Talk:Child abuse/Archive 1

Adding Understanding and Prevention
It is very interesting to note that anyone who downloads child porn can be jailed for encouraging child abuse. Consider now the case of businesses that buy goods for a mere pittance in third world countries & sells them for a huge profit in the UK for example. A mother cannot easily support a child on a pound a week and so she may be forced to sell hersefl or her children as sex objects in order to make sufficient money to keep her family alive. Slave labour encourages child abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjscone (talk •contribs) 00:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The United States field of child that are not geting attention welare (and I believe but am not positive that this is similar in commonwealth countries, at the very least) agrees on "some" of the basic causes and a classification ation of levels of prevention  are from National Resource Center for Community-Based Grants for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. Please edit this if there is other international or research based information that contradicts these statements.

I like the limited, 'legal' approach, do you?
I have read through the comments below and have finally decided that the limited approach probably serves this article better than a long discussion of the pros and cons of classifying certain things as abusive.

One of the concerns that I have with sweeping statements of opinion like "physical punishment of any kind (including spanking) is never in the child's good" is that we don't all agree on what counts as physical punishment. If I have a child with a history of running into traffic, and I hold her wrist while on the sidewalk so that she can't run into traffic, no matter how much she tugs and yells, is that a punishment? You can believe that I was doing it because of past misbehavior, and it sure can be physical: I once had a very upset (intellectually disabled) child dislocate my elbow this way.

The child (who had an intellectual age of about two at that time) perceived my holding on to her as an utterly unreasonable action -- I'd guess that she perceived it as a random and undeserved punishment. (I don't think she made the connection at the time between her history of unsafe behavior and my current actions.) Of course, if I'd let go, then I'm sure that the police would have perceived letting her get run over "because she wanted to" as an utterly unreasonable, not to say criminally irresponsible, action.

Anyway, after thinking about these things, I've come to the conclusion that limiting this article to official descriptions is probably what serves the article best, and perhaps we'll be able to get rid of that NPOV tag this way. Perhaps everything else could go under a new page, like "Horrible Parenting Styles."
 * No I don't. It was legal in colonial America for a father to murder his son for "disobedience".  The law which is way behind on child abuse vis a vis any other form ofadult-adult abuse is a pathetic standard (which serves the interest of parents who use and abuse children) against any reasonable judgement.  "Horrible parenting" is no "style".  Horrible parents commit measureable crimes or horrors against children.  IMHO we need a reasonable definition here that includes such "horrors" as abuse just as we would should we see those SAME parents commit such horrors against SOMEONE ELSE'S CHILD.  There is no excuse for discounting gross human rights abuses against children just because the law in this area is so backward. There has to be a reasonable definition that includes the distinction between "holding a wrist" to secure a child (which in and of itself should cause no real pain) and the intentional use and abuse that some parents use to dominate and/or possess their children against all reasonable standards.

Old comments
The problem with this "definition" is that it leaves out things that are done by parents who falsely believe they are to the child's good: a parent refusing to vaccinate a child because the parent is a Christian Scientist doesn't benefit from this refusal, for example.

For that matter, is it abuse to tell a child to "tough it out" or "be a man" in response to bullying? Again, the parent doesn't benefit, and thinks s/he is doing what's best for the child.

At some point, this may become as objective as Newton's laws of motion, but we aren't there yet.Vicki Rosenzweig

the parent doesn't benefit

The type of behavior you describe is neglect and the parent benefits from it since limiting your losses / costs (the essence of neglect) is a form of benefit. That's why I made neglect the first example of child abuse in the article.

The problem with this "definition" is that it leaves out things that are done by parents who falsely believe they are to the child's good

Actually, the only problem with the definition is that it doesn't emphasize (but leaves implicit) the fact that there is an objective standard of 'good', independent from what the parents think is the child's good.

People who have bought into anthropologists / ethnologists / historians' extreme cultural relativism (ie, there are no objective moral standards) don't think that there are objective measures of 'the child's good'. And though the same problem (child abuse denial) exists in psychology, it isn't as bad. But yeah, there are objective standards of the child's good. The simplest and most easily accepted include:
 * 1) neglect of basic needs are never in the child's good
 * 2) physical punishment of any kind (including spanking) is never in the child's good

Now, if you want to look at psychological fitness instead of mere physical fitness, then you need a definition of an emotionally well-adjusted (healthy) personality. The definition is this:

A healthy personality is one that is rational and empathic in the widest possible range of situations and circumstances.

By definition, rationality and empathy are things to be prized. In moral philosophy, both rationality and empathy are taken as axioms. Actually, more than axioms since they're what make it possible to even talk about morality. They're so basic that most moral philosophers don't even consciously recognize their importance, yet no serious moral theory (one that doesn't just assume all of its conclusions as axioms) can work without them.

If you don't want to take rationality and empathy as axiomatic, then you can start with the definition of physical fitness:

A healthy person is one that can function in the widest possible range of physical situations and circumstances.

Then you change 'physical' to 'psychological'. Then you have to empirically measure what makes people psychologically fit. If you do that, you find out that empathy and rationality are it. You can know what group of people is healthy because when surrounded by others of their kind, healthy people do not suicide. Whereas, even when surrounded by their own kind, unhealthy people have a high tendency to kill each other, suicide and perform other destructive behaviors. And that's not even talking about the instability of unhealthy societies to contact with alien mentalities.

So for example, a personality that goes catatonic, suicidal or self-destructive outside of a very narrow set of circumstances (eg, an isolated hunter-gatherer tribe) is not healthy. So hunter-gatherer primitives do not have healthy personalities, so their childrearing is abusive, and so their culture is inferior.

There is at least one other way to define good child rearing. The functional definition is:

Good child-rearing is based on 100% empathy at all times, and contains no projection or reversal whatsoever.

This definition has many advantages. It also has quite a few disadvantages. -- ark


 * The simplest example of child abuse is neglect, where the child's parent(s) refuses to perform those tasks necessary to the well-being of the child.

Inverting the possessive. I like it!

By the way, the repetition compulsion is not mere learned habit as the article makes it seem. Granted, there's a lot of learned habit in child abuse, and that can be unlearned. But there's also much more fundamental stuff (repressed emotions and unassimilated experiences) which needs to be worked out in therapy. -- Ark

Does this Columbine statement belong here? That is, is it child abuse if children do it to other children? --rmhermen


 * To the second question: Yes! And not just because abusive children are typically victims of abusive adults. Nor even because adults are usually complicit in the abusive activity in some way. No, it's child abuse for the simple reason that the statement "children can't be abusers" is utterly absurd.


