Talk:Abuse/Archive 1

message: I moved the old version of this article to Abuse/old and restarted with a basic definition. I will try to move some of the more encyclopedic information from the old one to this one over the next day or two. Feel free to help out or add. DJ Clayworth 21:23, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Where the heck is this remplate located, seriously. DanB†DanD 04:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: The  tag is being inserted into a lot of articles where IMV it is unhelpful. Does anyone know where it originates from? The Land 14:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where the heck is this remplate located, seriously. DanB†DanD 04:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abuse Template

message: I have nothing against both homosexuals and those who have an incest relationship (although both are a bit "sick" to me) but why is incest on the list? If we have incest on the list why don't we put homosexuality? I think that is a double standard. I think either we should remove incest or keep it along with homosexuality. What do you think? Zachorious 04:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensual incest is vanishingly rare: the overwhelming majority of cases are of child abuse by an adult relative. DanB†DanD 20:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced and unverifiable. In any case, abusive incest is already include by 'Sexual abuse', so I'm removing it. The way, the truth, and the light 05:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incest and not homosexuality or beastiality?

message: Thanks to various clinicians who are compelled to find a label for any and every human social/emotional difficulty, "abuse" may be used too readily.  The minimum criteria for physical, verbal, and emotional abuse, particularly can be very elastic.  Early in the 21st Century, there is great concern for the victim and there may be times and situations when even a high level of discomfort should not be defined as abuse by others in that person's social constellation.
An addition regarding this elasticity of definition might be in order.     207.178.98.9 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eagerness to label

message: There is a problem with the Verbal Abuse link. The link directs you to a Texas band named Verbal Abuse which is completely irrevelant. Same goes with zoophilia or beastiality. I think beastiality is more of a candidate for abuse than voluntary homosexuality or incest. Zachorious 04:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incest is a crime and is shown to be destructive to families. It also invariably involves one party that is extremely domineering over another, calling into question the ability of the dominated party to consent.  Homosexuality is none of these.  138.88.125.189 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verbal abuse

message: Take a look at the other talk pages concerning violence and abuse; they all surround each other. ~~J.S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jshephard (talk • contribs) 13:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See [[Talk:Violence]]

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Joie de Vivre 15:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TfD nomination of [[:Template:{{ucfirst:Abuse}}]]

message: :"Abuse refers to the use or treatment of something (a person, item, substance, concept, or vocabulary) that is seen as harmful. A persons intent and motivation to cause non-consensual harm to another."
This is confusing to read, primarily the 'seen as' part. I would figure abuse is something that IS harmful, not just something that is seen as harmful. If something is not harmful but seen as harmful, the person seeing it as harmful would call it abuse, but if it was not, it would not be abuse. Shouldn't the 'seen as part' be taken out? The next part is a sentence all on its own as a separate paragraph and looks very odd. Furthermore, it is worded very strangely. Firstly, abuse/harm can occur even if it is not someone's intention to harm another. It call also occur with or without consent, a person can be harmed/abused even if they give informed consent to something. This definition seems far too specific and ignores the multitude of circumstances in which it can occur. In fact, I'm going to be bold and erase these overgeneralizing disclaimers. Abuse is a very extensive topic and the many ways in which harm can occur should not be skimmed over! Tyciol (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also find it confusing that the definition uses the word 'gain'. I do not believe that all cases of abuse stem from what the abuser can gain from the victim. It would be beneficial to clarify that point. Tmgonzalez (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing definition

message: The abuse template covers the disambiguation. There is quite a lot that can be written about abuse in general. --Penbat (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Penbat, here's the command which can limit how many levels out the Table of Contents can go: . That limits the levels to 4. But you can change it around. So, if you group the TOC so it has different levels, you can control how many are seen. But I don't know if you're interested in doing this. I'm having fun with a new charting tool; check out Summit High School (New Jersey) -- the math section -- I just put in a cool new flowchart for math courses.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I think this is an excellent article; you've done well with this. Great job!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I came across this :in American society, females are, on average, approved of violence against males in the psychological characterisyics section. I was going to fix it but wasn't quite sure what was meant. Fainites barleyscribs 22:43 wikipedia articles and it is not as if the length makes navigation difficult as the article structure is simple, only going down one level, and there are no long passages of text in each section. It is difficult enough doing this article at all, without having to make it conform to artificial packaging constraints.--Penbat (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper general article on abuse needed. 

