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

I agree. As a male victim of a female narcissist (and member of a self help group of the same name), I find this page offensive. Google returns a plethora of studies show that men simply don't report violence against them. I was assaulted multiple times IN MY SLEEP by a woman. My dog was thrown with force into steel. I finally left. A large number of men in the group report much the same. Please rewrite this. 2603:7080:6300:35:FD6D:EA9:BC8F:38D4 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree, feel free to suggest an edit, discuss what you want to change here first so you get public agreement so that people don't remove it without reason. 2A02:A03F:8514:5F01:E4C1:5F01:5188:DC21 (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

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]”

Broken links, cherry-picked studies, and bizarre sentences. It's clear that this article has been written by someone/multiple people who want to do everything they can to discredit the model, rather than clearly and objectively explain what the model is. I sympathize for the people on the talk page who feel they have been wronged by feminism, specific women/people, or specifically the Duluth model in some way, but this website should strive for objectivity. It's been a while since I've come across a wikipedia page so clearly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C46:6FF0:8140:A413:C095:8E6D:B57A (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

> discredit the model, rather than clearly and objectively explain what the model is

The model is revolting and scientifically wrong. Not being clear about that would be academic malpractice. Not providing a stupid number of agreeing scientific sourced would result in [insert group here] deleting them because they do not align with their world view.

There is a point for objectivity and sometimes you should just start with the bad parts. Like with Hitler's wikipedia page, they start immediately with him being a genocidal maniac. Like it should. 2A02:A03F:8519:5201:78A3:6D93:DA82:BCE (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Not a regular contributor, just a reader who stumbled across this page and thought the slant was really strange. I went digging for actual journal articles and primary sources, there's a number of government websites that say the goal is CCR, there's studies showing its effectiveness and even a direct rebuttal to the cited dutton and corvo: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178907000341

To me the sources seem pretty cherry picked and not representative of the broader picture ~2025-31291-58 (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Mate, the founder of this bunk has publicly stated that:

> we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with

That means it is flat out wrong.

You only need one solid argument to prove something is wrong.

The first paragraph links to many more sources showing fundamental flaws with the axioms of this "model". ~2025-31543-78 (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Since you took issue with only one source being provided to the last sentence of the first paragraph an extra source has been added. ~2025-31543-78 (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey CleverTitania,

You're calling Elsevier an unreliable source. That is not correct. ~2025-31543-78 (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Elsivier is not the journal source, only the online method of accessing the journal. Many non-peer reviewed journals can be accessed via that same portal. The actual journal the article was published in, establishes reliability. Aggression and Violence is the name of the journal in question, and it is open access, not peer-reviewed. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/aggression-and-violent-behavior

At no point has the "this page addresses a clear case of pseudo-science and should be treated accordingly," been established on this page. As such, all language in the article should be NPOV and the edit I restore was attempting to make such changes.

In addition, please do not mark any of my edits as vandalism without valid evidence to support that accusation, or post verbal attacks on my Talk page regarding this matter. Restrict your comments to this page and to the established rules for non-edit warring behavior. Kat (a.k.a. CleverTitania) (talk) (contribs) 20:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

> and it is open access, not peer-reviewed

Preprint is the opposite of peer-reviewed.

The journal published paper is peer-reviewed and not open access.

This article is cited 63 times (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S135917890100060X#preview-section-cited-by). It is thus an influential article.

Please do not make stuff up. ~2025-31543-78 (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

is anyone opposed to: 10.1016/S1359-1789(01)00060-X ? ~2025-31543-78 (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

If no one is still opposed I suggest we re-add the extra source. ~2025-32746-42 (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

done ~2025-32746-42 (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

p.s. you are edit warring because you reverted to the version you prefered, not the stable version. This is a warning. ~2025-31543-78 (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Abusive men have been editing this entry with an agenda to discredit the model. Epidowling (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

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)

I don't believe your claim that you are a "gay male" of any "kind" and the rest of what you wrote is nonsense. Women get arrested for DV under this model all of the time, I know 2 personally and know of several beyond that. ~2025-39593-48 (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I know women and men who have gotten away with their actions, but this model axiomatically does not permit female perpetrators, which is obviously insane. ~2025-36691-56 (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

