, so that is where you should post your opinion. If you base your opinion there only on your personal belief about people being brainwashed you are unlikely to get much support, so you should base it on reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm a relatively anonymous person I guess, so I'll give my two cents: The Delulu Model (typo intended) has made me realize that my position in society as a "submissive" gay male is an entirely undesirable one; I do not have any benefits of societal patriarchy, but live in the inverse of it - the immediate consequences of patriarchy being over corrected. Case-in-point, this. I realize that if I happen to be in a private situation with a woman, she has the full legal right to put her hands on me and violently beat me to a pulp, and I have absolutely zero recourse both within and without the legal system. I live in constant fear of women, and I am dearly thankful that I do not need to deal with what has essentially become an extrajudicial first class.

I feel like it'd be a wise move to immolate myself (or something like that) over this, it is worth it. It is worth it for a woman to die in Mecca for the right of her equal representation in court. It is worth it for a man to die in Alberta for the right of his equal representation in court. God made law and justice, and if it is perverted in any capacity, then death becomes worthwhile. 2001:56A:F888:1100:8324:B944:207F:8324 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Reference 17 Probably Needs Removal

Batteredmen.com has been taken over by a lingerie company, and the link is now to a list of fetish gear. Kakrofoon (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done, replaced with a link to the same paper on ResearchGate. the wub "?!" 00:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This entry is filled with incorrect information

The Duluth Model is the Coordinated Community Response, the most widely emulated approach to domestic violence on earth. It’s not one batterer program curriculum. It seems that someone who wants to sell a batterer program is highly invested in presenting inaccurate information on this page. Sharpcheeser (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain more? -- Python Drink (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Citation from 2006 in the lede

"As of 2006, the Duluth Model is the most common batterer intervention program used in the United States.[4]" This is minor compared to the other discussion on this page, but still: 2006 was sixteen years ago. Do we have a more recent source on this? If so, this might be worth updating. Fyrius (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Reference 6 should have a disclaimer

Reference 6 is www.theduluthmodel.org, which is obviously going to be biased in favor of the model. It should probably noted somewhere in the article that Reference 6 is the official website. 174.242.133.62 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Disputed content

I ask Risky texter to discuss their preferred edits here rather than edit warring. Thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

If the author of a specific model uses extremely strong language and scientifically valid arguments that "debunk" the model, it should be added since otherwise its not accurately displaying the scientific validity of the claims. Risky texter (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

(the author and others authoritative instances/..) Risky texter (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you show that the preponderance of reliable secondary sources use this language? If so, I'll be on board. But a single source is not going to cut it. At most it might be due for an attributed opinion. Generalrelative (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2007.03.002

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9862-7

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01030-0_14

DOI: 10.1891/1946-6560.10.4.517

70 Mont. L. Rev. 125 (2009)

Beyond Duluth: A Broad Spectrum of Treatment for a Broad Spectrum of Domestic Violence 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7946:4AA5:E89C:9BF0 (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article appears to have received multiple edits to add disparaging adjectives to its initial description of the subject. These edits are quite inconsistent, including such statements as "consistent and flawed." The article is in need of major cleanup, and these opinions should likely be moved to the criticism section. DrFiveMinusMinus (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have found a citation for one of the claims I previously marked as unsourced. Nevertheless, I believe the statement that the model "Is known to be biased, and was not created through academic study" is inappropriately placed in the first paragraph of the article.

Additionally, the statement is frustratingly ambiguous; who is the model biased towards and against? Who is this "known" to? DrFiveMinusMinus (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Everyone who reads the basic premise of the model knows it assumes the conclusion thus it is not science. Stating this in the start is required to be consistent with other articles talking about pseudo science. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7946:4AA5:E89C:9BF0 (talk) 18:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

There is plenty of proof it is a flawed and sexist approach.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2007.03.002

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9862-7

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01030-0_14

DOI: 10.1891/1946-6560.10.4.517

70 Mont. L. Rev. 125 (2009)

Beyond Duluth: A Broad Spectrum of Treatment for a Broad Spectrum of Domestic Violence 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7946:4AA5:E89C:9BF0 (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm certain these are lovely studies and their conclusions are worth mentioning in the criticism section of the article. However, the first paragraph of the article is not the place to be incorporating criticism; that is where the term is meant to be defined. Per WP:NPOV, the tone of an article should be neutral, and this article does not meet that criterion. DrFiveMinusMinus (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

> However, the first paragraph of the article is not the place to be incorporating criticism

Why? Look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_flat_Earth_beliefs

There you get the criticism in the first word, sentence, or paragraph. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:B18C:65BF:5F2C:3603 (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The articles you cited fall under the category of unambiguous pseudoscience, on which no reasonable academic debate exists. The fact that the Duluth Model is still being researched and evaluated is evidence that reasonable academic debate exists on it.

This article would, in my opinion, fall more under Wikipedia:FRINGE/QS. This means that critics have described it as pseudoscientific, but reasonable academic debate still exists. The guidelines for such material note that " such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists." DrFiveMinusMinus (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it is sadly still circulating in scientific institutions. I see plenty of academic criticism, but never see any real debate. The proponents of the model are aware of the problems and limitations and continue to use it. I will not guess at their motivations.

How would you like the following modification:

> While [...], it is still used in certain disciplines. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:B936:B3F:4EDC:3E37 (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

p.s. bias, negativity, extremeness or polarization, all used to describe the model, but these are not statements that it is wrong or pseudoscientific. Although I could probably find such a claims in the sources.

p.p.s. Ellen Pence not using valid science does however make her publications pseudoscience. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:B936:B3F:4EDC:3E37 (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)