 * Thank you, Ark. Correct on all counts.  In the first, I'd make sure to emphasizetypically.  In the second, I will provide an example: A child comes home crying because Billy has been teasing him.  Mom says "Just ignore him, honey, and he'll stop", reasoning that her son simply needs to "toughen up", rather than asking why it is that Billy needs to tease her son.  And the third stands for itself, no explanation needed.  Pgdudda


 * I'm actually against the reference on the grounds that it's an Americanism; irrelevant to anyone outside of the USA. I've never heard of children shooting other children outside of the USA. Because 1) only the USA has such a prevalence of guns, and 2) only the USA has such an irresponsible media that rewards psychopaths and serial killers. -- Ark


 * Sierra Leone. Or do children who are part of armies not count? Vicki Rosenzweig


 * Don't forget the school shootings inErfurt, Germany on 2002.04.26. And this one inBosnia that happened three days later (didn't learn of this one until I did a Google search for the one in Erfurt).  And if you're talking civil wars, don't forget the one going on in the Sudan that also uses child soldiers.  Pgdudda

- This is non-NPOV:
 * On the other hand, committed child abusers rarely see their actions as abusive, even when these actions are widely condemned by society. Like other such divisive subjects, the controversy exists not because of uncertainty on the subject but because of emotional investment. Child abusers have an enormous emotional investment in not accepting themselves as such.

Controversy does exist because of uncertainty on the subject, not just emotional investment. It also insinuates that anyone who disagrees with the author's opinions on what constitutes child abuse must be a child abuser, whose disagreement with the author is solely that they won't accept themselves as an abuser. -- SJK

Then you have a bizarre definition of "uncertainty". I assure you, child psychologists, pediatrists and other such are very certain that beating infants is abusive. The typical parent is likewise just as certain that their "style" of parenting (whether or not it's abusive) is the right thing to do. Usually because they were raised that way by their parents who were raised that way by their grandparents and so on presumably all the way back to the Stone Age.

Nice job by the way, now the example makes no sense at all. Fix it! -- Ark --- You are trying to claim there is no uncertainty by only pointing to the most extreme case. Everyone agrees that beating infants is abusive, or to use an even more extreme example: it is certaintly abusive (even infanticidal) to beat a newborn over the head with a baseball bat. But what about giving a seven year old a slap on the wrist with the hand? Some would say thats different; others would say its ultimately no worse. Human behaviour is a continuum; everyone can agree on how to classify the extreme cases, its the the cases in the middle that are controversial. When dealing with the middle, there is even controversy among experts on what is abusive and what is not. -- SJK

I've never heard anybody, ever, claim that a slap on the wrist is as bad as a baseball bat over the head. Where I'm using an admittedly extreme case (though not that uncommon), you are using a completely fictitious one.

And again, controversy doesn't imply relativism. For example, anti-spanking advocates are very certain that it's abusive, while abusive parents are very certain it's not. The only people who are "uncertain" are those who have never had to form an opinion and have never questioned what was done to them during their own childhood.

I didn't accept cultural relativism on its own page page and I'm not going to here. -- Ark


 * But looking at only the extremes makes for a very facile evaluation of morality. The universe, unfortunately, tends to come in shades of gray.  It's the consideration of those shades of gray that teaches each person where they "draw the line", so to speak. Pgdudda

-- Below is a description of changes I made and why.

"Child abuse is not limited to people in the lower class of society, and middle and upper class child abuse does exist." Changed to the simpler: "Child abuse occurs in lower, middle, and upper classes of society."

"While there are many different types and degrees of abuse, the one thing they all have in common is the failure to look after a child's long-term interest." I'm not sure this should be here, but if it is, it should be improved. Changed to "One thing in common among different types and degrees of abuse is failure to consider a child's long-term interest." and moved to join later paragraph.

"When that guidance goes wrong, oftentimes for some adult's unhealthy psychological short-term "need," child abuse is the result." Child abuse does not need to be related to how an adult provides guidance. Psychological needs of the adult and their relation to child abuse are independant of duration of the needs. Changed to "Maladjusted psychological need may drive an adult to abuse a child." With the change, there is no longer reason for the previous sentence about children relying on guidance of adults, so I removed that as well.

"Children may be completely unaware of the long lasting effects of the abuse, and simply want it to stop--or in some case, not even aware that they're being abused at all." These assertions seem to be of dubious worth. Removed.

"If, for example, a child is being beaten, that is very serious, and should be dealt with immediately." "serious" and "dealt with immediately" are subjective conclusions about child abuse. Accepting this would mean that if something is not "serious" or should not be "dealt with immediately" it is not child abuse. I disagree that those criteria necessarily eliminate something from being considered child abuse. Also, there is no distinction made between the beating in corporal punishment, such as the more widely accepted spanking, and more severe beating. Changed to "Beating a child may be considered abuse depending on circumstances and severity of the beating."

"Even if it never occurs again, the child has nonetheless been abused." Pontification; removed.

"On the other hand, if a child doesn't eat breakfast on one occasion, that is unlikely to cause any long-term effects. Missing breakfast every morning, however, is much more serious. Thus, it becomes abuse only if it's habitual." Needs new paragraph. A large portion of 'professional' parents in the USA miss breakfast every morning, or at least every weekday, so I don't expect great concurrence on the harm done in missing breakfast regardless of whether it is an adult or child. What I do imagine to get agreement on is that malnutrition can be imposed by an adult, range in severity, and be a form of child abuse. Changed to: "Imposing malnutrition on a child can be a form of abuse depending on severity. For example, causing a child to forfeit breakfast one morning might not be considered child abuse."

"In very general terms, child abuse can be divided into two categories." seems to be an orphan sentence since the two categories do not follow. Removed.

"Medical and other types of professionals have learned to recognize a list of common symptoms of child abuse." Changed to: "Among the symptoms that various professionals sometimes ascribe to and seek as signs of child abuse are:" so that it does not imply that all professionals recognize all of the following symptoms as signs of abuse.

