Talk:Child abuse/Archive 5

MEDRS and a PubMed Review
This revert was made by Flyer22 Reborn giving the reason WP:MEDRS. Yet the source it is a PubMed Review article. The journal is Translational sychiatry, see in WP also Translational Psychiatry. Please would you reconsider this. --Chris Howard (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ask about the source/content at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The source is not a review. It's a single study: "DNA methylation was assayed in 46 sperm samples from 34 men in a longitudinal non-clinical cohort". It has no conclusions of strength in any case: the article ends "... molecular evidence from human germ cells remains sparse. Our results recommend further consideration of this promising hypothesis. There's no way that this should be used in an encyclopedia article.
 * The problem is that is confusing an article published by PubMed with a review article. PubMed indexes most articles and simply being indexed is no indication of suitability for use as a source in a Wikipedia medical article. WP:MEDRS gives a good explanation of what is required. --RexxS (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 34 people are not a sufficient sample size for any conclusion. And what RexxS said. Let's not add this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 34 people are not a sufficient sample size for any conclusion. And what RexxS said. Let's not add this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Some time ago I have been told, if I remember correctly, that the best WP sources are articles that are PubMed review articles, and that those are recognisable by being indexed as "Review" by PubMed. Yet I would not exclude at this point that I may remember this wrong or that the person may have oversimplified it. In any case I have worked on the assumption that PubMed is so careful with their indexing that one could rely on their indexing of review articles. Now if that is not the case, I find that quite disappointing - not on the side of Wikipedia, but on the side of PubMed. --Chris Howard (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * PubMed is a database – sort of a library card catalog for scientists. It includes information about millions of scientific publications, including review articles and meta-analyses (which can be excellent), peer-reviewed original research reports (like this one), editorials and op-eds, and right on down to letters to the editor.  The range of journals they catalog runs from top-quality journals to some of the worst reputations in the industry.
 * IMO the real question here is whether their claim that a mere 6% of the variation in DNA methylation can be explained by childhood abuse is WP:DUE in an article that covers such a broad subject. I don't think that it is.  If I were going to add 15 words to this article, they'd probably be about the educational effects or economic effects.  The article doesn't even mention the words divorce or stepfather.  Those subjects are much more DUE than a small change to a single epigenetic measurement.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Certainly those aspects (divorce, stepfather, educational etc) should be expanded upon. One does not exclude the other. Findings that suggest that child abuse leaves physical traces of this kind are quite revolutionary and could be set out together with an explanation that the evidence is limited. Of course in the light of the article not being a review article, it makes sense to leave it as is until the matter has been evaluated by "real" review articles. --Chris Howard (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

We already say "Recent studies give evidence of a link between stress occurring early in life and epigenetic modifications that last into adulthood". A primary source is not really needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * concur w/ Doc James--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Doc James is on the money here. I could give you a long explanation of why that is, but I suggest you simply brush up on some basic biology. This is especially pertinent in regards to comments on "physical traces" and "real review article". I suggest beyond the article on DNA methylation also reading Biology of memory (yes memories as just as physical as DNA methylation) and scientific evidence. Carl Fredrik  talk 00:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Expanding US specific section of article
I am interested in adding information about child abuse in the US specifically to this page. I will be focusing on the history of the issue as well as legislation and current statistics. More information, including potential references, can be found on my user page. Mkhurley19 (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

What about boot camps for troubled youth
?87.249.199.39 (talk) 05:47, 6 April 2020 (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 "globe": From Sexual slavery:  From Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act:  

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 ⚡ 15:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Needs some edits
The introduction to the article is not cohesive and does not introduce the different topics that are discussed throughout. I would suggest eliminating the third paragraph where it talks about different jurisdictions as it should only be talked about more in depth in its own paragraph. I also feel that it would be appropriate to list hotline information on child abuse at the beginning in order to be more accessible for readers in need.Weennnddy (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hotline information should not be at the beginning. As for a good lead, WP:Lead offers guidance. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Online child abuse is a POV fork
On its talk page, linked to a discussion where she and others clearly explained to some Wiki Ed students why they shouldn't make Online child abuse so that they could avoid the issue of undue weight on Child abuse. However, they apparently still did it. This was apparently never discussed on this talk page or on the talk page of the online child abuse article, so I don't believe the article ever actually resolved that issue. However, it's been 3 years. I don't know if the points raised by Flyer22 regarding undue weight still apply, otherwise I would straight-out nominate the article for deletion. Opinions? (please ping me if you respond, I frequently forget to check back on discussions). --Xurizuri (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chelseaw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cguzman25. Peer reviewers: Yalmazan, Sepulvedalu, Nsjohnson28.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Soymilkp20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: UCSF SOM Inquiry In Action-- Wikipedia Editing 2022
— Assignment last updated by Hcmiles (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is extremely thorough and covers several key topics related to child abuse (i.e. types, causes, prevention, examples). I really appreciated that there was discussion covering child abuse in both the U.S. and worldwide to provide a more thorough background. One suggestion is to more clearly separate the role of treatment for the victims of abuse and the perpetrators of abuse - for example, I am unsure if it would be classified as "treatment" for parents to receive CBT to reduce abusive behaviors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cappuccinofanatic (talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LLIB 1115 - Intro to Information Research
— Assignment last updated by Gillind (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Child abuse
List 6 child abuse you know 102.89.40.138 (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Child abuse
Men 103.106.138.199 (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A child called IT and -
other worst cases. Why aren't they mentioned? I have a copy of the book called A Child Called IT. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session23
— Assignment last updated by Juy016 (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)