Talk:Child abuse/Archive 2

More books to cite
Please use this source Child Abuse: Understanding the Problem by Paul Johnson to fully expand the article, as the book It's Not The Media: The Truth About Pop Culture's Influence On Children by Karen Sternheimer cites it.--RekishiEJ (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

About how different cultures view child abuse
This is important, as in China if a parent uses corporal punishment to discipline his child, he won't be sued unless this does cause disability, heavy injury or death to the child, however in present Sweden or Spain he will be charged with abuse if the event is verified. Please search for reliable sources and add these facts to the article.--RekishiEJ (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By "sued" I think you mean "charged." "Sue" to most English-speakers refers to civil actions (one citizen sues another) and not criminal charges (government tries and punishes for a crime).  But your point is well taken.  I would say physical child abuse tends to be the first subject that pops into most people's head when they hear "child abuse,"  but the section is quite lacking in general.  The linked article physical abuse from that section is also not only very short, but very broad, referring to abuse of adults as well.  I will see what I can do to add more information on the general subject.  I have several textbooks that should make good objective sources.Legitimus (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2010 (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)

Parental abuse
Parental abuse redirects here but really needs to be covered in more detail as it is child abuse in a specific context - there are quite a few academic papers on this. Also there is the possibility of children abusing parents using bad behaviour etc. --Penbat (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2010 (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)

The word "child abuse" implies, like "alcohol abuse" and "drug abuse" that there is a "correct" or "moderate" way to use a child. The terminology should be changed to child mistreatment (as it is in many other languages, eg. Kindermishandeling). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.88.67 (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per suggestion I created redirect from child mistreatment to this article. Zodon (talk) 07:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Im trying to edit on the reporting child abuse section and I would like to know if anyone knows were I can find this information.--Jennypl (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

More information
The article should be edited to give more information about the life-destroying effects of paedophilia. For example, the victims of paedophilia are six times more likely to commit suicide and are eight times more likely to repeatedly attempt suicide throughout their lives. The victims of abuse in childhood are three times more likely to suffer from depression or to commit suicide with the victims of paedophila being the most affected with a 40% higher number of them suffering from depression than the victims of all the other types of abuse. This is important information and will give the reader a much greater understanding of the issue, including the damaging effects mentioned above.Link to the Life-Destroying Effects of Paedophilia

Thank You! Measure of love Abuse and neglect is an issue that is seldom discussed yet it occurs every minute of every day. Abuse and neglect can be visually seen and heard, but the effects can be silent and unseen to the public eye. I witnessed this firsthand while I worked for a children’s shelter in Austin, Texas. We would care and protect the abused, neglected, and abandoned. My first group of children that I cared for at the shelter changed my life and opened my eyes to what their reality is. I cared for a brother and a sister, a 3year old boy and an 18 month old girl. These two children have endured severe abuse, neglect, and had been found with traces of meth in their systems. The 3 year old boy had developed autism and we were required to psychologically test him for mental retardation. The boy had never learned a language and did not have any word recognition. He was never fed properly by his family, therefore his body was underdeveloped and could not handle new foods. The boy would inflict pain upon himself and physically hurt others. He would have tantrums that lasted hours. He would also scream throughout the night and get minimal sleep. The 18 month old girl had not developed any language, and she displayed signs of hitting her head. She was underdeveloped physically, and had a tendency to never feel full. She had physical lacerations and bruises, and she also had a hard time sleeping through the night. I watched these children grow and heal every day from their maltreatment. This story is an example of how brain chemistry changes as a result from abuse and a lack of nurturing. Cognitive development was hindered due to the brain chemistry alterations. Their behavior resulted from environmental causes and intensive psychological issues. These children are examples of the cycle of abuse and neglect. There are thousands of kids a year that can relate to this tragedy. Mistreatment of children is found in every type of home. The government and human services recognize that 78 percent of maltreatment is neglect. Neglect is the lack of attention a living being needs. This may include but does not exclude examples of, ignoring medical needs, lack of proper feedings, lack in caring for hygiene, and not forming a personal nurturing bond. In the year 2010, 3.6 million children had at least one report to child protective services of abuse and/or neglect (humanservices.gov). While some cases are found without any evidence of cruelty, unfortunately 16 percent of these types of cases are not reported (Sharples). The effects of ill-treatment can be severe and even in some cases result in death. Pediatrics Magazine reported that more than 300 children die each year from abuse and neglect (Rochman). Violence and avoiding care for a child in need of nurturing, can also have many effects on the human body and brain. Abuse and neglect is not specific with children by demographics or stereotypes. Some demographical stereotypes are believed to have poverty stricken areas that are more likely to have abuse and neglect. The government reports (gov) that the amount of abused and neglected children come from every type of community. Although the wealthy community does not have as many reports of abuse due to the difficulty of detecting and recording conflicts, these communities still have an abundance of mistreated children. Additionally, children have a tendency to model the behavior in their environment; therefore, they are likely to become a product of their surroundings. Adaptation for survival can mean that the child mimics the treatment given to them. For example, if a child is treated with violence, they tend to have self-harming behaviors. This is also an example, and a result, of why professionals see mistreated children to be aggressive and violent. There are several factors as to how and why abuse and neglect have psychological effects and disturbances on an individual’s psyche. Children who suffer from abandonment or with cruelty, are affected psychologically due to the fact they are in vital stages in their lives when they are in need of nurturing. Abuse and neglect scar a child by altering a child's brain chemistry, with a lack of cognitive development, and by creating negative or aggressive behaviors. There are several studies across the globe that analyze mistreated children’s brain alterations. From infancy to age 25 our brains are developing, especially in the frontal lobe region. The frontal lobe region is the lobe dedicated to our character, decision making, and higher processes. “Recent neurological studies have revealed that the structure of a child’s brain remains surprisingly malleable months and even years after birth" (Wright). Malleable brain matter means that the brain is vulnerable to being shaped and changed. “The number of connections between nerve cells in an infant’s brain grows more than twenty-fold in the first few months of life” (Wright). The beginning months determine the ability and the progression in cell development. During the early years of life children are most vulnerable for the possibility of growth in the brain. At this time of life, nurturing bonds are most important. The bond of nurturing creates an environment for the most effective growth. Children that form appropriate loving bonds early on in the beginning stages of life have a higher probability of cell development. If the appropriate nurturing has not occurred in a child’s life, this will derail growth patterns. In a non-nurturing situation, the brain alters and does not grow normally. “Researchers found, however, that the more types of trauma a child had experienced, the less gray matter (brain cell bodies) they had in certain key regions" (Szalavitz). This explains why researchers find that child victims of abuse and neglect have less brain density. The cells grow much more efficiently when a child has had the proper nurturing. The stimulus from nurturing bonds increase synapse connections. These synapse connections create brain matter and cell development. Nurturing is the most effective way to create a learning and positively stimulating environment. These are extremely important to help a child develop and sort the synapses into the proper brain regions for cell. Current Biology conducted a study measuring brain matter growth from maltreated children, which Time Magazine reported on the study’s findings. The study showed MRI reports of children who have experienced abuse and/or neglect and show significant changes in several parts of the brain. “Overall maltreatment was associated with reductions in volume in the prefrontal cortex (PFC), the brain region involved in deliberation, self-control and planning, and in the amygdala, which processes all types of emotions but is best known for its role in fear" (Szalavitz). This evidence is known for the causes of developing mental illness for children. “Less gray matter as also seen in the striatum, a region involved in motivation, desire and pleasure (Szalavitz).” This shows the reasons why ill-treated children have a lack of motivation and goal setting. 	Other study observations draw a correlation between abused and neglected children with drugs and alcohol addictions or curiosity. This area of the brain lacks in simple pleasures, thus the need for addiction. The brain can develop the disease of addiction with the lack of brain matter in the appropriate regions. People who’d been physically punished were 1.6 times more likely to abuse alcohol, and 1.5 times more likely to abuse drugs" (Szalavitz). All of the brain disturbances from abuse and neglect alter the development of cells. Without the proper brain development, the individual will not properly develop cells for cognitive growth.