Removed superfluous words in symptoms list: "any" Removed dead links: "Neglect" "circumference burns" "splash burns" Style: removed some bold markups Gcrl 01:17, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

Now it's a little more comprehensive
I pulled some of the thoughts from above into the actual page. I have left the examples that someone else had previously included, but cautioned that there are alot of myths and assumptions about prepatrators and victims. Remember, every abuser has their own story as well, and may be in need of treatment in order to restore the original family. We always want what's best for a child, and a healthy, stable fammily is that. If we can restore (while ensuring a child's saftey and well-being) we are better off. I think the essence point about cultural differences in child rearing is well-taken, but the actual description of that needs a lot of work still. However, I didn't want to destroy everything that someone else had listed.
 * Also fixed: There is a world outside of USA! Really! It's not a myth!

New comment
The problem with much of the discussion below is that it is debating what the definition of child abuse should be. That is not within the scope of Wikipedia's mission. Wikipedia should simply report definitions of child abuse that are recognized by legal authorities or by agreement among experts on the topic. If there is controversy among experts, Wikipedia should summarize the controversy, not take sides in it. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.201.98.85 (talk • contribs).

Internation Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect
Thanks to whomever mentioned that. I pulled in a lot of the US defintions, and I in fact did completely forget that a more international approach would make more sense. I feel quite silly have that pointed out. I would love to see some more information on the definitions that are more commonly, globally held. International child welfare isn't something with which I am particularly familiar.

Ways to stop abuse - phone number
Is it allowed to give such a number? I find it strange that it just pops u in the middle of the article. It sounds like a scam, but I am not sure.

Covert, non-contact rape?
Moved from Child abuse:

The implication that, although we can't know it, women are sexually abusing children potentially as often as men? This writer is clearly bias-ing this report. He tempers a statistic of female sexual abuse victims with "however" and the suggestion that there is something wrong with infering that there is injury and harm to girls who've experienced "more extreme forms of sexual abuse."

Please read his definition with the skepticism it deserves. —The precedingunsigned comment was added by205.234.114.127 (talk •contribs) 15:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What we do, indeed, know is that women do commit overt sexual abuse against children. Mother-daughter, mother-son, and teacher-student incest/sexual abuse have been well-documented now. We also know that there is a huge bias against acknowledging, researching and reporting the sex crimes female sex offenders commit. We also know that female sex predators prefer to use "love" and other non-physical forms of female 'violence' to 'groom' their prey. Who knows whether females sexually abuse as often as men. What I do know is that female sexual offenses are a taboo topic with almost no research, reporting or accountability to date. I also know that women are no less evil than men and quite capable of cunning, 'cooing' and covert child sexual abuse. It is time that we at least acknowledge that female sex offenses are grossly underreported and allow NPOV representation of the possibility that women predate just as much as men albeit using different methods which are much harder to detect.
 * We also need to question the ridiculous notion that female sex offenses are "less extreme forms of sexual abuse". Mothers who seduce their sons, and female teachers who seduce their students should be seen as no less criminal than fathers or male-teacher sex offenders.  The damage done to a young man's manhood by female sex offenses causes terrible long term traumas yet female sex offenders often get off with a mild slap on the hand while the opposite type of male sex offender is pounded with hard punishments and often demonized forever.

Missing "Never abused" age
I can't help but notice that this article is missing information on which child abuse is considered to have never happened if it's not reported before the child reaches a certain age. Is it 18 or 13 when child abuse is considered to never have happened if it's not reported before then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by71.102.254.114 (talk)

Why Early Intervention?
Professor Ted Melhuish in his research of December 7, 2006 presents the case for additional government intervention in terms of "Rates of Return to Human Capital investment." Citing a 1993 study of 123 young African-American children he finds early intervention ultimately contributes to greater tax revenue and also identifies possible cost savings in the areas justice, mental health and welfare. The study concludes that every dollar invested in Child Protective Services produces a return of $7.16Early Intervention?

Let's be a little more comprehensive
This is a terribly confusing definition of child abuse and neglect.

I will try to come back to help edit this page, but I think that someone should erase the entire front matter and start again. Heck, about.com just took the Federal Government's Child Abuse and Neglect Clearinghouse's definition (the Federal definition is in the public domain and so it could go here and just be attributed).

 Defintion 

Child maltreatment is the term that constitutes both child abuse and neglect. These are two opposite things that have the same effect of jeopardizing the safety and well-being of a child. Both should be given equal time in the definition section on this page, because while abuse is often more publicized, neglect is by far more common.

The definitions could be simply that abuse is an action taken by a caregiver that harms a child (reference the list of types this page has below the definition) and that neglect is the lack of an action or actions by a caregiver that results in harming a child. There are many forms of abuse and neglect and each State in the U.S. has developed their own legal definition of what constitutes child maltreatment for the purposes of providing services to a family, removing a child from the home, and/or prosecuting a criminal charge against a perpetrator.

Child Welfare

This section could do well to support a definition of the entire child welfare apparatus as set out by the U.S. Federal Government and enacted by the States. (Child Welfare is the field that surrounds the child protective, foster care, adoptive, and sometimes juvenile justice services within a State.) There is also considerable amount of available and linkable information about the Australian, UK, Japanese, and Indian child welfare systems. (Also, Native American child welfare in the U.S. has its own sphere as set down in the 1976 Indian Child Welfare Act. That act was developed in an effort to help maintain Native American culture within a family after a child is taken into protective custody.)

Major Legislation

Other major U.S. laws include the 1988 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families ACF and the 1999 John H. Chafee Foster Care Independent Living Act. Major funding to the States also comes through Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.

Reporting Abuse and Neglect

To be a responsible definition, there should be clear link to ways to report suspected child abuse and neglect to the proper authorities. The easiest reference is The (U.S.) National Child Abuse Hotline 1-800-422-4453

While it is true that there are cultural difference in how children are raised, and that should be taken into consideration when looking at the causes of and how to deal with the outcomes of confirmed child abuse and neglect, a cultural difference does not provide a caregiver with a legal pass perpetrate abuse or neglect. This page does a disservice by implying that might be the case.

