Talk:Child abuse/Archive 3

Lead section: WHO definition of child maltreatment
I question this edit removing the World Health Organization's definition of child maltreatment from the lead, citing in-text attribution as inappropriate. I note that, in the lead, such attribution is given for the definitions of child abuse according to the CDC, CDF, and Child Abuse and Neglect (journal). I fail to see how citing the World Health Organization constitutes undue weight, as they are the major global public health body and constitute one of the most reliable sources per Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Furthermore, there's nothing in Manual of Style/Lead section about excluding quotations from the lead. Since the WHO provides such a succinct explanation of what child maltreatment is and how to know whether something is child maltreatment, I see no reason not to start the article off with it. The WHO quote is an improvement over the present dictionary definition, which only lists types of maltreatment and doesn't explain what maltreatment entails.

— Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I reverted you here (with a followup note here), stating, "We don't have to give in-text attribution [i]n the lead for the definition of child abuse; that's overkill and WP:Undue weight. The dictionary definition in the lead suffices. Nothing controversial about the statement. [...] And I do mean the lead sentence. We don't start off lead sentences quoting like that."


 * I stand by that. There is no need whatsoever for the article to begin with "As defined by the World Health Organization," with a followup quote, as though all that detail is needed for the lead sentence, and as though the definition of child abuse is so debated that we need an in-text attribution definition for the lead sentence. Undue weight indeed, since it's that organization's definition. Good leads are not written that way. MOS:INTRO states, "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article." MOS:BEGIN states, "The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific." WP:LEADSENTENCE states, "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."


 * If you want the World Health Organization definition in the lead, it does not need to be the lead sentence. Nor does it need to be presented in blockquote form. Break up the quote. Paraphrase it. Either way, I won't be agreeing to inclusion of that definition as the lead sentence. Therefore, I will leave a note at WP:Med for outside input on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And, in the section above, I agreed about the World Health Organization's reliability. But if what they state should be taken as the main word on anything medical, and as though research always falls in line with their views, you would not give them in-text attribution as much as you do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Alerted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the WHO quote gives unnecessary detail. Besides adding "commercial or other exploitation" to the types already listed, the passage defines child maltreatment as actions "resulting in actual or potential harm to the child’s health, survival, development or dignity in the context of a relationship of responsibility, trust or power". That is providing general context, not giving unnecessary detail or specific examples. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * agree w/ Flyer22 (in regards to WHO )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Coconutporkpie, to me, it's unnecessary detail for the lead. Important aspects of the definition can be summarized in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "We don't have to give in-text attribution [i]n the lead for the definition of child abuse" – funny, but we do exactly that for the CDC, DCF, and a journal. If we don't need to do that for the WHO (in the lead), then we don't need to do that for any source (in the lead).
 * I think that way the heck too much of the lead is about definitions. Those definitions are only slightly different from each other anyway.  Instead, let's create a new (first) section called ==Definitions==, and start the article with a single, general sentence that identifies the subject, rather than trying to present a perfect dictionary definition.  I'll give it a try, and then perhaps someone here can improve on my efforts.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, with regard to "We don't have to give in-text attribution [i]n the lead for the definition of child abuse," I was speaking of the lead sentence, which is why I stated in a WP:Dummy edit: "And I do mean the lead sentence. We don't start off lead sentences quoting like that." I've seen Wikipedia lead sentences start off like that, and they are usually fixed up. I don't see any of our articles pass the WP:Good or WP:Featured process like that. Having definitions in the lead is common, such as at the Atheism article, but they are usually paraphrased, not quoted. And if they are quoted, it's rare they they are used for the very first sentence. And as for "we do exactly that for the CDC, DCF, and a journal," that's why I stated, "If you want the World Health Organization definition in the lead, it does not need to be the lead sentence. Nor does it need to be presented in blockquote form. Break up the quote. Paraphrase it." Judging by the Types section, I was thinking there already was a Definitions section, and was wondering why Coconutporkpie felt the need to repeat the WHO definition in the lead. But either way, I was thinking that the overly detailed aspect of the lead should be lower in the article. So I appreciate this edit you made. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And this edit; that text is what I meant by the repeat. It's obviouly now in the Definitions section, thanks to your other edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I still believe that it is important to define the word maltreatment in the lead sentence and not just list examples (physical, sexual, emotional). All three sources now cited under "Definitions" define maltreatment as an act by a parent or other caretaker etc. that results in actual or threatened harm. Such sources as the WHO, CDC, and others are more authoritative in this regard than a general dictionary. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment IMO it is fine to provide a summary of what it is in the lead with the detailed and quoted definitions going in the body of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly; my point is that simply listing types of maltreatment does not give a summary of what child maltreatment is; it's like defining fruit by saying, "Fruits are things like apples, oranges, and pears". Similarly, saying that child maltreatment can be emotional, sexual, physical, etc. is fine as far as it goes, but doesn't tell the reader what child malreatment itself is. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think that typical readers for this page will be unfamiliar with the word maltreatment? I don't think that it is an unusual or technical word, and I assume that most readers will, at minimum, grok that it's "kind of like abuse" or "another word for abuse".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think the lead stating "child abuse or child maltreatment" is clear that they are WP:Alternative terms. That stated, I changed "Child abuse or child maltreatment is the physical, sexual or emotional maltreatment or neglect of a child or children." to "Child abuse or child maltreatment is the physical, sexual or emotional mistreatment or neglect of a child or children, especially by a parent or other caregiver." I added "mistreatment" in place of "maltreatment" to avoid redundancy (stating "child abuse is abuse" or "child maltreatment is maltreatment" is poor wording; doesn't quite explain anything). I also added "especially by a parent or other caregiver" because that is a vital part of the definition, as noted by Coconutporkpie above. But, WhatamIdoing, your "There are four major categories of child abuse: neglect, physical abuse, psychological or emotional abuse, and sexual abuse." text is redundant to the lead sentence. It's mostly a repeat of the lead sentence, but with wikilinks. Those wikilinks should be in the first sentence, and that second sentence should be changed to something else. There is obviously a lot more that needs to be added to the lead, per WP:Lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * None of these are really "my" sentences; I merely rearranged the existing sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that maltreatment is in any way technical, but that it is simply a synonym for abuse, not a definition. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you satisfied with defining "maltreatment" as "mistreatment"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still a circular definition—both maltreat and mistreat are just synonyms for the verb to abuse and do not explain the nature of child abuse. As R.C. Herrenkohl (2005) points out, "child maltreatment" is a construct; the definition is a product of cultural forces, and has changed over time. According to a 2010 Oxford Legal Studies research paper, "Whilst there may be universal agreement that 'something must be done' about child abuse, there is much less clarity about what qualifies as child abuse". Therefore, it's important to let readers know right away that child abuse/child maltreatment is a concept defined by certain bodies as an action by a parent or other caregiver resulting in actual or threatened harm to or exploitation of a child. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Saunders and Goddard (2010) make a similar point in Physical punishment in Childhood: The rights of the child (ISBN 978-0-470-72706-5) writing, "Questions about what is and what is not acceptable behavior towards children, and when physical punishment ends and child abuse begins, elicit considerable public and professional controversy" (p. 8) and "child abuse is a socially constructed phenomenon. Its parameters adjust continually as cultural values and opinions change over time" (p. 27). Citing David Gough (1996), Saunders and Goddard point out that, in terms of physical abuse, "common thresholds of acceptable violence may be blurred and definitions of actions that might constitute child abuse imprecise" (p. 27). Thus, whereas bruises and other physical and emotional scars, as well as disrupted neurodevelopment, stunted growth, etc., resulting from child abuse and neglect, are observable facts that can be described without controversy, child abuse itself is more of a social construction. Therefore, whether we call it abuse, maltreatment, or mistreatment, I believe it is important to explicitly define in the lead what such terms mean in context, according to reliable sources. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, on Wikipedia, stating "your text" doesn't always mean that the person in question wrote it. Either way, I was onviously referring to your placement of the material. I removed the redundancy.