Cognitive development is brain growth that allows an individual to become “intelligent” (Miller-Keane). Intelligence is related to a person’s schema or perception in the person’s environment. Development of cognitive properties will lack in growth when an individual is under stress. Children who experience high volumes of stress and trauma can suffer from the inability to control their impulses. The impulses are a result of the abused or neglected individual’s tainted schema of themselves and their environment. Impulse control has a correlation to abused and neglected children with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Many foster care children are diagnosed with ADD or ADHD. Human Services department for the government has seen an overwhelming amount of children diagnosed with an impulse control disorder. The disorder relates to a lack of development from their previous or ongoing maltreatment. Time magazine states those children who have had an abusive or neglected history unconsciously respond with the possibility of having mood disorders, depression, and/or mania. These disorders are linked back to the concept of having a tainted schema. Children of abuse and neglect are known as “At-Risk-Youth”, this means that they are at risk for addiction, mental illness, and underdevelopment for cognitive processes. The risk of depression alone was 1.4 times greater, which was the same rate for anxiety with children who suffer from maltreatment"(Szalavitz). These statistics are in comparison to those who have not been abused or neglected. When the pattern of maltreatment has affected the begin stages of life, the process of escaping the perception is extremely difficult. The schema of an abused or neglected child leave mental scars that continue and evolve into mental disorders. Mental disorders range from bi-polar disorder, manic depressive disorder, depression, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and ADD/ADHD. These mental illnesses inhibit an individual to learn and develop to their full potential. Children with reduced cognitive development have a harder time in school and finding a solid occupation. Cognitive development also is the center development with the ability to focus, learn, and think. Children of abused and neglected situations are trying to balance their everyday schedule along with their schema or perception of life. Therefore, the children have a difficult time making appropriate decisions, being focused in school, and creating higher processes all with reduced cognitive development. The brain chemistry alterations affect the cognitive development which then leads to an individual’s behavior. “Early childhood environment plays in determining adult behavior” (Wright). The environment in which someone is brought up can determine how someone reacts and behaves to life situations. The reinforcement by abusive or negligent adults aids the guidance in children behaving poorly in the future. There is a substantial amount of evidence that explains behavior in relation to an environment. Time magazine reported on a study conducted with neglected apes; the study results are consistent with children that are in neglectful situations compared to organized scientific studies. The study contained four groups of chimps with different types of neglect. One group contained an isolation group that later joined a group of isolated chimps called “peers”. One group grew up in a pure isolation with a cloth bottle known as “the cloth mother”. Another group contained all baby chimp “peers” without any nurturing adult chimps. The last group was a nurturing adult chimp and a baby chimp, for the control study. The group of chimps that started in isolation and later joined the “peer” group of other baby chimps, showed that in this group the chimps had more anger and developed aggressive behavior. The female chimps in this group were the most aggressive. They showed signs of hair pulling, fighting, and causing physical harm. This group in particular correlates abused and neglected children in child protective services at shelters or group homes. The behavior explains the correlation between learned behavior and a lack of nurturing. The group that was all “peers” from the beginning displayed similar behaviors as the group that started in isolation and then moved into a group of “peers”. The difference between the two groups were that the chimps who started in isolation and then joined the peers, showed self-harming behaviors. The chimps in the peer groups appeared to be very aggressive due to never having a nurturing environment. Groups of children who are isolated in early stages of life develop the behavior of depression, self-harm, and helplessness, whereas the peer group displayed more aggression towards each other and impulse control problems. The peer group chimps merely mimic the behaviors of others. When the chimps are abusive to each other, it also encouraged them to be abusive to themselves and others. These correlations are an example of social behaviorism. As an individual sees violence they behave violently. The isolation group with the “cloth mother” showed these behaviors as well. Researchers saw that chimps that are in isolation tend to have impulse control issues. These issues would lead to the chimps showing head banging, tearing their hair out, and physical tantrums that would result in bodily harm. The group of chimps that was raised by nurturing adult chimps had the most normal behavior. They had safe behaviors and developed naturally and efficiently. The conclusion of the study is that the less amount of nurturing an individual receives, is the result of impulsive, negative, and harmful behaviors. The negative behavior of abused and neglected children is a component to the development of the psyche as a result of maltreatment. Abuse and neglect is a traumatic and harmful event for any victim. Along with the physical harm that abuse and neglect leaves behind, there are significant psychological effects that are just as harmful. Scientific studies are a step closer to understanding the full effects on an ill-treated child’s psychological changes and how maltreatment will affect brain development. Altering brain chemistry by a lack of nurturing reduces the brain matter and cells that grow. The brain chemistry alterations lead to a lack of cognitive development for an. Children are suffering from mental illness due to all types of maltreatment. Children that suffer from these cognitive differences, tend to have erratic, irrational, depressive, and/or aggressive behaviors. Behaviors are developed from a lack of brain development and from environmental learned behaviors. All children deserve proper nurturing through their development years. Like the sibling group of the 3 year old boy, and the 18 month old girl, they suffered many injuries mentally and physically. After three months of continuous and consistent care, the children started to heal and begin a new life. The staff at the children’s shelter, would create a stable and predictable environment for the children. We would display love and would work through the tantrums and physical fits. The three year old boy had improved his appetite, developed word recognition for simple concepts, his tantrums lessened, his aggressive behavior decreased, he started wearing a specialized helmet to protect his head during head banging fits, he practiced a schedule, and learned how to transition from places and activities. The 18 month old girl regulated her diet, learned many new words, learned how to ask for items and hugs, developed a sense of identity, and decreased in her head banging fits completely. Their unfortunate experiences are very similar to the effects from the scientific studies. This is the harsh and cruel reality of the pain and scars of abuse and neglect. We as a human race can help stop abuse and neglect and step up and report suspicions of abuse and neglect activity.