If you ever suspect that a child may be enduring abuse or neglect, do not hesitate to contact the authorities. Give a clear and honest description of your suspicion, and talk at length with the counselors who answer your call if you are not sure. There are trained call screeners who will either open the case for investigation, or log your report. One report may not be enough to open a case, but multiple reports by different reporters often is enough. At that point, someone will investigate the family. The investigators may determine there is no evidence of maltreatment, there is evidence enough to offer support to the family in the home, or that there is evidence enough to remove the child from the home. You may make an anonymous report if you are more comfortable doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.70.85.2 (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

yes this is EXACTLY how the system worked in Germany in the 1940s. i know this for a fact because i am a Hogans_heroes fan. 202.0.106.130 02:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Demographics" section?
I read recently in "10 Years of Reporting Child Maltreatment" published in 2001 by the U.S. Department of Health, that "women are the perpetrators in over 62% of all child abuse and lead in all categories except sexual abuse, where female parents represent 27% of the perpetrators compared to 35% for the male parent".

Does anyone feel that this information has a place in this article? I've looked at a few crime-related pages, and many of them have a demographics section. Would this be appropriate here? MartinRobinson 00:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I absolutely believe this information has a place in this article. Second-wave feminists have abused language, science and statistics to create a sexist bias against men with regard to domestic abuse and child abuse.   Althought the METHODS each sex uses to commit child abuse are often quite different, the idea that one sex is morally superior and abuses less is ludricous on it's face.  As a male victim of mother-son covert incest in a single-mother family of 6 children I can tell you that women are quite capable of severe sustained and quite cunning child abuse and that they almost always get away with these 'perfect crimes' unseen, uncounted and untreated.  So please bring this data in here as long as it is not used to minimize or discount male perpetrated child abuse in any way. 71.102.254.114 21:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Symptoms
The looooong list of symptoms given was needlessly large, vague, unsourced, and unscientific. Someone added a couple of sources but most of the "symptoms" were still not covered by these sources. One of these sources, which I believe was the Santa Monica Ruritan Club, was not exactly an ironclad scientific source anyway. There was also too much vague language like ascribing the list to "various professionals" - we need to know which professionals specifically said what about which symptoms. Some degree of common sense also needs to be used before taking such irresponsible measures as listing such common childhood things as "temper tantrums", "being bullied by other children", and "shyness" as symptoms of child abuse. Other items, such as "parents/care givers often (but not always) well educated" aren't even symptoms at all and don't fit the stated purpose of the list. wikipediatrix 22:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Then fix it rather than deleting it. -Willmcw 22:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it. Hopefully others are too. But in the meantime, the article should not be giving unsourced and incorrect medical advice on such an important topic. wikipediatrix 23:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There are a few U.S. government sites with lists of symptoms that we could use verbatim (since there's no copyright problem). http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/signs.pdf and http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001552.htm. I suggest we take one of those lists and use it. -Willmcw 23:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks much better, Willmcw, thanks. I'm still slightly concerned, though, that others will gradually add to the list until it's back to where we started. The old list was filled with such obvious symptoms of child abuse that I felt they must have been entered as a sick joke (such as "semen in the vagina and anus"). The current list has some items that give me that same "well, duh!" feeling, like "human bite marks" and "cigarette burns on the genitals". Almost everything in the Symptoms section could be reduced to the lowest common-sense denominator of "Unusual or unexplained injuries". The part about Shaken Baby Syndrome is useful, however, and could even be expanded. wikipediatrix 16:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good. Lots of material on Wikipedia requires watching to prevent inappropriate aditions. Since this is sourced and official I think we should not edit it by removing or re-wording items. -Willmcw 20:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Creatingg a new section
I am adding a new section about the effects of child abuse on child development, emotional and psychological development, and related issues, maybe including evaluationg and treatment. Dr. Arthur Becker-Weidman talk 00:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The USA?
All this article actually talks about is the USA, which isn't completley renowned for treating child abuse (e.g. legal belting of children etc.). 82.18.177.197 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Link removal
I removed this link per Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. I realize that the creator of the link has a PhD.; however, it's (1) hosted on Tripod, versus an academic or non-profit site (where you'd expect to find most reliable links on this topic), and (2) some of the articles and information written suggests questionable judgement and a decidedly minority-view of this topic. For example; note this article about a 'ritual abuse advocate.' The "advocate" in question is "Curio," (see this reprint of a Union Tribune article), who later spent time in a mental hospital for stalking (and threatening to kill) Jennifer Love Hewitt. . OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with your actions. DPeterson talk 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

RM Controversary in Canada
I don't think this section belongs on this page. However, if others disagree, please explain how it is relevant and revert to the version before I deleted this section. DPeterson talk 01:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't know where it belonged, so i thought i'd put it in with this, as i thought it fit the most with this...not saying it fit correctly, but i thought it was better than making a new stub article...  RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk''' 01:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What about writing an article about Child Abuse Perpetrators? The article could then have material about what causes this, whoe are these individuals, why they do what they do, and sections about specific individuals, such as the one you have.  The article would have an international reach, which is often missing in Wikipedia articles.  I'd be willing to help by writing some material, from a psychological and treatment point of view.  DPeterson talk 02:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I don't know many abusers off-paw (or hand :) ), but i will help you out.  RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk''' 15:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Question
This phrase: as well as depressive, anxiety, and acting-out symptoms Since the word used is depressive (to go with "depressive symptoms"), why is anxiety not anxious? But the reason I didn't change it is because "anxiety" is also a disorder listed in the DSM IV while "anxious" generally describes how someone feels at a particular moment. But since we're using the word as an adjective to describe the noun "symptoms"...Any psychologists with grammar background out there to answer? Sounds a bit stupid to ask, but wikipedia should sound as good as or better than Britannica, etc. 82.93.133.130 15:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Evaluation
This article could also include a section evaluating the effectiveness of various government policies in the realm of child abuse 202.0.106.130 02:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you would like to propose specific language here, with appropriate verifiable references and sources, that would be great. DPeterson talk 14:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ok thanks i'll see what i can do 202.0.106.130 02:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you add the material here first so that other editors can comment on its relevance and appropriateness to an encyclopedia article. DPeterson talk 03:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the survey methodolgy of the following: ISPCAN CHILD ABUSE SCREENING TOOL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.0.106.130 (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Notable incidents of child abuse
This section should include notable incidents of child abuse at the hands of welfare agencies (those widely reported in the popular media) & death of children in government custody. I seem to recall a widely reported case of children in government care being encouraged to participate in "chroming" with the minister subsequently resigning over the incident. There was an enquiry / royal commision into child deaths in government care - the outcome was an overhaul of the department responsible - however were the findings made public? if so what were the findings? if not why not? 202.0.106.130 07:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Causes
The section on causes has no citations and needs work. Does it even belong here or should it have it's own article? Information contained Here seems authoritive? edchant 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