It absolutely does and the sources cited prove it. Your presumed personal experience is not an argument, try again. ~2025-42164-02 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Your presumed personal experience is not a valid argument, and this ideological feminist model does absolutely advantage female perpetrators. ~2025-42164-02 (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2025 (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)

All of you are missing the point. You should not be actually railing against guidelines to incorporate slanted opinion and bias into an article topic that, according to you two is apparently so obviously wrong it needs no help in reaching such a conclusion. Redatlas (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Could you please be more exact and state which bias you are against? Are you referring to the "bias" (bordering academic fraud) Ellen Pence admitted to herself? 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:8E5:43C2:9B22:4AD1 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:8E5:43C2:9B22:4AD1 Wikipedia is not the place to discuss or challenge topics, ideas, people, or histories. This article should exist as a list and educational document on the facts and only the facts of what the model is only in what can be verified by primary sources.

A majority of the conflict on this article is coming from low effort users who seek to inject a narrative into a neutral academic source and it needs to stop. Redatlas (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

You need to stop removing primary peer-reviewed published sources to fit your narrative (or misrepresenting its claims). 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:CF5:7A8B:1AC7:5BEF (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:CF5:7A8B:1AC7:5BEF I haven't made any such edits.

Maybe you should make a Wikipedia account if you wish to contribute to the website. Redatlas (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

While this account "Redatlas" has indeed not made any edits it's brand new and I believe you are performing sockpuppetry with Poorplayer and DataAnalyticsDiva. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:3014:23B:D64E:C720 (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

@2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:3014:23B:D64E:C720 Based on what evidence? The assumption that those are the only accounts that have ever edited this wikipedia article before? Redatlas (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Returning to this topic after a while, it seems dispute resolution in this way will be impossible. Reasonable compromises (such as moving these complaints to the Criticism section) have been rejected, and I think a wider perspective beyond the 2-3 people deeply invested in this article is required.

I'm going to move this forward to the NPOV noticeboard unless there are any objections. DrFiveMinusMinus (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@DrFiveMinusMinus None here. Redatlas (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@DrFiveMinusMinus What objection to the current article do you still have? 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:7141:5A87:AB9F:7125 (talk) 09:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering if you ended up mentioning this on the NPOV noticeboard? I'm not able to find it in the archives and am curious what came of it. 7gremishka (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

> Note - Conclusion by handling moderator: the article has been improved. Neutrality raised an eyebrow, but the criticism of this program is indeed devastating when I spot-check the sources. For instance, it states: "The current model gives us permission for, and in fact encourages, the most cynical and fatalistic posture toward perpetrators and, by implication, victims of domestic violence. Cloaked in the pseudoscience of cycles of violence, power, and control, the net effect is to view these people as trapped in a web of inescapable structural forces, unable to see their own way clear."

(google translated) ~2026-29741-06 (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

A conclusion from the Dutch Wikipedia noticeboard has no bearing on this article, which, to my knowledge, has never been discussed on the English NPOV noticeboard. Given that NPOV concerns have been raised here repeatedly for years without formal resolution, I think it would still be worth bringing there. 7gremishka (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

It is the same article. It should receive the same conclusion. People will always have political opinions. Should every article get repeatedly sent to npov just because some disagree with repeated peer reviewed published research? ~2026-29741-06 (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-29741-06 It'a kinda not really peer reviewed and researched. That was the point of any of this. ~2026-38947-67 (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I would say that the fact it's widely puts it in the same category as Chiropractic, which nonetheless is still clearly labeled as pseudoscience in the opening paragraph. 24.218.60.54 (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Are there any objects to the term “pseudoscience” being put into the opening paragraph? 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:D51C:D42:C01D:C3C2 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Objections* 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:D51C:D42:C01D:C3C2 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:D51C:D42:C01D:C3C2 it needs to be sourced, otherwise no. Redatlas (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