Works Cited

"Becoming a Life Coach." Personal interview. 20 June 2012. Tiffany Smith

Park, Alice, Bonnie Rochman, and Alexandra Sifferlin. "Child Abuse Pediatricians Recommend Basic Parenting Classes to Reduce Maltreatment and Neglect | Healthland | TIME.com." Time. Time, 04 Apr. 2012. Web. 02 July 2012. .

Park, Alice, Bonnie Rochman, and Alexandra Sifferlin. "How Child Abuse Primes the Brain for Future Mental Illness | Healthland | TIME.com." Time. Time, 15 Feb. 2012. Web. 02 July 2012. .

Park, Alice, Bonnie Rochman, and Alexandra Sifferlin. "The Measure of a Mother's Love: How Early Deprivation Derails Child Development." Time. Time, 24 May 2012. Web. 02 July 2012. .

Park, Alice, Maia Szalavitz, Dr. Zachary F. Meisel, and Dr. Jesse M. Pines. "Hitting Kids Increases Their Risk of Mental Illness: Study | Healthland | TIME.com." Time. Time, 02 July 2012. Web. 11 July 2012. .

Park, Alice, Maia Szalavitz, Dr. Zachary F. Meisel, and Dr. Jesse M. Pines. "How Child Maltreatment May Scar the Brain | Healthland | TIME.com." Time. Time, 7 Dec. 2011. Web. 11 July 2012. .

Sharples, Tiffany. "Study: Most Child Abuse Goes Unreported." Time. Time, 02 Dec. 2008. Web. 11 July 2012. . Unkown. "Child Abuse & Neglect." Child Abuse & Neglect. Humanservices.gov, n.d. Web. 11 July 2012. . Unknown. "Cognitive Development." TheFreeDictionary.com. Medicaldictionary, 2007. Web. 11 July 2012. .

Wright, Karen. "Mind & Brain / Family Health." Babies, Bonds, and Brains. Discover Magazine, 1 Oct. 1997. Web. 02 July 2012. . Alyssa Vinyard

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.138.129 (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse is also strongly connected to the development of addictive behavior, complex post-traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder.[19][20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.138.129 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLehany (talk • contribs)

A number of the life-destroying effects of paedophilia can become visible when the victim gets older while not being visible at the time of the abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLehany (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your edit where you swapped material around so that the paragraph of the effects of CSA came before a description of what it was. It is generally more logical to define what something is before going on to outline effects or other aspects. Fainites barley scribs 22:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you please stop spamming this request to all articles loosely related to child sexual abuse? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Material to work into prevention section
The following material seems relevant to the section on prevention. Another editor reverted addition, so moving here for reworking before reinsertion. Suggestions to improve phrasing? (Sources for both are IOM book on Unintended Pregnancy, already cited in the article.) Zodon (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Affordable contraceptive services should form the basis for child abuse prevention. "The starting point for effective child abuse programming is pregnancy planning" according to an analysis for US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop

There being no further discussion, I have restored the material in a slightly expanded version. Zodon (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Psych 101 Review

 * Tons of information, i liked the detail and the it was referenced

(Sterney21 (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC))

I liked the information but felt like on some of the different types of child neglect there could be more detail supporting the different types. I might try and find some and put it up. But good info. Stabers (talk) 03:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

BriahWilliams Addition
Very thurough sentences adding valuable information to the cite. very good! Claire Tracy (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great job editors on the fluidity of the page. I added some wikilinks to the physical abuse section because it looked like it was lacking, but it reads great.AcuteAccusation (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Psych 101 Review
Great contribution to the article, and I believed you cited it correctly. Tophermith (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion request
See User_talk:Leo711 for the dispute discussion, but please continue the discussion here. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 15:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding this. The existence of additional online sources which can be used to support the statement in question seems to address Leo711's only objection, so I have WP:BOLDly added two of them (including the one you found) to the article.  Leo711, if I'm wrong and you don't find this solution acceptable, please let me know what specific problem you have with it so that we can work towards another remedy. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I'll keep this on my watchlist in case Leo has any objections.JoelWhy (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I see User:Arthur Rubin has removed the entirety of the text from the section on the grounds of undue weight. I agree that having this sentence as the sole content of the section is giving it undue weight, but the reason the section was so short to begin with is that it was almost the only sourced material remaining from what used to be three paragraphs of text. Would anyone object if I restored (with some modifications) the referenced portion of the section from a few years ago (see below)? It seemed to me to be pretty neutral, but I've reworded it slightly so that it's less likely to be understood as setting out a list of sufficient (as opposed to merely necessary) conditions for the definition of physical abuse. With this more substantial content the mention at the end of some peoples' association of corporal punishment with child abuse doesn't seem to be such a focus."Physical abuse involves physical aggression directed at a child by an adult. Most nations with child-abuse laws consider the deliberate infliction of serious injuries, or actions that place the child at obvious risk of serious injury or death, to be illegal. Beyond this, there is considerable variation. The distinction between child discipline and abuse is often poorly defined. Cultural norms about what constitutes abuse vary widely: among professionals as well as the wider public, people do not agree on what behaviors constitute abuse. Some professionals claim that cultural norms that sanction physical punishment are one of the causes of child abuse, and have undertaken campaigns to redefine such norms."—Psychonaut (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with anything in that paragraph.JoelWhy (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable, if the sources actually say that. I haven't verified it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I have three issues with this paragraph, Psychonaut:
 * 1. It is strongly biased in favor of admitting that physical punishment IS physical abuse of the child, which violates the NPOV rule and the rule, the name of which I don't remember, but which states that controvercial opinions shouldn't be put in the articles. I'd like to remind you that this is an encyclopedia, not a debate forum.
 * 2. It only observes the situation of an adult abusing a child, which only ONE of the manifestations of physical abuse. It says absolutely nothing about peer abuse, bullying, hazing, etc. This needs to be addressed.
 * 3. This paragraph describes the situation in the USA, rather than globally, which should also be reflected. I think I saw a tag about it.