More International content needed
I feel that this article gives too many examples of things in the US. Some more things on other countries is needed. Agree. Canadianshoper 18:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the title of this section, if that is not OK, pls change it back. I agree that more international content is needed.   DPeterson talk 18:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Stick on a worldwide tag on it so editors will quickly know it needs more non-US/global info. Lihaas (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ivorcatt.com material
202.0.106.130 inserted some editorial from various sources, and linking to the full (copied) editorials on ivorcatt.com. (Also on other articles like Violence against women and Child welfare. I reverted them (with some harsh comments that I shouldn't have used), and he reverted back. My problem with the material is that they are whole paragraphs pasted in without putting it in much context. Therefore, it appears as POV (perhaps not 202.0.106.130's POV, but POV all the same). And ivorcatt.com does not appear as a reliable source. What do people think? Clayboy 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your reasons for reverting this material. edchant 21:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree also. JonesRD talk 18:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Content deleted
I am writing from a shared IP used by both children and adults. I contributed the content below from a different shared IP but it was deleted. 210.87.18.78 03:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The child protection industry in Ireland is characterised by The Irish Times as follows: "An alarming propensity to finger the fathers of children as sexual abusers without affording them any opportunity to defend themselves.....a veritable industry in psychobabble and mumbo jumbo, in which so-called techniques involving "psychological assessment", dream therapy, guided imagery, figure drawing and the use of anatomically correct dolls are employed to "prove" some of the most serious allegations that can be made against a parent, and to inform some of the most far-reaching decisions concerning the lives of human beings." Irish Times Feb 04, 2002: When reason gives way to psychobabble
 * Please see the section above this one ("ivorcatt.com material"), and this. Clayboy 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the addition and deletion of "The majority of child abuse is executed by females and/or the victims mother. Identifying the perpetrator is the first step to prevention." This is an unsourced/unreferenced statement, maybe POV, and should only be included if it can be attributed to a reliable source. DPeterson talk 13:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Causes of child abuse
This section I think is wrong. Child abuse is a crime and crimes are result of the criminal mind. I think the causes section need serious editing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blessingsboy (talk • contribs) 15:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Effects of child abuse section
I don't know if splitting it up as was recently done is helpful or not. I'd just put the added sentance as the first sentance and then have the rest of the section follow, rather than have a one sent. section followed by a paragraph sub heading... RalphLender talk 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Fatalities from child abuse + International content
I am currently doing a research paper on child abuse and I was wanting to compare the number of fatalities related to child abuse for the different countries and there areas and I was entertained that the only information I could find is from the states. This is my first edit so if I'm not following the guide lines let me know.

Problems with child abuse agencies
History should recongize that in Canada at least, the Child abuse agencies were manipulated by an anti-male agenda to promote the model of child abuse, "men who abuse, women and children victims', a half-truth. (original research)

The point is that such organizations, or any organizastion for that matter can and should be shown to have been corrupted, leading to a contribution to child abuse and chaos. In the USA the historic summary of children being 'brainwashed' or 'manipulated' to conform to the social workers creating false memories has been well documeted, and should be included in the section of child abuse agencies...--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 20:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Random murders
Are they? The first paragraph ends with the sentence:
 * It also sometimes occurs almost anywhere (eg kidnappings, random murders etc.)

Given that the article subsequently discusses the causes of child abuse, using the word random is probably inappropriate. Random implies chance, which implies lack of a causal factor. However, Murder is a crime of intent, indicating a deliberate causal factor is involved. This is a paradox. How can murder occur both by chance and be deliberate? What I think is trying to be conveyed is that child abuse sometimes occurs when there is no caregiving relationship between the abuser and the victim. However, is this child abuse, or something else? The two sorts of crime are being confused. I think it would be better to make it clear that child abuse can happen in different contexts. First, it happens to children in the care of their parents. Second, parents deprived of the care of their children take, often criminal, steps to re-exert that care. Third, it happens when a stranger abducts a child and abuses them because of a psychological need to do that. Those are three very different situations that need to be distinguished. -- Cameron Dewe 00:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Types of abuse
Could someone elaborate on the various forms of child abuse a little further? There are inadequate links to specific types of abuse. Also, persons interested in this topic might try editing the shaken baby syndrome topic, which has been colored by abuse deniers (scurvy and vaccination reactions as causes of SBS). Thanks, PedEye1 20:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Child abuse: Children who abuse?
In 1987 I investigated the childrens aid societies only to find them utilizing deceptive anti-male models. The model then was, "men who abuse, women and children victims'. The original research eventually led to the discovery of several types of half-truths. Today in Canada, a thirteen year old girl was found guilty of being involved in the murder of her family and parents. Child abuse, has been manipulated in many levels, the agency must have a balanced approach to 'child abuse', including the model of children who abuse. Let this be a lead to expanding the current definition of 'child abuse'. --Caesar J. B. Squitti  :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Added a sentence, have a reference and I don't know how to add a reference
A forbes article about child maltreatment in families with a deployed parent. -Unsigned
 * Re your article - the article says "Aug. 1 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association". For a full reference you need title, authors, journal, page numbers etc etc. Find the actual article in the journal (or abstract thereof) an all the info should be there. Then go to WP:REF for details of how to do it. If that still doesn't work, just leave a message for me. Fainites barley 14:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

DDP
I have removed Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy from this page. This little known therapy has been extensively advertised on Wiki as evidence based, sometimes the only evidence based treatment for a variety of disorders affecting attachment. A range of attachment articles including attachment therapy are currently before ArbCom. In the course of this it has transpired that of the 6 users promoting DDP and controlling these pages, DPeterson, RalphLender, JonesRD, SamDavison, JohnsonRon, and User:MarkWood, four are definitely socks and have been blocked, and the other two have been blocked for one year. The attachment related pages are in the course of being rewritten. Fainites barley 17:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Update - all 5 are now indefinitely blocked as sockpuppets of DPeterson, and DPeterson has been banned for 1 year by ArbCom. Fainites barley 21:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried rearrranging some of the material that was so obviously distorted to promote a particular view of attachment disorders, complex post traumatic stress disorder and DDP, but the article is a mess and really requires rewriting from some editors with some actual knowledge and understanding. Fainites barley 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Update 2 - User:AWeidman, AKA  Dr. Becker-Weidman  Talk and Dr Art has now also been indef. banned for breach of the ban on his sockpuppet DPeterson.Fainites barley 16:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with these agencies
As always, there is a negative side to everything. (don't take this personal) That is there was a time period during the last 20 years where a 'cult like' mentality developed, included false memories, child manipulation by social workers to increase the number of abuse cases.