If it is "not created through academic study" it is pseudoscience. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:F16B:60B7:38F5:A37 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:F16B:60B7:38F5:A37 That may be true, however it still needs to be sourced. No procedure exists to add opinion or primary research as fact on wikipedia. Redatlas (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

done. 2A02:A03F:852E:2F01:94C:A2BC:7741:C0BB (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Added more factual information from the Duluth Model website

Removed some of the biased language and added more facts. DataAnalyticsDiva (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

More neutral now

The article should have a more neutral and factually correct feel. The Duluth model actively affects IPV law in the United States in particular. IsabellaAllende (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Have you got any concrete suggestions, because as it stands, your comment is a bit wishy washy. More neutral?? More factually correct?? - Walter Ego 14:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey, the changes of you and ~2025-35864-70 are _inverting_ the statements made by peer reviewed papers. This is _abhorrent_ behaviour. ~2025-36691-56 (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Incivility

I apologize for any incivility in my recent revert comment. I do wish to improve the article from its current state and welcome discussion of why my changes are or are not acceptable to those apparently patrolling the article. I categorically reject that the 5 November edit is a stable text that ought to be retained against all changes, and the low-level edit war that has been going on for the last two months is not good Wikipedia practice. The style alone merits change towards Wikipedia standards, and the only content and tone changes I have made are, in my opinion, consistent with those standards, despite my recent revert summary. Shall we bring in third parties from the various dispute resolution boards? Cheers! → AllanBz ✍ 18:51, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

> I do wish to improve the article from its current state

I do too.

> that ought to be retained against all changes

Agreed.

The thing is, {insert side here} will revert change it into their preferred version after which {insert otherside here} will do the opposite. I agree with most of your changes. If we keep the 6th word as (pseudoscientific) as is and no one disagrees i vote to take in all but one of your changes. ~2025-36691-56 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

You should just edit the article to add pseudoscientific to the lede if that were the case, instead of doing a revert. However, I don't believe "pseudoscientific" makes sense in the lede. This is not a theory or a scientific practice, it is a protocol employed as policy in states. Its theoretical underpinnings may be pseudoscientific, and it may be bad protocol for various reasons, but that does not make the protocol itself a pseudoscience. → AllanBz ✍ 19:44, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

It's re-added to the start, I believe both of us can live with that. ~2025-36691-56 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

JGHFunRun, as can be seen, Allan does not disagree with the invalidity of the science only the very specific phrasing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth uses similar phrasing (pseudoscientific flat-Earth conspiracy theory / Duluth model is a pseudoscientific protocol) as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model

If you prefer to move the term earlier that is possible.

But please be academically honest. ~2026-70442-0 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Which version is the stable version? Because that's all I was trying to enforce with my edit.

Are you accusing me of academic dishonesty?

JGHFunRun (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry if I misjudged which version is considered stable, but as far as I can tell, calling the model "pseudoscientific" is specifically what started the edit war (which has been going on before you got involved, and long before I got involved). JGHFunRun (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

no worries. There are people who just take any chance they can get to remove widely cited peer reviewed sources that do not align with their world view. ~2026-70442-0 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Entry does not follow Wikipedia’s style guide.

The very first sentence calls it “pseudoscientific” — that’s an extraordinary editorial choice for an opening line. Wikipedia’s style guidelines say articles should start with a neutral description of what something is, not a contested judgment about it. Leading with the most inflammatory possible characterization signals that someone with an agenda had a heavy hand in shaping this article. The framing and emphasis of this article are skewed. A balanced Wikipedia article would present the model neutrally, explain what it is and its genuine impact, and then present both supporting evidence and criticisms proportionally. This one front-loads the attack and treats the model’s defenders as fringe voices. ~2026-29257-37 (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It most certainly complies with the rules.

Example of a different pseudoscientific model, there they use the following formulation:

"Flat Earth is an archaic and scientifically disproven [..]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth ~2026-29741-06 (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

“Pseudoscientific” is definitely an overstatement and belies a basic misunderstanding of the model and also science.