Could you address those issues before you put up the suggested paragraph. Nomad (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What, specifically, about the paragraph leads you to believe it's biased in favour of admitting that physical punishment is physical abuse? I already rewrote the paragraph in an attempt to avoid this (for example, by changing "Physical abuse is physical aggression directed at a child" to "Physical abuse involves physical aggression…").  I think I understand your second point but would ask whether this might not arise out of a language fluency issue; in English the term "child abuse" is not normally used to refer to child-on-child violence.  Peer abuse is therefore outside of the scope of this article.  Your third point doesn't appear to have anything to do with the paragraph under discussion, but is rather a criticism of the article as a whole.  You can add a globalize tag to the top of the article if you feel it doesn't reflect a worldwide view. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. That's a question easy to answer. While the section is called "Physical abuse", which has a lot of forms and aspects to it, only one form of abuse is described which leads to the appearance that only one form exists. It puts emphasis on this particular aspect of physical abuse.
 * There is a whole separate article called "Physical abuse" and there is a link to that as the main source of information. I don't see the reason to pick out just one manifestation of a phenomenon and put it in the section dedicated to the WHOLE thing. Do you?
 * I strongly believe that the link to the main article "Physical abuse" is enough and highlighting some specific forms of that is making the article biased and controvercial. Nomad (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An example has just rolled into my head. Imagine there's an article about France and a section called "French cuisine". And a link to the main article "French cuisine". And then all of sudden a paragraph like "French cheese is very tasty and many people agree it's better than Swiss one". Would you find this somewhat strange that cheese is being singled out in a French cuisine section?
 * You're doing the same in this article, singling out ONE aspect of a phenomenon. Nomad (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The "main article" link to the Physical abuse article is misleading as it is not concerned primarily with physical abuse of children. I note you did not answer my question about what specifically in the paragraph you found objectionable.  Do you deny that some people believe there is a link (whether or not the nature of that link is equality) between child abuse and corporal punishment, and that they were numerous and politically powerful enough to launch notable legal and social campaigns against the practice, as the three sources indicate?  If not, then what specific proposals do you have for rephrasing the section so that it indicates this in a neutral manner?  If you do deny this fact, then please provide evidence that the three sources contributed by JoelWhy, Cazort, and myself are unreliable or incorrect.  —Psychonaut (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What three sources? I don't see anything that OPENS. Nomad (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The ones present in yesterday's version of the article: 1, 2, and 3. In order to "open" the first one you need to go to your local library. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to change your paragraph. I'm just saying it shouldn't be there. And you can call whatever friends you have left in here, but it won't change the fact - you're trying to single out one aspect of a phenomenon which is a wrong thing to do. There's a link to the main article and that's enough. Clean, commonly agreed upon and neutral. Nomad (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange; first your only objection to the sentence the fact that the cited source wasn't available online. When it was pointed out to you that citations to print sources are acceptable under our policies, you changed your argument, claiming that the book didn't exist at all.  When two uninvolved editors found two additional sources which were available online, you changed your objection yet again to the grounds of undue weight.  When the section was expanded with additional material to reduce the weight given to the sentence's subject matter (which assuaged the concerns of two other editors here), you still weren't satisfied, and moreover refuse to indicate what sort of additional material needs to be provided so that the sentence doesn't appear to be singling out a particular aspect.  If you have any other (policy-based) objections to the section in question, would you mind listing them all now so that they can be addressed together rather than one at a time? —Psychonaut (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had the time to look at this in detail but the paragraph above seems reasonable to me. I do think though that the main article link is misleading. Perhaps that link could be removed and collapsed into the text, either as a wikilink from the term "Physical abuse" in the first sentence, or as an explicit statement about the types of physical abuse. --regentspark (comment) 12:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I've had the chance to look at the text in the light of Leo711's concerns, (1) I don't agree with point 1. The text (of the paragraph above) clearly states that inflection of injuries is abuse but that there is a great deal of gray between discipline and abuse. It would be nice to see some cultural context over here, particularly since the "main article" does not talk about it at all, but, as written, the text is clear. (2) I agree that the article is talking about physical abuse in terms of adult-child relations. The linked citation clearly states esp by those responsible for its welfare. Bullying, etc. is a different matter. (3) The article is US centric in its examples and statement of applicable laws or acts but it is likely that most of the material applies everywhere. Still, a tag may not be a bad idea, particularly because of cultural and regional differences in what qualifies as abuse. Regardless, I'd say that the para itself can be added verbatim to the article (though I suggest removing the main article link). --regentspark (comment) 15:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why you think a whole article is worse than a paragraph? We have an article dedicated to physical abuse. It needs work, but it's easier to work on one article than run around the place correcting multiple paragraphs in hundreds of them. Could you elaborate? Nomad (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand your objection. Of course there are many kinds of physical abuse but this article is about child abuse. Physical abuse of children by someone responsible for the child's welfare seems exactly the sort of thing that should go in this article. Interrelationships between articles is quite common on wikipedia and is a good thing. --regentspark (comment) 21:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, since I see this issue being one of the arguments, could someone tell me the difference between physical abuse of an adult and physical abuse of a child? APART from emotional consequences, it's the same things that constitute this aspect of abuse. I haven't been abused either as a kid or an adult, but I can say that a punch in the face hurts just as much at 8 as it does at 28. And I doubt all other forms of physical abuse change too much with age. Nomad (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Adults are generally considered responsible for themselves. Children are not. By your logic, we could get rid of this entire article and have a general one under the title of "abuse". --regentspark (comment) 21:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomad, there is no rule that says controversial opinions shouldn't be included. There is a rule that says fringe theories are generally excluded, but I don't think anyone would argue this is a fringe theory. In any case, I fail to understand how including a statement that some professionals believe "cultural norms that sanction physical punishment are one of the causes of child abuse" shouldn't be included in this page. It seems entirely relevant and not at all a violation of NPOV. It's not stating that this is scientifically proven, only that it's a theory. I see zero problem with it being included, and really do not understand why it was removed in the first place.JoelWhy (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion seems to have stalled. Almost everyone seems to have no problem with the paragraph proposed above, so I will add it, moving the link to physical abuse from the section subheading to the text itself. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious edits
Rather suspiciously, two different first-time editors have made back-to-back edits, pasting entire new sections into the article. The second of these edits I have reverted as most of the information seemed to be of the how-to variety. I'm still suspicious about the first one, though. Is it possible that someone whose material was removed from this article in the past is returning with a sockpuppet to reinsert it? —Psychonaut (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's start with assuming good faith, don't bother about the editors and just discuss the content. At least parts of the content is sourced material and could stay. Other parts need editing. I'll do a bit right now.  Lova Falk     talk   17:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