message: Much of this article reads like a dictionary definition. Indeed, the lead section very closely resembles wikt:abuse. Can the page, or at the very least the lead section, be developed to give an encyclopedic overview of what I'm sure is an important topic? Cnilep (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the first few lines are basically like wikt:abuse. Can you clarify what you mean by encyclopedic ? Much of the article gives a short description of each abuse type which are generally described in detail in other articles. The idea of the latter sections was to cover common characteristics of abuse and it is intended to expand them. Yes this is a very important article but it is tough to work on and i think it best if it is changed slowly over time. Expansion and development of the latter sections also depends on finding suitable sources.--Penbat (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: When I say "encyclopedic" I mean an article written in encyclopedic style about a coherent topic. A good article also complies with Wikipedia's Manual of style, including introducing the topic and summarizing key content in its lead section. You're quite right that such development takes time; I'm sorry if I seemed to suggest that it could be done quickly or easily. This should be the goal that we are working toward, though. Cnilep (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point. I think that means there ought to be a summary in the lead of the material covered in the end sections describing common features of abuse. The end sections need developing more first i think to make that possible so it is balanced. Individual abuse types are generally studied and researched in isolation, but at the same time there are quite a few common strands between abuse types. --Penbat (talk) 20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictionary-like 

message: I've never heard the term "disability abuse" before.  I immediately understood it to be comparable to "welfare abuse".  That is, people are on welfare, and shouldn't be, or are accepting disability pensions, and shouldn't be.  
Admittedly I don't live in the USA, but Wikipedia is supposed to be universal.  Where I live, disability pensions are part of welfare, and can be abused.  Any article on the subject must make it very clear at the start, in which direction the abuse is going. I'd prefer to see a longer, clearer title: Abuse of the disabled. --Hordaland (talk) 17:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disability abuse  ---just sayin' 

message: Do we really need two separate sections here?--Cybermud (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They are usually given distinct meanings in the literature. Info for both of them needs to be tightened up. I plan to create separate articles for them eventually with decent citations.--Penbat (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic vs Financial abuse 

message: Why are all the "Abuse of" alphabetized together and others not? For example, why is "Market abuse" under M rather than under A for "Abuse of the market"? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite simply i have tried to use the most common expression for each abuse type. For example doing a quick scan of Google Books and Google Scholar, "Market abuse" beats "abuse of the market" by a big margin. --Penbat (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alphabetization 

message: The section on Abuse#types and contexts of abuse is unreasonably long - 108 subsections at this point - just a laundry list of various types of abuse.  It should be removed and made into either a disambiguation page for abuse, or a List of types of abuse, or possibly (with appropriate grouping) into an Outline of abuse (if outlines are still considered acceptable).  There are far too many subtypes of abuse to cover them individually in an encyclopedia article. Zodon (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was originally a DAB page and i developed it into a proper article. Your attitude seems to be one of debasing and undermining the article. Firstly preconceptions of "long" mean just applying fixed notions of perceived appropriate packaging for Wikipedia. It would be wrong to apply artificial constraints because of rules of aesthetics. The idea is to provide a short summary of each type of abuse and provide a link to the corresponding main article if it exists. The other purpose of the article is to cover common strands and concepts covering the different types of abuse in general and there is text after the "abuse types" which tries to cover some common abuse concepts (to be expanded). The fact that there are common strands can be seen by reading the short descriptions of the different abuse types as there is often similar text in each case. Also deleting entries that just redirect to other entries is debasing the value of the article. The article is not a laundry list - the whole point of the article is to explore interactions and overlaps between different abuse types. There is often common underlying psychology behind the different abuse types. --Penbat (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split types section 

message: Why is human sacrifice on this list but not murder? This is just a list of categories, dictionary definitions, unreliable sources for unrelated topics and stuff. What's the thinking for putting all this together with almost no reliable sources, and "Further reading" sections stuck here and there in this list?  I'm not sure what the purpose of this is, unless it's to see how many misleading piped wikilinks and redirects can be put in one place. Is there a rational for having different sections for substance abuse and alcohol abuse? Is binge drinking really abuse the same way rape is? Why are victims and abusers mixed up in the list with no apparent rationale? 
Farrajak (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a logical rationale here before it recently got mangled. There is no official consensus anywhere about what is and isnt abuse. The main problem is that it pulls in 2 different dimensions - specific style of abuse and specific context of abuse, but style also varies in some cases on the context. Although academic research suggests that a proper classification model for abuse would be a good idea I am not aware that anybody has managed to do one. Most of the abuses listed here contain the word "abuse". You could say that just about all crime is abuse but there are thousands of crimes and are obviously covered in crime articles and categories. Crime of course also partly reflects cultural values of what is normal and acceptable. Killing and maiming in war may be compulsory but in civilian life it is a horrendous crime. On the physical side there is basically just "physical abuse" listed. Also some abuses are words in common usage, some relate to psychology, some to sociology & social psychology etc.--Penbat (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, the article focus is terribly conflicted. The first section practically lists everything even loosely related to the word "abuse", while the other sections straight-up assume this abuse is human-on-human. If not for the latter, this would be a decent disambiguation page instead of the total clusterduck that it is now. 8ty3hree (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As i have said before, there are quite a few common strands and relationships between the different types of abuse but not necessarily the same strands or relationships in each case. The later sections deals with strands and themes for a fair number of abuses but obviously not all.--Penbat (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are [[alcohol abuse]], [[sexual abuse]] , [[sectarianism]], and [[humiliation]]   related abuses? 