 * Coconutporkpie, I'm sure that WhatamIdoing knows that "maltreat" means to "mistreat," and is used as a synonym for "mistreat." You were making it seem like readers wouldn't understand what "maltreat" means. So because of that, and because stating "child abuse is abuse" or "child maltreatment is maltreatment" is poor wording, I added "mistreat." People usually know what mistreat means. The lead is meant to summarize. "Maltreat" means to "treat (a person or animal) cruelly or with violence." The lead sentence currently states, "Child abuse or child maltreatment is the physical, sexual or psychological mistreatment or neglect of a child or children, especially by a parent or other caregiver." That tells us exactly what child abuse is, just without all the detail, which is what the lower part of the article is for. That definition is not in dispute and does not need in-text attribution, as though it's only according to some sources that physical, sexual or psychological mistreatment or neglect of a child or children is child abuse. The lead is not for giving a number of in-text attribution statements for different ways that sources define child abuse, especially when the definition is almost always the same. If we want better context with regard to the definition of child abuse in the lead, then we should add "There is some dispute with regard to how child abuse is defined, and [so and so]." Something like that, not a lot of quoting and in-text attribution, not wording for the lead sentence that makes it seems like what is child abuse is in so much dispute that defining child abuse without in-text attribution is contentious or that defining child abuse is arbitrary. Child abuse is always some type of physical, sexual or psychological mistreatment or neglect of a child or children, especially by a parent or other caregiver. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * We can also expand on the definition in the lead by stating "Types of child sexual abuse include," and elaborate a little without much redundancy and without in-text attribution. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources say that the definition is not always clear. Accordingly, I have rewritten the lead slightly to establish what the words abuse and maltreatment mean in this context, according to the WHO and CDC. Those are the sources that should be used to define the topic per Identifying reliable sources (medicine). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Per above, I cannot agree to this type of wording, which is also a sort of in-text attribution. And, as WP:Med editors have indicated to you above (I am also a WP:Med editor), a dictionary source is fine for that simple definition of child abuse. I can replace it with a scholarly, WP:Med-compliant source stating pretty much the same thing, but that is not needed. Do you want to take this matter to a WP:RfC next since contacting the WP:Med project apparently has not resolved this dispute? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The preponderance of reliable sources define child abuse as some type of physical, sexual or psychological mistreatment or neglect of a child or children, especially by a parent or other caregiver. The only difference with this wording you added is the needless "is defined by various public health bodies" addition. This addition is also unneeded. I will remove "is defined." Per the WP:Refers essay, this not a word article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Now I see that you wanted an overly broad definition of child abuse for the lead sentence, despite the fact that child abuse is less commonly defined in such a broad manner; if a child accidentally chokes on a chicken bone, for example, rarely will that be defined as child abuse. In fact, it might be defined as child neglect in some jurisdictions, but not as child abuse. The World Health Organization even uses the word intentional for physical abuse. So a WP:RfC is next then. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * And given you noting that there are different definitions of what constitutes child abuse, it is misleading to state "any" and "all forms" when it comes to things like "neglect" or "exploitation." What is "exploitation" supposed to mean? Could mean anything. And, as we know, the hitting aspect is debated. RfC is below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Power and control dynamic for child abuse
I did power and control in abusive relationships covering the power and control dynamic in various abusive contexts but can see nothing relevant to this in child abuse, child sexual abuse or child grooming. This seems like a major oversight. The first section power and control in abusive relationships gives the generic mechanism behind imposing abusive power and control and obviously applies to child grooming. For example, giving the child sweets is an example of positive reinforcement.--Penbat (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We probably need additional editorial input into that mostly one-editor article before integrating a summary of it into three others. My concern would be that views about that power and control topic can vary widely, and most literature about it is excessively dominated by the gender studies academic crowd, who often espouse views not accepted widely in other social sciences, or in more rigorous medical psychiatry.  Some of what comes out of that school of thought is patent WP:FRINGE, some of it is spot-on, and works its way into socio-linguistics, psychology, etc., and virtually all of it, from scientific to cockamamie, is highly politicized, thus presents neutrality difficulties.  As just one anecdotal example of how subjective this stuff is, the "non-violent communication" strategy is often recommended to combat and forestall control and power problems in emotionally abusive relationships, yet I know several people who had that exact tool used against them, consistently, as means of enforcing an abusive power imbalance (by the same person), though a pattern of gaslighting and emotional manipulation, instead of pursuing a more obvious and addressable tactic of direct intimidation. Anyway, most of that article is WP:SUMMARY of other articles, strung together.  I haven't analyzed the inferences it's making in any detail, but I suspect that people are likely to raise WP:NOR concerns about implying connections between at least 25 different encyclopedic topics all under one "power and control in abusive relationships" umbrella. Just the fact that it starts off with a heading of "Why do people want power and control - control freaks" is problematic for multiple reasons, as is having a paragraph about "control freaks" immediately after conceding that it's derogatory slang.  The "info pamphlet" layout is non-encyclopedic, and verges into WP:NOT territory. Sorry to be critical, but it needs work, and its raison d'etre is a bit iffy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Prevalence": disputed neutrality
The "Prevalence" section (specifically, the "United States" subsection) seems to use cherry-picked quotes and sources intended to minimize the societal impact of child abuse. A summary of mainstream views is lacking. Of particular concern is undue weight given to ideologically-driven sources such as the Catholic Social Science Review, as well as to primary research material. What would be more relevant is a discussion of the actual prevalence of child maltreatment (not just lists of statistics) and how it relates to other societal trends over time, based on reliable, secondary sources. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead sentence use a broader definition of child abuse?
There is dispute over whether to use this or this definition for the WP:Lead sentence of the Child abuse article. The latter version is the broader definition. One concern is that since reliable sources say that the definition of child abuse is not always clear, the lead should use the broader wording, especially if it establishes what the words abuse and maltreatment mean according to the World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The other concern is that the broader definition is less commonly used, since unintentional harm of a child is often not termed child abuse; because of this, it is therefore misleading to state "any" or "all forms" of harm to a child, especially for things like "neglect" or "exploitation"; the Child neglect article, for example, makes it very clear that child neglect is commonly difficult to define.