POV
A lot of iffy statements have been thrown into this article, attributed to various people with "Dr." or "PhD" or "JD" next to their name, which seems to suggest the entire statements were attempting to push a POV. I have only stripped the credentials from their names, but someone with more time to devote to Wikipedia right now might want to look over this article for POV statements, weasel words, etc. Kraŭs (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Child abuse
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Child abuse's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UN": From Eastern Europe: A Subdivision of Europe into Larger Regions by Cultural Criteria prepared by Peter Jordan, the framework of the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names (StAGN), Vienna, Austria, 2006 From Bhutan:  From Republic of Macedonia:  </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources for article:
I recommend these sources (and their summarized text) be incorporated into the article:

I know the 1998 Adverse Childhood Experiences Study is discussed in the Effects section, but its implications can be seen with high visual impact in these charts (scroll down the page): http://acestoohigh.com/got-your-ace-score/

There is now strong scientific evidence that adverse childhood experiences (child abuse) alters gene expression and shapes neural development in children shaping adult outcomes. Toxic Stress in children from child abuse is discussed in the following two short videos from the Harvard Center on the Developing Child: 1) http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/multimedia/videos/three_core_concepts/toxic_stress/ 2) http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/multimedia/videos/inbrief_series/inbrief_impact_of_adversity/

The Toxic Stress Response is presented in more detail here: http://developingchild.harvard.edu/topics/science_of_early_childhood/toxic_stress_response/

I don't have time right now to make the changes, but I hope these links are useful to the editors of this article. Youtalkfunny (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello, Youtalkfunny. When it comes to sourcing health information on Wikipedia, the standard is Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS); especially see what it states about review sources. Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see that you've been alerted to WP:MEDRS by Jmh649 (Doc James) on your talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been on call all last night Flyer22. I wasn't clear; let me clarify. I should have titled my suggestion "Items of Interest." The Harvard site provides an interesting & fascinating overview that editors of this page may be interested in. Review articles on Pubmed that summarize the research are available. My main point is that this article's subject is already being understood by neuroscience.Youtalkfunny (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC) Addendum: These step-by-step understandings (elucidated in the Harvard links) ought to be included in this article. Again, look on Pubmed for review articles. The Harvard link discusses recent scientific coverage & it is fascinating. Check out links other editors! Previous edit made by me.Youtalkfunny (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Youtalkfunny, you think that Douglas J. Besharov is relevant for a lead? OccultZone (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Child Abuse in UK
There should be a huge mention of UK, regarding the notable child abusers, rackets, etc.

But it might be WP:UNDUE, If I edit this article. I can make a separate page?(Got this suggestion from Tea House) OccultZone (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not clear why the UK deserves any greater mention than anywhere else. If you mean sexual abuse specifically, it is already mentioned in the "United States and Europe" section of the Child sexual abuse article.
 * What do you mean by "rackets"?
 * If you are referring to the Jimmy Savile allegations, there is already a separate article about that: Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal. -- Alarics (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed content added by sock puppet
On 2014 May 2 I removed a block of text that had been added by a blocked sock puppet account, Argon&Helium. Another user, PsychologyTrainer, added nearly the same block of text just two days later. Only noticed today when I saw the block and checked out user contribs. Removed again.

Text in question is below, should it pop up again (it might be added by someone else, but given how many socks are in that category anyone who does should probably address it on the talk page). --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  22:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Dyadic developmental psychotherapy has been found to be an effective and evidence-based treatment. It emphasizes the intersubjective sharing of experience and is a Family therapy type treatment.."