Here in Canada the Children's Aid Society has come under attack with false allegations of child abuse, sex abuse, and even the obvious corruption of their models to attack fathers, ie the model of abuse, "men who abuse, women and children victims', a black and white model that is false logic. This has been well documented and should be part of this. --Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In the UK
Someone close to me, was molested by her father twice when she was younger. This happened when she was in the UK. She went to the police and guess what! The police did nothing. I also think the fact that she is goth-like in appearance had something to do with it. She was also beaten by her mother and step mother and the cops didn't believe her. Just goes to show you how lazy the cops in Leeds Bradford are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler Warren (talk • contribs) 10:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Child Abuse numbers
In 2007, I heard a TV evangelist say that 2 million children were hospitalized (in one year?) in the U.S. for injuries resulting from abuse. If this number is not correct, the true number should be included in this article. Also, the U.S. and U.K. are much better at collecting crime statstics than many other countries, which could explain why the crime numbers are high for these two countries. Countries with less money and organized resources to detect and collect correct crime statistics, tend to appear to have less crime. 76.81.194.199 21:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Request a link
The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good child abuse resource. The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.

The child abuse page of this site consists of a compilation of websites providing a comprehensive view of child abuse, from the maltreatment of infants to adolescents. Topics examined include the psychological effects of child abuse and the effects of physical child abuse and neglect. Possible causes of child abuse in America are detailed, and child abuse definition is provided. Teamme 15:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The DMOZ directory is already a compilation of links, but this one might be a good supplement; it contains one of the links already there, so by replacing one we actually get four. WLU 15:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Link removed
The following link is very much on subject and a positive resource for teens and kids suffering from child abuse. Please return it.


 * Kids in Trouble Help Page The Kids in Trouble Help Page has helped many teens by being a user friendly place where Kids and Teens can find the Help they need in all kinds of situations including, Suicide, Child Abuse, Depression and Runaways. Site includes links to all kinds of helpful info, and stories of other kids who have dealt with similar issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endabusenow (talk • contribs) 12:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well whomever removed the link is not interested in returning it or commenting I will be returning the link. Please discuss here before removing.Endabusenow (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there was no discussion I went and readded your and my links back in, and now i've received a "warning" from WLU. I hope that this is not yet another act of censorship in Wikipedia, but just in case i am archiving the most complete version of this article on Anarchopedia. 77.236.236.6 (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A single link ala the one to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline in the Suicide entry is fine, but we're trying to maintain the appearance of an encyclopedia entry (i.e. a scholarly appearance; somewhat similar presentation to the online versions of Britannica, Columbia, Encarta, etc.) rather than an activist page, so, many links are problematic. Thanks. El_C 11:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:EL, links are to be kept to a minimum, and are to be informative. Your statement that we are censoring wikipedia is a common mis-understanding as it is not censorship but notability that determines coverage.  Pages are kept to a notable minimum - there is no evidence that that Anarchopedia has received the kind of secondary coverage in a reliable source that indicates it should have a wikipedia page (see WP:WEB for more information on web page notability).
 * Regards the external link, look at WP:5P - we are building an encyclopedia. How is the link to Kids in Trouble Help Page encyclopedic?  How is it informative?  How is it adding to the page?  What reliable information could it add?  Does it discuss, in a scholarly manner, the nature, development, sequelae and precursors of child abuse?  Does it have scholarly information?  Based solely on the advertisements alone, in addition, it could be removed as an external link, barring discussion saying it is worthwhile.  Who has oversight on the on-line content?  A single person?  A board?  Are any of them recognized for their contributions towards the study or treatment of child abuse?  Why is their opinion important?  Is it informed?  Or is it just an advocacy site with no major national or international attention?  Consider that if we allowed this link on the page, what excuse would we have for not including every single link supplied by any person, church, organization, city, county, province, state, and country in the world.  The line must be drawn, and it makes sense.  It is for these broad and narrow reasons that the link was removed from the page.  WLU (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding 'Kids in Trouble Help Page', it is adding to the page because it provides an approach not present in the page, the same as 'Child Abuse in the Global North'. The former talks in the way which is non-encyclopaedic, and as you have admitted it cannot be done here; the latter discusses child abuse in relation to different forms of abuse children endure. You are building encyclopedia, and that is fine, there is a huge difference between not being a link farm and implementing a partial propaganda model relating to sourcing of the material. Note that you are not arguing at any point that the material present before the removal needs to be included in the article (perhaps after it is rewritten in the more encyclopaedic way), but you are saying that it should not be present at all. I can understand the concern about opening the door to having "every single link supplied by any person, church, ...", but the links removed were unique, and thus their removal only limited the scope of the article rather than making it concise. 77.236.236.6 (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE - if it's a mainstream theory, we should link to the actual reliable sources, not a random webpage. If it is only the opinion of the KiTHP editor, it should not be on wikipedia.  Either way, it's not an appropriate addition.  WLU (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Child abuse in government agencies
I was surprised to read the first paragraph of the article which says, in part, that "... large numbers of cases of child abuse have been identified within some organizations involving children, such as ... government agencies." Here is the paragraph:


 * "Child abuse is the physical, emotional or sexual abuse or neglect of children by parents, guardians, or others. While most child abuse happens in the child's home, large numbers of cases of child abuse have been identified within some organizations involving children, such as churches, schools, child care businesses, and in particular native residential schools,[1] or in government agencies.[2]"

The cited article makes the point that one government agency has not been able to protect children to the degree desired, not that government agencies were abusing large numbers of children. While I think this entire paragraph is inadequately referenced, I am deleting the reference to government agencies from the statement. Dougz1 (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is important to date this article. That is during the last 30 years abuses 'BY THE SYSTEM' were ignored, and if you correct the article to include systemic abuse, should point out these truths are relative to time...

Good work Dougz1 !