If receiving this message from the RfC page, see Talk:Child abuse for more discussion on how to define the lead. Also, WP:Med and WP:Law will be alerted to this RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * No. Like I stated above, there is more to the literature than what the World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) state, no matter how authoritative they are, and the lead sentence should not take the POV of stating that any harm to a child is child abuse, especially given that there are different views among professionals about what child abuse is. Furthermore, the World Health Organization uses the word intentional for physical abuse. Above, I noted, "If we want better context with regard to the definition of child abuse in the lead, then we should add 'There is some dispute with regard to how child abuse is defined, and [so and so].' Something like that." The lead can, and should, note the definitional dispute, without the lead sentence taking on an "any harm is child abuse" angle. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also note that the World Health Organization uses the word ill-treatment to ago along with its "all forms" wording, and that "ill-treatment" is defined as: "To treat unkindly or harshly." For its example section, it commonly states "child abuse - the physical or emotional or sexual mistreatment of children." And the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act uses the words serious and "an imminent risk of serious harm" to go along with its definition. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No could use perhaps the WHO, CDC position statements might be too broad in this case, (however WHO position statements are usually good)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've included sources in the Discussion section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is there a "Votes" section? According to Consensus, decision-making on Wikipedia is not the result of a vote—the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents the majority's view. "Yes" and "No" votes don't even make sense in a dispute between two alternatives ("whether to use this or this definition", per above). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, the discussion is titled "Should the lead sentence use a broader definition of child abuse?" In this case, broader than what is not specified. So I really have no idea what people are voting for or against. Not that it matters, since consensus on Wikipedia is not determined by votes. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The RfC has a Votes section per it being standard to have one; see Requests for comment/Example formatting. Such sections are titled "Votes" or "Survey." And as for what is the broader definition in this case, or something similar to it, I already linked to it in my first paragraph of this RfC. I shouldn't have to directly include both versions of the text in this RfC for editors to see what I mean. The definition you added was even broader than it is now, before Montanabw cut it, stating, "Restore language that is closer to the statutory definitions used for a legal standard." And you adding "intentional" does not help much since child abuse does not only relate to intentional aspects; I've made this clear in the Discussion section below. My first proposal for the lead paragraph is in the Proposal section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to "Survey", which should stop this sideshow of a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No to renaming or broader definition, Child Abuse is a term of art with a specific legal definition that is embedded in state and federal law; while the definitions vary a bit from state to state and between nations, a too-broad definition dilutes the whole article.  Montanabw (talk) | GO  THUNDER!  23:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Both. Use a "teach the controversy" approach. Present the narrower meaning, explain that it encapsulates legal definitions in many jurisdictions (not just US ones), and then note that a broader definition has been notably advanced but has not eclipsed the narrower one. Per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, this is standard operating procedure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, yeah, that's pretty much what I argued in the Proposals and Discussion section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * No - do the WP:Weight and just follow the cites, conveying what RS have in proportion to the coverage rather than try and 'pick a winner'. Since the article presents a variety, I'd think the summary would mention that there are various definitions.  Just as an aside, the WHO seems a bit odd -- I would think the legal definition is the one that has effects.  Markbassett (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposals

 * I propose a page move to rename the article Child maltreatment, since the article already encompasses forms of maltreatment such as neglect, exploitation, trafficking, etc. that are not universally termed abuse, alongside more commonly understood forms such as physical and sexual abuse. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The CDC, for example, includes abuse ("acts of commission") and neglect ("acts of omission") under the umbrella term child maltreatment, while noting that maltreatment and abuse are often used interchangeably (Child Maltreatment Surveillance: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0, 2008). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I oppose such a move, per WP:Common name, and this not being a WP:Requested moves discussion. As for child maltreatment sometimes being a broader term than child abuse, per what I stated in the Discussion section below, this is why we summarize such definitions in the lead and create a Definitions section, Terminology section, or something similar, for further detail. Examples are the Domestic violence article (which we both edit), the Cancer article, the Neoplasm article (a topic more commonly known as "tumor"), the Zoophilia article (a topic more commonly known as bestiality), and so on. KateWishing helped sort out the definitional aspect of the Zoophilia article, and has briefly edited the Child abuse article thus far. Maybe she has thoughts on how to present the definitional aspects for this topic.


 * I propose that we state for the lead paragraph (meaning not just the lead sentence) the following: "Child abuse or child maltreatment is the physical, sexual or psychological mistreatment or neglect of a child or children, especially by a parent or other caregiver. It may include any act or failure to act by a parent or other caregiver that results in actual or potential harm to a child, and can occur in a child's home, or in the organizations, schools or communities the child interacts with. The terms child abuse and child maltreatment are often used interchangeably, but some researchers make a distinction between them, treating child maltreatment as an umbrella term to cover neglect, exploitation, trafficking, [and so on]." Something like that. And then we add a bit on the debate aspect, with regard to how to define abuse, and how neglect factors in or doesn't factor in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, as far as know, human trafficking, especially sex trafficking, and especially with regard to children, is considered abuse. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * It's unnecessary to say "may include"—"includes intentional acts" is more accurate according to the sources currently used. And I fail to see how Child maltreatment runs afoul of WP:Common name if "Zoophilia" and "Neoplasm" do not. I thought maltreatment was supposed to be a word that everybody understood, as argued here in the preceding discussion section. Nor do I see any logic in rejecting a reasonable change to the page simply because it wasn't asked for. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "May include" addresses the fact that "any act or failure to act by a parent or other caregiver that results in actual or potential harm to a child" is not always considered child abuse. Right after that, I clearly proposed that we then address the definitional dispute. We could dispose of "any act," and simply state, "It includes acts, or a failure to act, by a parent or other caregiver that results in actual or potential harm to a child." As for "intentional acts," I already noted that it is at odds with the literature since child abuse or child maltreatment covers unintentional harm as well; the child neglect aspect is clearly a part of the definitions and is debated. You were the one neglecting (no pun intended) the unintentional harm aspect, and now that I've pointed to some sources emphasizing intentional harm and that unintentional harm (well, more specifically neglect) is often excluded from the definition, you want to add "intentional acts" for the lead sentence. Let's also remember that child neglect (like other forms of child abuse) can be intentional or unintentional. Because of what I've stated and presented on this matter, I am of the opinion that you have repeatedly gone the wrong way when defining the lead sentence. As for failing to see how "child maltreatment" runs afoul of WP:Common name if "zoophilia" and "neoplasm" do not, I was going to note Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles before you addressed that naming aspect. Now's as good a time as any, though. Like Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles states, "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." Zoophilia is the more medical term in the case of the Zoophilia article; furthermore, it is seemingly a broader term than bestiality (depending on the source anyway). Similarly, in the case of heart attack, we call the article Myocardial infarction, but more so because of how ambiguous the term heart attack can be. Like WP:Common name states, with a note beside "Ambiguous", "Ambiguity as used here is unrelated to whether a title requires disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia. For example, heart attack is an ambiguous title, because the term can refer to multiple medical conditions, including cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, and panic attack." As for "neoplasm" Doc James merged the Tumor article into the Neoplasm article due to redundancy and other concerns. Maybe he will explain here in this section why he did so. Child abuse is the term more so used for the topic of harming a child, both in medical and legal sources.