Parental abuse of children
There needs to be a "Parental abuse of children" section or separate article to match parental abuse by children. --Penbat (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Child abuse article is mostly about parental abuse of children. I assume that's why the Parental abuse by children article exists; the term child abuse usually refers to an adult abusing a child, especially a parent abusing their own child. So a Parental abuse of children article would be seen as an inappropriate WP:Content fork. Flyer22 (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Dyadic developmental psychotherapy as a treatment
I am a bit confused. Since there were empirical studies showing positive effects of Dyadic developmental psychotherapy doesn't that make it evidence based? Also, Craven & Lee found it to be evidence-based...See: Craven, P. & Lee, R. (2006) Therapeutic interventions for foster children: a systematic research synthesis. Research on Social Work Practice, 16, 287–304. Finally there is the article that summarized the "case" that this treatment is effective, empirically supported and evidence based: Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: an evidence-based treatment for children with complex trauma and disorders of attachment by Hughes & Becker-Weidman, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00557.x Child & Family Social Work, 2008, 13, pp 329–337. Should I add those citation to support the statement? What do others think? Panasonic345 (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone objects I will add back the material deleted with appropriate citations. OK??Panasonic345 (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article dyadic developmental psychotherapy suggests that there is not scientific consensus that there is evidence. I don't think I'll remove it (again) from this article, but I don't think it belongs.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I also don't think it belongs. -- Alarics (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * , I'm going to ask WP:Med to weigh in on this matter. We should be cautious with such dubious material. Besides that, you have repeatedly added this information, employing different registered accounts (WP:Sockpuppets) against multiple editors reverting you. That alone, the WP:Sockpuppetry, is enough to revert you on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Informed WP:Med here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Claims of efficacy of medical treatments require high quality sources - WP:MEDRS expects reliable secondary sources, preferably published in a quality journal. Primary studies showing an effect simply are not good enough, as any genuine, accepted treatment will be reviewed and analysed in literature reviews or well-structured meta-analyses. There's no evidence that DDP has any support among the mainstream and should not be in this article. --RexxS (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in, RexxS, and for removing the content. Flyer22 (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is the information: DOI: 10.1177/1049731505284863 http://www.sagepub.com/vaughnstudy/articles/intervention/Craven.pdf Regarding the criteria they used: http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_LiteratureReview_Child-Sexual-Abuse-Prevention-and-Risk-Reduction-review-for-parents_0.pdf Becker-Weidman & Hughes: doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00557.x Is this sufficient now? These are reputable publications in their field and support the paragraph, I believe. I appreciate your work to make this more precise and accurate, thank you.Panasonic345 (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the citation: Craven & Lee found it to be evidence-based...See: Craven, P. & Lee, R. (2006) Therapeutic interventions for foster children: a systematic research synthesis. Research on Social Work Practice, 16, 287–304. sufficient? This is a reputable and well respected journal an the authors found this treatment approach to be evidence-based according to the criteria used by Saunders et. al. In addition, the article: Becker-Weidman, A., & Hughes, D., (2008) “Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: An evidence-based treatment for children with complex trauma and disorders of attachment,” Child & Adolescent Social Work, 13, pp.329-337. and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy: Effective Treatment for Complex Trauma and Disorders of Attachment ILLINOIS CHILD WELFARE by becker-weidman, 2011 Volume 6 Number 1 describes the evidence base for this type of treatment. It seems these are sufficient citations/references to include as supporting the paragraph. If there is not objection to this, then I will re insert the paragraph with the citations in the next week. If there are concerns, let's discuss them here. Panasonic345 (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't find either of those two articles in PubMed or in Trip database. I certainly object to attempting to use a source if it isn't even indexed in PubMed. Would you be kind enough to give a full citation, including the PMID so that your claims can be evaluated? --RexxS (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is the information: DOI: 10.1177/1049731505284863 http://www.sagepub.com/vaughnstudy/articles/intervention/Craven.pdf Regarding the criteria they used: http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_LiteratureReview_Child-Sexual-Abuse-Prevention-and-Risk-Reduction-review-for-parents_0.pdf Becker-Weidman & Hughes: doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2008.00557.x Is this sufficient now? These are reputable publications in their field and support the paragraph, I believe. I appreciate your work to make this more precise and accurate, thank you. Panasonic345 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Craven and Lee's research was specifically criticized in a subsequent article, here, and should not be used as a reliable source for the efficacy of this treatment. Yobol (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So it's not indexed in PubMed then. I'm sorry, but claims regarding the efficacy of medical treatment need to be from sources that meet the standards of WP:MEDRS, and being indexed in PubMed is the bare minimum indicator of suitability. Am I right in thinking that Craven & Lee (2006) only considers a Becker-Weidman study from 2004 as the sole representative of DDP? It also seems in table 4 that they classify the 18 interventions that they examine as 1:Well-supported, efficacious treatment; 2:Supported and probably efficacious; 3: Supported and acceptable; etc. but place DDP in category 3 (no mention of efficacious). How does this source then support your claim "... Dyadic developmental psychotherapy has been found to be effective ..."? --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI: Panasonic345 is now blocked as a sock puppet of DPetersen (who has, for years, been working to insert DDP and certain citations into various child psychology articles). --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  |  05:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2014
Child Abuse Infographic

103.224.153.60 (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . An obscure blog is not a reliable source. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2014
I would like to add a fact and a reference to the Physical subsection under the Effects section. I would like to add "There has been evidence that early life stress increases the likelihood of inflammatory markers. Chronic inflammation as a result from early life stress could lead to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer." to the "Poor physical health" bullet point followed by the reference

Mwp2014 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Is the source pubmed indexed? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014
122.3.75.84 (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * no request Cannolis (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014
Sexual Abuse paragraph 2 says "propensity to re-victimization in adulthood" but references http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3616159/ which doesn't back up the claim being made. The linked article states that victims of violent abuse (which may or may not include sexual abuse) were more likely to have shorter telomeres which is linked to health problems and depression. None of the referenced studies in the link imply propensity to re-victimization (which according to wikipedia itself means being abused again as opposed to becoming a perpetrator of abuse) or imply that the children will grow up to abuse other children as the study only involved samples taken at age 5 and age 10. Could someone please clean this up by removing the improperly referenced section or marking it as an unsubstantiated opinion until a relevant usable reference is found? It might be possible to move the reference to the physical abuse section as that is what the study covers if it would be useful there.

68.144.23.52 (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for catching that. I've replaced the telomere study with one from the child sexual abuse article http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/15/5/489 . It appears that the statement here was probably cited to that study in the past as the refname here was messman-moore, the details just got replaced by the telomere study here somehow. Cannolis (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2015
Web address: http://lovingactssayvlives.com/meet-the-children/about/home/what-is-the-definition-of-child-abuse/ The Link: child discipline

Dear Webmaster, Just wanted to let you know that the link above is broken. I would also like to request that you take a look at my webpage and backlink it instead as it uses the same keyword as the broken link.