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

YouTube Inverview of Foster Parent
If someone were to interview a foster care parent on youtube, who cares for abused children via the proper court and social agencies, would that video be considered as encylopedic quality?100TWdoug (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. See reliable sources, there would be no degree of oversight or quality control.  Couldn't be a source or external link.  WLU (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

At what point would this be unacceptable (hypothetical): The person doing the interview is: a former US President, the Head of HHS, a sitting Senator, a Congressional candidate, a local sheriff, a small-town police officer, a legal clerk, etc. I am only 2 months on WP and still learning - this is not meant to be polemic. Thanks 100TWdoug (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It'd basically have to be a youtube video of a show or other media that has been overseen by a professional - basically the youtube video is used because there's no other way of linking to it. I can't think of an occasion where a video you, me, or anyone else makes themselves that would work as an EL or RS, possibly if it's about the person making the video.  You might want to look into WP:SPS, WP:PSTS, WP:V, and WP:MEDRS, which applies to medical topics only but gives some good ideas about high-quality sources in general.  Also, WP:EL might be good - most videos would be more appropriate as ELs than sources.  WLU (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Very good, thanks.100TWdoug (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we have the true drama of a catastrophy?
Child Abuse is much worse than depicted in this article. As an Abused Child, I know that Human Beings shouldn't have to known about this matter. Personally, I like to think it never happened, so why don't the moderators on the article add a section about the trama and side effects. Never think that children forget about what happens to them as an infant, because they don't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.68.247 (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As an infant? Most people cannot remember that far back. But as for children, you're right, they don't. Unless, understandably, they have blocked it out. Flyer22 (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether they remember, it could certainly cause brain damage, whether from impacts, chemicals, shaking, or from cell death as a result of stress. Abused children grow up to become unsuccessful adults. Erudecorp ? * 21:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is too negative!
In the effects of child abuse section, this article has chosen to highlight only percieved "negative" effects. If denunciatory pseudo-encyclopedic information is all this article can offer to the world, then why even list "negative effects" - and not just... "effects"? Aren't there some at least some short-term effects which are beneficial, such as obedience, passiveness in a child, and opportunities (often spent, in some horiffic cases) to expand one's artistic abilities and interests. 67.172.52.235 (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This would require extremely reliable sources to verify the existence of said benefits. WLU (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Pornography
See copy below of material posted to wrong page. It may be of use here. Haiduc (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC) "Child Pornography" Pederasty is often associated with child pornography; "The production, possession, and distribution of child pornography are deeply interwoven in the activities of pedophiles, pederasts, and those involved in rings, sexual trafficking, child prostitution, and, more recently, the Internet" (Crosson-Tower 2007). Some researchers say that the Internet contacts increase paedophilia. For example psychology professor Miguel Angel states that “not all paedophiles become pederasts, but "when someone carries a desire inside, he will tend to try to make it reality",, and the Internet provides a potential catalyst for pederasts and other sexual perverts who may go from images to the real thing. According to ANESVAD the Internet facilitates contact between paedophiles (those who feel attracted to children) or pederasts (those who commit sexual abuse with minors).

I would like to change the definition of child abuse
There are four primary types of child abuse, including, neglect, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse. Within these four types, there are many differnt types.

Neglect: 1. Physical neglect a. failure to provide adequate food, clothing, or hygiene 2. Educational neglect a. Failure to enroll child into school 3. Emotional neglect a. Inadequate nurturing or affection

Physical abuse: a. Striking a child with the hand, fist, or foot or with an object b. Burning the child with a hot object c. Shaking, pushing, or throwing a child d. Pinching or biting the child e. Pulling a child by the hair f. Cutting off a child’s air.

Sexual abuse: a. Behavior involving penetration b. Fondling c. Violations of privacy d. Exposing children to adult sexuality e. Exploitation

Emotional abuse: a. Verbal abuse b. Withholding affection c. Extreme punishment d. Corruption

Please let me know what you think, if you want me to add more just let me know. Thanks --Alexshelley (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Maltreatment?
The word maltreatment used as the prime adjective defining this term simply redirects to the abuse article. I don't think it is very informative at all. Could maltreatment get a separate article or just be thrown out and 'abuse' be used if all it is going to do is redirect there? In that case, abuse should be clearly defined to explain exactly what it is and is not. Tyciol (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

False Allegations of Child Abuse
It is becoming more apparent that false allegations within systems dealing with child abuse are a problem. Most noted is that of William Mullins-Johnson and others who were falsely accused of child abuse cases and spent years in jail until the patholigists reports came into question.

Let me point out that in research and observations there has been a hidden agenda to attack fathers and parents, and to create chaos by a sub system out of control.

I am surprised that this sub section has not been added sooner...Like anything from The Church to well anything it can be corrupted with too much power.

Child abuse has been manipulated as has spousal abuse to promote imbalanced models...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Children who abuse.
The current listing is somewhat imbalanced.

Child abuse, in the abuse of a child by someone or some system...currently children who abuse children is not included.

Same with children who abuse, that is child abuse, ie children who abuse.

The current info needs an unbiased source to present a more balanced and truer model for the child abuse.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to add more NPOV to this article under the 'Types' section, but ClueBot flagged my edit as vandalism and reverted it. And now, the link for submitting a false positive is down.

Pink minion (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Child abuse.
Child abuse.

The term should also include the abuse by children.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Causes section
The section on causes of child abuse has been controversial in the past. I do think, however, that omitting any discussions of cause is a massive omission, as (a) it has been studied extensively in the scholarly literature, perhaps more extensively than anything else related to child abuse, and (b) it's critical to any discussion of proposed solutions and is discussed in most of the scholarly literature on child abuse.

I just recreated the section. I think we should make sure we write it in a skeptical tone and source it very tightly--talking about cause can be problematic and controversial, especially with a complex issue like this one. But I would like to see other editors chip in too! What I added there is barely a start. Cazort (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No Data of Family Formation
When both the biological father and the biological mother of the child are present, neglect and abuse PLUMMET. Far more wikipedia development is needed in presenting the many data points on this matter. homebuilding75.27.230.145 (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Then please do it! Alarics (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Combined effects of birth control and sexual liberation
Couldn't there be social factors that would enter the equation and make the probability of child abuse much more likely ? For instance, in a society which allows abortion in order to regulate the number of people being born, there are comparatively few children and adults have much time for leisure on their hands. At the same time, the undesired effects of sexual liberation produce a situation where pedophilia tends to become much more widespread. This dreadful scenario of less and less kids and more and more pedophiles is what some contemporary sociologists have termed "pedophile society", because children are progressively marginalized and tend to a grow up in an environment that systematically devalues them and abuses them. ADM (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This reasoning sounds a lot like WP:original research (and alarmist rhetoric) to me. If you can find WP:Reliable sources that back this up without the need for original research, then we could include it on the page.  But I'm not finding any.  I just searched google scholar for "pedophile society" and it gets no hits.  Evidently, if "some contemporary sociologists" are using this term, they're not using it in published works in peer-reviewed journals.  Cazort (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