 * As for maltreatment supposedly being a word that everybody understands, WhatamIdoing sort of argued that, as you know. You seemingly argued otherwise, and I changed the wording for reasons noted in that link you provided. I was clear that "People usually know what mistreat means." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If someone wanted to create a new article called child maltreatment, nothing stops them. Perhaps a List of forms of child maltreatment would be of benefit to the project.  But a move is not a good idea per the above reasons by Flyer and Kate.   Montanabw (talk) | GO  THUNDER!  00:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, Wikipedia discourages such content forking. It would be pointless to create a new article Child maltreatment if the term is really used interchangeably with "child abuse", especially when this article describes the things called "child maltreatment" in the literature, namely, child abuse and child neglect. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Montanabw is aware of WP:Content fork, which is why I assume she suggested a list, not a new article titled "Child maltreatment." In fact, I was prepared to note WP:Content fork if you suggested two separate articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * On second thought, it seems that Montanabw was suggesting a separate article. Either way, per WP:Content fork, that would be the wrong way to go. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think is onto something here.  We would eventually need this almost most certainly per WP:SUMMARY, because the main article will continue to grow with details from differing definitions.  It might be best to start the list as a section of this article, and then WP:SPINOFF after it's developed a bit.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * SMcCandlish, if you mean having both a Child maltreatment and Child abuse article, I disagree per my arguments above and below. The terms are too often used interchangeably, with only slight differences for child maltreatment at times. There is no need for two articles covering such a matter. If you mean a List of forms of child maltreatment article, I wouldn't much care if that was created. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Woops, I read the attributions wrong. I meant {{U|Thunder (mascot)]]'s idea: "Perhaps a List of forms of child maltreatment would be of benefit to the project".  That is, if there's too much conflict over different meanings, exact terminology, etc. we need to list them out and the sources for them, starting in this article and moving it to a WP:SAL if necessary, and adjust the lead here to summarize what they have in common, without WP:UNDUE weight to outlying interpretations or jargon.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "Child maltreatment" fails WP:COMMONNAME (just as a matter of fact), and WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE (by siding in Wikipedia's voice with a minority, activistic view on the topic). It's potentially feasible to write a separate article on the broader concept of child "maltreatment" (which looks like a buzzword neologism in "Euro-English" for mistreatment; indeed, virtually all G-hits for this "word" are WHO-related ), but it won't be this article.  A new article on the broader concept would require way more than WHO, UNICEF and other in-house UN primary source usage, and would require multiple, independent, secondary sources treating it in-depth as an actual topic of inquiry, not just mentioning or parroting it in passing (see WP:N).  WP:CONTENTFORK / WP:POVFORK is not implicated when the topics are actually distinct; see WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY.  It's only a problem, a {{em|fork}}, when it's being done out of incompetence or because one is pushing a WP:CCPOL violation at one article and not WP:WINNING, so ones goes to try to have one's own say on a competing page.  If this material is sourced, that isn't what's happening.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * SMcCandlish, when I pointed to WP:Content fork, I was referring to the WP:Redundant fork aspect. Given the sources on this topic showing that these terms are commonly (though not always) used interchangeably, and that they cover the same topics (for example, child abuse might be defined as broadly as child maltreatment), I don't see how we can have a Child abuse article and a Child maltreatment article without the matter being a WP:Content fork violation. It's unnecessary splitting of content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not insisting that it's impossible for this to be a redundant fork; rather, it's not impossible for it not to be. If the RS show that the terms have distinct definitions in different contexts, they're different topics that happen to be similar and have some overlapping usage. We have zillions of such articles. For example, the Cymric cat is considered simply a coat-length variation within the Manx cat by some fancier and breeder organizations. However, it is defined in a distinct and fairly consistent way by some authorities, has been addressed in independent secondary RS many times as a distinct thing, and has a distinct history of development (albeit the one from the other). All of those distinctions may be true of the term and concept "child maltreatment" vs. "child abuse".  If they are, it should be a separate article, or at very least "child maltreatment" should have a distinct section here, and be distinguished in the lead. To shoehorn one topic into the article of another just because of a name similarity and some other connections raises WP:COATRACK issues, and tends to cause other problems, most often editwarring over the meaning of the original topic, as those concerned mostly with the coatracked-in side topic try to get "their version" promoted to the top. We had the same problem at the article Eight-ball, before forking the primarily British game (sometimes known as "eightball pool") to its own article, Blackball (pool) (the name of the world-standardized form of the British-style game). Before the fork, the article was constantly a mess, as people kept inserting British "corrections" into the American-style (also world-standardized) eight-ball rules, and so on. It reminds me a lot of what's going on here, with urges to insert WHO child maltreatment "rules" into the better-established child abuse "rule set".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm basically in favor of keeping a narrow definition that is in line with statutory definitions, though I see no harm in a section in the article that discusses other possible definitions, such as WHO, per {[u|Flyer22 Reborn}}'s suggestion. I proposed the Child Maltreatment idea to allow those who wanted a wider definition a place to go. I don't want to dilute the impact of this article with red herrings.   Montanabw (talk)  00:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I fail to see why statutes should be the benchmark for defining the topic; child abuse and neglect have in-depth coverage in the fields of public health, psychology, and medicine in addition to law. According to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, "There are medical and clinical definitions, social service definitions, legal and judicial definitions, and research definitions of child maltreatment [i.e. abuse and neglect]. Each professional sector tends to emphasise the facets of maltreatment that are most salient to their own field". Nor do statutes even have a uniform definition. In the U.S., laws vary by state, although they must include the minimum standards of federal law, which defines child abuse and neglect as "any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caregiver that results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk for serious harm" (Selph et al. 2013). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Since you are responding to Montanabw significantly later and she may not be watching this talk page, I'm pinging her to this talk page in case she wants to reply to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I question the suggestion that maltreatment is merely a buzzword lacking coverage in reliable sources. There is an academic journal, Child maltreatment, devoted to the topic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examines "Child maltreatment" in depth. Amazon search results include several textbooks focusing on "Child maltreatment". The textbook Child Abuse and Neglect, Second Edition by McCoy and Keen (2013) begins, "The purpose of this textbook is to provide you with an overview of child maltreatment. This umbrella term includes both the abuse and neglect of children". The Merck Manual has an Overview of Child Maltreatment. And the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has at least one issue brief dealing with the topic, as well as publishing yearly reports on child maltreatment in the U.S. The WHO itself is one of the "international expert bodies" mentioned at Identifying reliable sources (medicine), and has also published an in-depth guide to "Preventing child maltreatment" as well as a detailed factsheet on the topic. I'm perplexed therefore at the suggestion that naming the topic child maltreatment is part of a "minority, activistic view". All these sources together show the term's notability, and all agree that "maltreatment" includes both abuse and neglect. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Since you are challenging SMcCandlish's "buzzword" commentary at a significantly later date and he may not be watching this talk page, I'm pinging him to this talk page in case he wants to reply to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not necessary, and people are apt to interpret it as canvassing or dispute promotion, or something.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, I felt it was necessary, or more so a good idea, to ping you and the others because, as stated, I am not sure that you are watching this talk page, and the older comments had been made the previous month. WhatamIdoing, for example, commonly weighs in on a matter without adding the talk page in question to her watchlist; I know this because she will sometimes include a "not watching this talk page" comment in a response. This doesn't mean she wouldn't want to know if a person has replied to her. And, personally, I would want to know if someone replied to my comment. Anyone interpreting the pings as a WP:CANVASS violation would be wrong. I'm not sure what to think about a "dispute promotion" argument. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I understood already, but we have watchlisting for a reason. If it were normal for third parties to ping party A every time some party B responded to something we said, our talk pages would be littered with hundreds of thousands of third-party ping comments, basically unreadable. Talk pages were doing just fine before you decided you had to make sure they would work. :-)  It's noteworthy that many editors intend to comment on something once and move on to other work here, being sometimes personally disinterested in, or even opposed to, back-and-forth argument, so such notices will be annoying to them. There's also the "trivial post bothering people's watchlists" issue, like posting "me too" one-liners. It is really likely to raise the more serious appropriateness concerns I first mentioned because unless one were to do it for every single participant uniformly, it's almost always going to reflect the biases of who the third-part pinger wants to invite back into the thread (even if their point has already been made, and the discussion doesn't need any re-argumentation); yet doing it for everyone will raise this second set of (practicality and annoyance) issues.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't suggesting that it is "normal for third parties to ping party A every time some party B responded to something we said"; I was only stating that the pings in this case were justified per what I stated above: It had been a significant time since Coconutporkpie had last replied, and there was no way to know that you all would see the replies. So I can't see that I did anything wrong in this case. If a discussion has stalled for a month or close to a month, or longer, with no sign that the editors who weighed in on it are watching the talk page, and they suddenly get replies to their comments, I will ping the editors. I get pinged all the time to talk pages that people know I am watching, and sometimes even after I tell them that I do not need to be pinged, which is annoying; so pinging editors once every blue moon when you are not sure they are watching is more acceptable in my eyes. There was no need to ping everyone in this case; Coconutporkpie didn't reply to everyone; just to you three. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion focused on improving the article, not general editing-process issues. Such digressions are distracting and clutter the talk page unnecessarily. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Lots of buzzwords are journal subjects; doesn't make them not buzzwords. Some entire fields, like much of philosophy, is characterized by journals that seem to specialize in saying simple things in the most tortured buzzword and jargon pileups imaginable.  Entire academic careers are made on inventing and promoting a new term for something with some faintly nuanced definition among specialists. Just because certain regulators and academics like their neologism doesn't mean it has replaced common usage. And the existence of some particular definitional divergences are just details to cover with attribution to the sources of the divergent definitions. It's good that there are some, but I don't see any evidence that the CM concept has supplanted the CA concept, so there's no basis to rename this article or strongly change it's primary content.  If the concepts are the same, just cover CM in this article as an alternative term in certain circles. If the RS draw a sharp distinction, it's a new topic and should be in its own article.  In re: Coconutporkpie – It's a legal matter first and foremost; that is why it should be tied primarily to statutory definitions, with subsections for divergent usages in other fields. It's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC kind of distinction. If this page is going to serve as something of a WP:CONCEPTDAB, that's important.  The other approach is to fork Child abuse (psychology), etc. out, per WP:SUMMARY if there's sufficient material for separate articles by field.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "It's a legal matter first and foremost; that is why it should be tied primarily to statutory definitions." Please provide some reliable sources to back up this claim. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How about all the laws against child abuse that existed before it was an academic topic with any journals devoted to it? QED.  I note that you didn't address anything substantive in my argument, so I'll consider that my point was properly made and move on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not here to argue, but to find ways to improve the article. My comment was referring to sources that explicitly make the claim that child maltreatment is "first and foremost" a legal matter—as opposed to a topic of research or a public-health problem, for instance. The mere existence of statutes that address child abuse and neglect, no matter how numerous, does not address that question. Citing the fact that such laws exist in support of such a claim would be original research, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia (WP:ORIGINAL). The selection of material for a Wikipedia article depends only on its prominence in published, reliable sources. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion focused on ways to integrate the views of reliable, published sources into the article to achieve a neutral result, including as those views relate to the naming of topics (WP:TALK). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
This is not just a medical article, but also a legal and social article; so WP:MEDRS-compliant sources are not the only sources that count. Furthermore, sources like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is United States-centric. And sources like the World Health organization (WHO) apply to a number of things, including gender, but we don't use its definition of gender as the main definition at the Gender article; this is because the definition of gender varies widely in the literature. Similarly, definitions of child abuse vary, with two things being consistent: It may be defined as physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, or neglect. And child sexual abuse is always considered child abuse by the literature and general public. That stated, if one looks at WP:MEDRS-sources (or legal sources) for this topic, that person should be able to see that accidental harm to a child, including some forms of child neglect, is not always defined as child abuse. They will also see that "child abuse" and "child maltreatment" are not always used as synonyms. For what I mean on these latter two aspects, see the sources below:

1. This 2005 Treatment of Child Neglect systematic review source states, "Child neglect is the most prevalent type of child maltreatment (1–3), yet it has often been overlooked in the literature on child victimization. [...] The health and social sciences literature does not reflect growing awareness of the prevalence and implications of child neglect: most studies continue to focus on sexual or physical abuse of children (4). Further, the existing research generally lacks methodological quality (4). This may in part be because child neglect is difficult to define and measure  and  there is  no consensus  regarding  specific types of neglect."

2. This 2012 Child Maltreatment: An Introduction source, from Sage Publications, page 20, addresses the CDC's prevention definitions of child maltreatment, and is clear that the CDC uses the word intentional for physical or psychological abuse. On page 21, it address how legal definitions of child maltreatment vary, and notes that term is difficult to define clearly.

3. This 2013 Behavioral Interventions and Counseling to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect systematic review source states, "In the United States, child abuse and neglect have legal as well as medical implications. Federal legislation defines child abuse and neglect as any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caregiver that results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk for serious harm (26–28). Although laws vary, states are required to include the minimum standards of the federal law (29)." Note that it uses "serious" for "physical or emotional harm." And "imminent risk for serious harm." 4. This 2013 Child Abuse and Neglect: Second Edition source, from Psychology Press, page 3, like various other sources, treats "child maltreatment" as a broader term than "child abuse"; it's treated as an umbrella term. It defines child maltreatment as "the abuse and/or neglect of children." and adds "Specific definitions vary by state and purpose (legal research, etc.)." It defines child abuse as "an act, generally deliberate, by a parent or caregiver that results in harm or death to a child." It defines child neglect as "the failure of a parent or a caregiver to meet the minimal physical and psychological needs of a child." It also states, "Together, child abuse and child neglect make up child maltreatment. Although most researchers in the field would agree to this terminology, it is important for readers of this literature to note that child abuse is also sometimes used synonymously with child maltreatment. In other words, when some authors write of child abuse, they often mean both abuse and neglect. I also follow this usage largely because abuse is often a less awkward term than is maltreatment. On the other hand, child neglect does not include child abuse, so when you see that term, you can be fairly certain that the focus is on acts of omission." The source goes on to talk about the topic of the confusing terminology. 5. This 2013 Child Abuse and Neglect: Challenges and Opportunities source, from JP Medical Ltd, page 101, states, "Neglect is often the most ignored and underrated of all types of child abuse. Many do not consider neglect a kind of abuse especially in a condition where the parents are involved as it is often considered unintentional and arise from a lack of knowledge or awareness. This may be true in certain circumstances and often it results in insurmountable problem being faced by the parents."

6. This 2015 Unintentional child neglect literature review article states, "Child abuse is a problem that affects over six million children in the United States each year. Child neglect accounts for 78% of those cases. Despite this, the issue of child neglect is still not well understood, partially because child neglect does not have a consistent, universally accepted definition. Some researchers consider child neglect and child abuse to be one in the same, while other researchers consider them to be conceptually different. Factors that make child neglect difficult to define include: (1) Cultural differences; motives must be taken into account because parents may believe they are acting in the child's best interests based on cultural beliefs (2) the fact that the effect of child abuse is not always immediately visible; the effects of emotional neglect specifically may not be apparent until later in the child's development, and (3) the large spectrum of actions that fall under the category of child abuse."

Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some confusion here over what it means to "define" a topic for the purposes of the lead section. My contention is that simply listing types of abuse—physical, sexual, emotional, etc.—or stating that abuse is mistreatment, is not a definition at all. In the latter case, it simply raises the problem of defining what is meant by mistreatment. In the former, the problem becomes defining what physical abuse, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse are. If child abuse exists as a topic in itself, then it will have its own definition apart from those other topics, though it may include them in its definition.


 * It has been noted above that what constitutes child abuse is not universally agreed upon, which was why I made this edit to include the World Health Organization's definition, which I saw as the most pertinent source for a global encyclopedia, duly attributed in order to avoid the impression of there being any universally accepted definition. However, all three sources cited in the "Definitions" section currently make reference to actual or threatened harm to a child in the context of a caregiving relationship for purposes of defining child abuse or maltreatment. Therefore, I contend that the lead section should include these or similar terms, in accordance with Manual of Style/Lead section, which states, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should define the topic, establish context, [and] explain why the topic is notable". "Establishing context" is further defined as "supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround [the topic]" per MOS:BEGIN. That is what the WHO and CDC terminology does. I agree that the lead should also point out that there is no universally-agreed-upon definition. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The sources used in the "Definitions" section are WHO's Preventing child maltreatment: a guide to taking action and generating evidence, CDC's Child Maltreatment Surveillance: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0, and the U.S. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 12:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The CDC is clear that intentionality applies only to the action or failure to act; any act that results in harm can be considered abuse even if harm was not the intended result (p. 11). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I also note that two of the quotations given above, namely (5.) "Many do not consider neglect a kind of abuse" (Srivastava et al. 2013, p.101) and (6.) "Some researchers consider child neglect and child abuse to be one [and] the same, while other researchers consider them to be conceptually different" (Friedman & Billick 2015), directly contradict the first definition mentioned at the start of this discussion, namely "Child abuse or child maltreatment is the physical, sexual or psychological mistreatment or neglect of a child or children", while (3.) "Federal legislation defines child abuse and neglect as any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caregiver that results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk for serious harm" (Selph et al. 2013), supports the second definition, with the addition of the adjective serious. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 14:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Like I just stated to you above, you adding "intentional" does not help much since child abuse does not only relate to intentional aspects (as is clear by the sources I provided above). As for the rest of what you stated, I addressed some if it in the Proposals section above. There is nothing wrong with the lead sentence stating, "Child abuse or child maltreatment is the physical, sexual or psychological mistreatment or neglect of a child or children, especially by a parent or other caregiver." This is because the definitions of child abuse cover all of that; that there is some disagreement with regard to the definitions is why we should briefly note the definitional dispute in the lead and elaborate on it lower in the article; it is exactly why your "any type" or "all forms" wording is not appropriate, at least in the case of "neglect" or unintentional harm. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The "any type" and "all forms" is certainly too sweeping. I'm pretty sure that "neglecting" an infant long enough to go to the bathroom is not considered child abuse by anyone, but "any type of neglect" would logically include a two-minute bathroom break.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That is not what is being said here; the relevant question according to the sources cited, in the article or above, is whether an act of commission or of omission is likely to cause harm to a child. According to U.S. federal legislation, child abuse and neglect is defined as "any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caregiver that results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk for serious harm" (Selph et al. 2013). According to the "research-based" definition used by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, "Child maltreatment refers to any non-accidental behaviour [...] that is outside the norms of conduct and entails a substantial risk of causing physical or emotional harm to a child or young person". —Coconutporkpie (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Since you are responding to WhatamIdoing significantly later and she may not be watching this talk page, I'm pinging her to this talk page in case she wants to reply to you. For the record, I think WhatamIdoing means that "any act" and "all forms," as currently presented in the lead, can be interpreted to mean "all accidental harm to a child constitutes child abuse." Certainly, as I've already addressed in this discussion, child neglect does not always mean "intentional harm," which is the main reason I took issue with your "any act" and "all forms" wording. The other aspect is that, except for sexual abuse and severe physical or psychological harm, sources don't always agree on what is child abuse. So when it comes to your additions to the Definitions section, such as this one, I will eventually add information on these definitional aspects with some of the sources I've presented above and/or other sources. That is, if someone does not beat me to that first. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Giraffedata, regarding this edit you made to the RfC, I'm not aware of any rule that the article has to be about language in its entirety for an RfC to have that tag. There is obviously an option to use a variety of tags if an article or dispute concerns all those areas. This dispute concerns language. I tagged the RfC with all of those aspects because this article/discussion concerns all of those aspects. That stated, I'm not hugely opposed to you having removed the language tag. WhatamIdoing, do you think the language tag should remain discarded? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, I see that the Categories section at WP:RfC currently states, "The 'Language and linguistics' category is for requests related to a Wikipedia article (or part of one) about language and linguistics, not for requests concerning the language on a page. If you want comments on how an article should be worded, categorize your request according to the topic of the article." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, not only that, but that passage is only a clarification. The list of RfC categories in which Language and linguistics appears is under the heading "article topics".  There is another list of categories for RfCs that would be of interest to people regardless of their interest in the article topic.  Both lists are amazingly short, though.  Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since this has turned in part into a rename/split discussion on the basis of a definitional conflict and a neologism, the language RfC category could be put back on.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  17:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Done. 18:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * SMcCandlish re-added the language tag. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's why I added "Done " to my post just above this. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)