There is no scientific consensus against the Duluth Model. It’s one of the most hotly debated topics in the intimate partner violence research field. Here’s a paper from two years ago that says just that: some studies show positive results, some show neutral or negative results: https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/bitstream/1/22963/1/sousa-et-al-2024-the-effectiveness-of-intervention-programs-for-perpetrators-of-intimate-partner-violence-with.pdf

In any case, the Duluth Model is not something that is held out as science, while not actually being science. It’s not the flat earth. The coordinated community response part of it is a basic overview of how prosecution works, and the necessity of establishing shelters and safety resources for victims outside of law enforcement. That is fairly uncontroversial.

The controversy is centered in the Batterer Intervention Programming that was developed for the model. This was the first attempt at something like this. Ellen Pence is even quoted in this article saying:

“ By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff ... remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with ... It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find.”

Clearly, the people who created this realized that their model did not apply to every single case of IPV. They learned as much when they tried to implement it, then wrote about that experience, then got quoted in this article. That is not evidence saying the whole model is pseudoscience, it’s evidence that the creators of the model were made aware of its limitations and were able to clearly express them. This quote does NOT say that the model doesn’t work, only that it doesn’t fit every case. To this day, DAIP’s website calls the model an “ever evolving way of thinking.”

Finally, I’ll just note that the most commonly cited alternative to Duluth Model Batterer Intervention is CBT. CBT’s ability to address IPV is also debated in the literature (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/26330024241295773). But no one serious would call CBT “pseudoscience,” they would just recognize that the approach is still developing and that CBT might not have infinite use cases. MisterSirEsq (talk) 06:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you read the quote you cited? If it is wrong in "many" cases and only correct in a "few", it is not "appropriate" or true "in general". If it is not the reason behind the majority of battering it is factually wrong to portray it is such. ~2026-29741-06 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The quote makes it clear that the model was developed and implemented universally. In time, they came to see that universal application was inappropriate but that there were still use cases for it. Something being over applied initially and then narrowed when it is discovered that it didn’t fit in all cases does not make that thing pseudoscience. You can have reasonable concerns about implementation, appropriateness, and more without calling the entire concept pseudoscience.

Additionally, as stated above, The Duluth Model is not just about batterer intervention. It’s about coordinated community response— a policy framework for how to react to and prevent intimate partner violence. It’s a set of policy recommendations. The model could be based in bad science, or no science at all, but the model cannot itself be pseudoscience. It does not hold itself out to be science, so it cannot be fake science.

To stay in the criminological realm, we can look at Stop and Frisk. Even if you think Stop and Frisk is a bad idea (I do), you wouldn’t call it pseudoscience. It’s a policy based on a criminological theory called Broken Windows Theory. The scientific part of it (and therefore the potentially pseudoscientific part of it) is the theory, not the policy. I know that’s semantic, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. MisterSirEsq (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I am a librarian and I feel like I’m a good judge of Wikipedia articles as I have read hundreds. I think this article should be reviewed. The framing of some of this article seems biased and potentially written by someone with an agenda. Please provide facts and not opinions. Loki1411gu (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey, please feel free to read the numerous published, peer reviewed, cited sources.

This has already been reviewed by a moderator (in Dutch) recently.

The conclusion after reviewing the sources was to keep it.

> Note - Conclusion by handling moderator: the article has been improved. Neutrality raised an eyebrow, but the criticism of this program is indeed devastating when I spot-check the sources. For instance, it states: "The current model gives us permission for, and in fact encourages, the most cynical and fatalistic posture toward perpetrators and, by implication, victims of domestic violence. Cloaked in the pseudoscience of cycles of violence, power, and control, the net effect is to view these people as trapped in a web of inescapable structural forces, unable to see their own way clear."

(translated by google translate)

p.s. the writers of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth also do not prepresent a epistemic relativistic perspective[1]. They flat out say it is wrong because plenty of scientific papers refuted it.

To come back to your dislike of the term Duluth Model to refer to the theory instead of the policy, the term "model" can refer to both.

[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/ ~2026-29741-06 (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)