Address: http://www.confessionsoftiredmoms.com/ticker/chores-kids-age

Many Thanks Gillian-jane

Owner of Confessions of Tired Moms

Gillianjane (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  22:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph: proposed edits
I would like to propose a bit of a re-write to the introductory paragraphs, including:

1) insertion of the words "physical or emotional" before "neglect" in first line - otherwise the English is unclear; ("or children" could also be deleted - given that this represents multiple instances of "child abuse" (singular));

2) if alternative definitions are to be provided, it would be good to have them confined to the first paragraph; thus, para 1 could be about definitions; para 2 about the significance/status of the phenomenon; para 3 could give reference to difficulties regarding definition/intervention etc.

3) it would be good to add a non-US perspective and the definitions of child abuse in UK and Australian legislation, for instance, would perhaps be the most relevant additions Skythrops (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Child abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090119000618/http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm00/figure4_2.htm to http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm00/figure4_2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 08:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

WHO guide to prevention
This document may be of use to the editors of this article. It is about 100 pages and probably contains some relevant information worth adding. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Tone inappropriate to encyclopedia
Much of the material, including some recently added, under the headings "Disclosure and diagnosis", "Prevention", and "Treatment", reads more like a how-to guide or instructional manual than an encyclopedia (see What Wikipedia is not). In particular, wording such as "it is recommended that" and "studies have found" (see Weasel words) should be attributed to who said them and in what context, in line with Neutral point of view. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Despite the decent amount of sourcing, I would agree that several statements are poorly attributed. Take for example the following phrase: "The support-group structure and visiting home nurse or social-worker visits are not mutually exclusive. Many studies have demonstrated that the two measures must be coupled together for the best possible outcome". This is not sourced to any study, it is sourced to a now lost page of "Medicinenet.com".


 * The statement "Some argue that even many "substantiated reports involve only minor or insignificant matters, which most reasonable people would not truly consider abuse or neglect." is sourced to "The Catholic Social Science Review" but this is not mentioned in the text.


 * A 1994 source by Douglas J. Besharov is used to source that there are numerous "unsubstantiated reports" of child abuse and that these are fueled by "repeated and often sensational media coverage". The name of the author is not properly given, the fact that the source is over 20 years old is not mentioned in the text (which misleadingly includes it next to a population statistic from 2010), and the article mentions nothing about any media coverage and influence on the public perception of the issue.


 * A 1992 source by John Briere is used to source that there is cultural toleration of "lower-level violence" of children. The text does not really define what this lower-level violence actually is. And the phrase "of children" could easily be taken to mean the violence perpetrated by the children themselves.


 * And at least one sentence in the history sentence is misleading. "in Ancient Rome, a father could legally kill his children" This has little to do with child abuse and mistakes something about the term "father". Not the father of the child, but the pater familias ("father of the family"), the legal head of the family. Typically the pater familias was the oldest living male in a household. In theory he had complete control of all family members, regardless of their gender or age. Otherwise adult siblings, children, or nephews of the pater familias were still counted as filii (children) under his authority. The law gave the pater familias the power of life and death over members of his household.


 * There was little comment in Roman texts about killing infants (which was possibly accepted practice), but there are mentions of executing adult children who had displeased the pater familias in some way. There was however increasingly a taboo against filicide and the practice was eventually outlawed. By the time of Hadrian, it had become a crime. If a father killed his son, he had to be stripped of his citizenship and all its rights, his property was confiscated and the man was permanently exiled. Dimadick (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The headings "Diagnosis", "Prevention", and "Treatment" are not WP:NOTHOWTO violations; they are the headings recommended by MOS:MED. And since child abuse is a medical topic, such a layout is fine for this article. Like WP:NOTHOWTO states, "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." Some of the wording is clearly WP:Weasel wording, but such words are not forbidden and are sometimes needed, especially in cases where WP:In-text attribution might give a misleading message; WP:In-text attribution is clear about avoiding misleading messages.