New comments
I am an inexperienced Wikipedia user, but I was looking here to see if there was more information regarding child abuse and crime, and noticed that there was nothing here. I already found the following study, and thought that someone might be interested in adding this information to the article under effects. They claim that child abuse "approximately doubles the probability of engaging in many types of crime."

http://aysps.gsu.edu/publications/2006/downloads/CurrieTekin_ChildAbuse.pdf -  Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Research Paper Series Does Child Abuse Cause Crime? Janet Currie Columbia University, UCLA and NBER Erdal Tekin Georgia State University and NBER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.205.111 (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

- There is a line under "Prevalence" that says:

"Recently a study conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that 1 in 50 infants in the United States are victims of nonfatal neglect or abuse.[1]"

The source:

^ a b c Leeb RT; Paulozzi LJ; Melanson C; Simon TR & Arias I (2008-01-01). "Child Maltreatment Surveillance: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/CMP/CMP-Surveillance.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-20.

I am researching child abuse in America, and so was puzzled by the sentence referenced here. Not only could I not find support for the "1 in 50 infants" result in the document (yes, I searched through all 148 pages, but conceivably could have missed something) but that number would automatically give child abuse a baseline incidence rate of 2%, which the study that was quoted as the source for the comment does not support. The study states that the documented rate of abuse within the population of children in America is 11.9/1000 (which would be 1.19%). Even when it mentions that "CPS may investigate fewer than half the actual number of maltreatment cases", that does not provide a specific number, or suggest anything that could be translated into the "1 in 50 infants" remark (section 2:3, or the 11th page of the .pdf as a whole).

Because of this, I am putting the sentence in for deletion, as it does not seem supported by evidence. If I am wrong to do so, I hope that someone more factually informed than me corrects my correction. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baumanrm (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection/Vandalism
This page seems to be attracting a relatively high amount of vandalism lately...does anyone else think WP:Semiprotection is warranted? Cazort (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, at the moment it seems OK. This is quite a high-traffic page, I see from the stats. Alarics (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition
The first sentence in the article states that child abuse is physical mistreatment, whilst the four categories mentioned two sentences later are; neglect, physical abuse, psychological/emotional abuse, and sexual abuse. Shouldn’t the first sentence then be changed to: ”Child abuse is the physical or psychological mistreatment of children” or something similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godtadet (talk • contribs) 08:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the first sentence accordingly. Alarics (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

reporting child abuse
It is very important that there is imformation on how to correctly report child abuse, it can be very difficult when you see child abuse to know what to do about it. I have had situations to which I feel I need to do something, only to be let down and threatened by the police for doing this. It is also important in ensuring we can prevent these crimes occuring and even wikipedians may save a child's life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.134.84 (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadomasochism
Do laws against child abuse cover the likelihood of sadomasochism ? I think that the case of child abuse would be the only case in which the modern practice of sadomasochism would be effectively outlawed. ADM (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Physical abuse entails too much philosophy, not enough law
This article appears to be primarily about law and matters closely related. The physical abuse section has 2/3 of its content devoted to philosophical argument about what constitutes abuse and the morality of corporal punishment of children. The content of these paragraphs is not only prejudicial, but the discussion itself is unneeded, as this is gone over in detail in the many articles covering corporal punishment on the whole. I will be removing these two paragraphs.

Suggestions for additions can include such things as legal procedings and perhaps brief and concise mentions of laws in different countries on what constitutes physical abuse.Legitimus (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain what you mean by "prejudicial" in the above comment? -- Alarics (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have replied sooner but this article is not in my watchlist and I forgot about it. My primary objection was that the paragraphs in question were clearly trying to debate morality of corporal punishment, not abuse.  They were also prejudicial because for one this was not a balanced section, and some of the arguments offered were odd in that they were just opinions by specific people.  Their comments lacked generalizability.  But again this is besides the point, "child abuse" generally speaking is a legal term.  If an action is legal and socially accepted, then it's no longer "abuse."Legitimus (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have singlehandedly overhauled the Abuse article. It is a very diverse concept and it is quite arbitrary as to what abuses are legal and what illegal. This article should have far less legal stuff and philosophy and far more social psychology. --Penbat (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

New comments
I am an inexperienced Wikipedia user, but I was looking here to see if there was more information regarding child abuse and crime, and noticed that there was nothing here. I already found the following study, and thought that someone might be interested in adding this information to the article under effects. They claim that child abuse "approximately doubles the probability of engaging in many types of crime."

http://aysps.gsu.edu/publications/2006/downloads/CurrieTekin_ChildAbuse.pdf -  Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Research Paper Series Does Child Abuse Cause Crime? Janet Currie Columbia University, UCLA and NBER Erdal Tekin Georgia State University and NBER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.205.111 (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

- There is a line under "Prevalence" that says:

"Recently a study conducted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that 1 in 50 infants in the United States are victims of nonfatal neglect or abuse.[1]"

The source:

^ a b c Leeb RT; Paulozzi LJ; Melanson C; Simon TR & Arias I (2008-01-01). "Child Maltreatment Surveillance: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/CMP/CMP-Surveillance.htm. Retrieved on 2008-10-20.

I am researching child abuse in America, and so was puzzled by the sentence referenced here. Not only could I not find support for the "1 in 50 infants" result in the document (yes, I searched through all 148 pages, but conceivably could have missed something) but that number would automatically give child abuse a baseline incidence rate of 2%, which the study that was quoted as the source for the comment does not support. The study states that the documented rate of abuse within the population of children in America is 11.9/1000 (which would be 1.19%). Even when it mentions that "CPS may investigate fewer than half the actual number of maltreatment cases", that does not provide a specific number, or suggest anything that could be translated into the "1 in 50 infants" remark (section 2:3, or the 11th page of the .pdf as a whole).

Because of this, I am putting the sentence in for deletion, as it does not seem supported by evidence. If I am wrong to do so, I hope that someone more factually informed than me corrects my correction. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baumanrm (talk • contribs) 23:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)