 * In cases like these, I point people to two templates that address weasel words to show that they are sometimes needed. Template:Who states, "Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only 'Some people...'—then Wikipedia must remain vague." And Template:Whom states, "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'According to whom?' in that circumstance." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:Pinging Me, Myself, and I are Here and JustBeCool since they are the editors to recently add a significant amount of material to the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, other than this edit by Coconutporkpie. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I am not likely to be of much help with adjusting content – I've only done work on expanding citations on this article. There are still some bare urls and dead links left that I plan on fixing once I find the time – it might make evaluating the sources easier on you. I hope this discussion goes well. Me, Myself &#38; I (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem I see with many of these recommendations for action is that they are essentially someone's opinion. Attributing them to their actual source, then, not only helps avoid plagiarism but also helps in evaluating due weight (see Neutral point of view). For instance, what a large inter-governmental agency or reputable national professional organization recommends obviously carries more weight than the conclusions of a single primary research study, at least for the purposes of a general-interest article such as this one. Regarding Template:Whom, it's obviously important to distinguish an author's opinion from their reporting of someone else's opinion, which a simple inline citation does not necessarily do. For example, if author X notes that agency Y recommends procedure Z, then the citation naming X as the source does not tell us where the position is coming from (see Citing sources). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * To be more specific regarding my earlier comments about wording such as "studies have found", an example from Child abuse reads: A support-group structure is needed to reinforce parenting skills and closely monitor the child's well-being. Visiting home nurse or social-worker visits are also required [...] Many studies have demonstrated that the two measures must be coupled together for the best possible outcome. In this case, "many studies have demonstrated" is used to bolster several statements of opinion which are not attributed to their source, which seems a way of getting around Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View guideline. Another point is that child abuse is not simply a medical topic, but has legal, cultural, and moral dimensions as well. However, even the MOS page referenced above warns against writing that "appears to offer medical advice"; therefore, wording such as "is needed", "is helpful", "best outcome", etc., should be replaced with more matter-of-fact descriptions in which opinions are rightly attributed to their sources (see Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Coconutporkpie, I understand your points. I didn't state you were completely wrong; I pointed out what I found to be flaws with some arguments presented above. I hate when in-text attribution is used inappropriately (as it was in this recent case), and I so noted that in-text attribution is not always appropriate. I also hate when editors act like all words noted at the WP:Weasel word guideline are automatically weasel words or are banned; and so I commented on that. Editors taking the WP:Words to watch guideline far more seriously than it takes itself is why the top of that guideline currently states, "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly." And I didn't state or imply that child abuse is solely a medical topic; I was noting that it is one, and that this is why it has somewhat of a WP:MEDMOS setup. It is largely a medical topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The in-text attribution dispute linked to above clearly concerns a statement of fact, which should not need attribution to a specific source, unless the facts themselves are unclear. I can see where the statement "most victims of sexual assault do not report" might need more specific context—who exactly is meant by "most victims", and when was such data collected, for example. But this article does have several instances of opinions reported as if they were simple facts, and so attribution is needed for those instances (see Neutral point of view) The section Child abuse is a rather blatant example, since what is deemed ethical always depends on subjective community standards and individual judgement an instance of subjective views given appropriate context, though such context could be made more explicit—who defines a dilemma as "challenging", for instance? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * As currently seen at that talk page regarding that dispute, some editors disagree that it's a fact. My argument there is that since the content is widely supported in the literature, we can and should state it as fact. Using in-text attribution in that case is misleading. I feel similarly regarding this tag you added, which I reverted, to the Child abuse article. It's not just one expert or a relatively small group of experts who state that understanding the causes of abuse is important to addressing the problem of child abuse; from what I know of the literature, that is generally supported. If a child has a broken leg, for example, it is important to understand how that happened in a child abuse case. It's also important to understand the nature of child abuse to better help explain and prevent it. That stated, I removed "crucial" as a bit opinionated-sounding; as you know, I replaced it with "important." Even if we consider the statement an argument, we shouldn't attribute it to just one researcher or just one group of researchers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything misleading about attributing the statement to something like a public-health body; surely such bodies have issued position statements that can be used as a reference. This kind of attribution helps readers tell fact from opinion, and also establishes due weight and keeps Wikipedia from relying too much on primary sources. Whether numerous researchers agree that something is "important" is irrelevant; the word itself implies a subjective judgement or opinion. Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy is very clear on not stating opinions as facts and vice versa. I am not challenging their opinion; I am simply saying that it's better to see where a position is coming from. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Per what I stated above, I disagree that this kind of statement needs in-text attribution. I don't see any proof that it's an opinion instead of a fact. But I wouldn't object much if we use in-text attribution for it by noting that a public-health body has stated this or if we word it in a way that makes it clear that it's something that experts generally support as fact. How would you reword it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Whether numerous researchers agree that something is important is not irrelevant, and this is made clear by the WP:Due weight policy and WP:INTEXT guideline. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant—for the purposes of this discussion—only insofar as general agreement doesn't turn an opinion into a fact. For instance, if 90% of people who read War and Peace literary scholars agree that it War and Peace is an important book, that's still their opinion. It would be factual, however, to say that War and Peace has has wide influence in the field of literature (or not, as the case may be). The difference is in attaching a subjective quality such as "important", especially without context showing how something might be important, and to whom. The policy on due weight does not cancel the need to separate fact from opinion; it only determines whether a given opinion, interpretation, theory, etc. deserves inclusion in the encyclopedia. If the statement in question in the edit mentioned above is really trying to convey that, factually, "understanding the causes of child abuse has been shown to be effective in preventing it", then that's how it should be worded. As it stands, however, a very simple improvement in the wording might be to add, "According to X organization/Most professionals working in the field agree that...", as long as such a statement is supported by a reliable source. If most experts really do agree, then it should be trivial to find a source that says so. Otherwise, I would might simply attribute the statement to the author cited (but since I don't have that book by Finkelman, I don't know whether she is stating her own view or conveying a statement made by others). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I cited WP:Due weight because making it seem like the statement in question is simply the belief of one expert or a relatively small group of experts would be a WP:Due weight violation. It would also be a WP:INTEXT violation. And such violations can easily happen when Template:Whom is used the way used it. So, no, I don't see that whether numerous researchers agree that something is important is irrelevant in this case. And, as I stated, I don't see any proof that the statement is an opinion instead of a fact. I was already clear that "I wouldn't object much if we use in-text attribution for it by noting that a public-health body has stated this or if we word it in a way that makes it clear that it's something that experts generally support as fact." I would prefer "Most professionals working in the field agree" instead of attributing the matter to just that one author as though only that author holds that view. Furthermore, the author might be reporting on the literature instead of offering a personal opinion, and I think that is very likely the case. If we attribute the statement to an organization, I'd rather we relay "[So and so organization states]" instead of "[According to X organization]" as though only that organization holds that view. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I would agree to the wording "So-and-so organization states", provided it is supported by a reliable source. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * When I suggested "[So and so organization states]," I was referring to what one organization might state, and I meant that I like that wording better than "According to." But after I typed it, I did consider you might think I meant multiple organizations. Either way, I say we look for sources to reword the sentence in a way we can both agree on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: A solution to this in-text matter has been provided by Coconutporkpie in the section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Understanding causes of abuse
Understanding the causes of abuse is important to addressing the problem of child abuse. —

Since it has been agreed that better attribution of this statement to its source would be appropriate, and lacking the ability to verify text-source integrity regarding this citation, I propose to simply replace it with the more detailed passage below, citing:

No single factor can be identified as to why some adults behave violently toward children. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Society for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ISPCAN) state that understanding the complex interplay of various risk factors is vital for dealing with the problem of child maltreatment. WHO and ISPCAN identify multiple factors at the level of the individual, their relationships, their local community, and their society at large, that combine to influence the occurrence of child maltreatment. At the individual level, such factors include age, sex, and personal history, while at the level of society, factors contributing to child maltreatment include cultural norms encouraging physical punishment of children, economic inequality, and the lack of social safety nets.

—Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Since the writers' names are not listed on the title page, and since WHO is the copyright holder, it might be more accurate to use the following citation instead. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This would be an excellent replacement, since it's coming from authoritative sources. When something is from the WHO, we just state "The WHO states" in our medical articles; we don't name the authors of the WHO document via in-text attribution. And naming them like that in this case would result in the in-text attribution problem I worry about, as noted in the section above. As for the sources, I don't see a problem with using either of the sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Violence against children: UN Secretary-General's study (2006) and UNICEF report (2014)
I am placing citations to these sources here in the hope that some editors will find the material useful for working into the article. I haven't had time to go through them myself, but may add material later. In the meantime, I have placed a link to the Pinheiro report on the Web in the External links section.



— Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at St. Charles Community College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)