message: There are some 122 specifications of "abuse" in this article. Why is it that on whole Wikipedia there is no article about the "Abuse of Abuse"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.192.101.231 (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Abuse Of Abuse

message: I am the author of a book entitled Abuse. Domestic Violence. Workplace and School Bullying, published by Cork University Press. I would like to add a section on the abusive personality.
thank you,
Jim O'Shea 
Principal3 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. In other words, please propose the precise wording here so that it can be evaluated and, with consensus, added. It would also be helpful if you'd provide multiple reliable sources for the proposed content. Your effort to improve the article is much appreciated, as is your advance disclosure of a possible conflict of interest. Rivertorch (talk) 18:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 18 September 2013 

message: This seems like a very long list, not an article.  Soranoch (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the feedback. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it was a list, back in April, it was heavily revamped as an article by Penbat before it was massacred by the indef-blocked user Fladrif back in March 2013, and Fladrif's comments did not gain any support after that heated discussion there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader feedback: This seems like a very long ... 

message: I have never logged into Wikipedia with a username or password.  My computer has been hacked into on several occasions.  I noticed on my favorites bar this site came up and it said there were administrators?  Please investigate this situation as it is very disturbing for me.
174.100.251.144 (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you are looking for but this page is dedicated to the improvement of the abuse article. If you have never created a Wikipedia account then there is little to nothing an administrator here can do for you. If your computer has been hacked into I can only suggest you obtain some sort of antivirus software.  Cannolis (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2014 

message: Please consider adding the following organization as another external link:
* CAPSA (Citizens Against Physical and Sexual Abuse)
Moulton (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible new external link 

message: Please add a  template at the top of this article (or, even better, directly split this article, if you can), please. Many subsections, in "Types and contexts of abuse" section are not pertinent to "This article is about the mistreatment of people, systems or animals."  For example some are pertinent to Substance abuse , see Abuse (disambiguation). Thank you. --5.170.65.168 (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: - this article is a set index listing a broad summary of all articles on all types of abuse, of which you can see there are many. There is no need to split topics from a set index page. If you think that the hatnote ("this article is about ...") is confusing or misleading, perhaps you could suggest better wording. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2015 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abuse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120619160335/http://familylives.org.uk/sites/default/files/When%20family%20hurts%202010.pdf to http://familylives.org.uk/sites/default/files/When%20family%20hurts%202010.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090618204928/http://noragging.com/index.php/Research/Reports/Ragging-History-and-Evolution.html to http://noragging.com/index.php/Research/Reports/Ragging-History-and-Evolution.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090220222902/http://stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/index.asp?area=whatbullyingis to http://stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/index.asp?area=whatbullyingis
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611053853/http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29633 to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=29633
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141229141744/http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DUTTON.-1994.-PATRIARCHY-AND-WIFE-ASSAULT-THE-ECOLOGICAL-FALLACY..pdf to http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DUTTON.-1994.-PATRIARCHY-AND-WIFE-ASSAULT-THE-ECOLOGICAL-FALLACY..pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708031024/http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/%7Ejjf/articles/gf05.pdf to http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/articles/gf05.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/sccwebsite/sccwspages.nsf/LookupWebPagesByTITLE_RTF/The+different+types+of+abuse?opendocument
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The TOC is practically useless, and in practice conceals the existence of the 2nd section and its subsections. There are mechanisms for overriding the default TOC structure, some of which facilitate custom-designing the presentation of the ToC, and some of which are stunningly easy ways to improve usability over the default, in cases like this one, even if in the long term it deserves a truly bespoke TOC.--Jerzy•t 08:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of users via formatting of the accompanying article 

message: The examples of child sexual abuse listed in this section were not entirely accentuate. There were two issues I addressed. The first is that indecent exposure is a legal term and what it constitutes can very from, jurisdiction and country. The term also has a cultural concept as too what constitutes indecent exposure in a general non-legal sense. Mere nudity can in some case be legal considered indecent exposure in some case without there being a consensus that children's exposure to such nudity is "child sexual abuse". as they define it. Nor would it necessarily be classified as CSA under the law either. depending on the motives of the person engaging in indecent exposure. It generally must involves intentional exposure of private parts in front of a child for the sexual gratification of the flasher/nude person or to shock or disturb the child. There is no consensus among CSA researchers that mere exposure to fully or partially nude adults in and of itself is sexually abuses and thus  that should not be implied in the description of CSA in this article. Second, Viewing or engaging in sexual contact with a child's genitals is not in and of itself abuse if done for legitimate non-sexual purpose. The way it was previously written basically stated that doctors who conduct genitals exams of a child,  parents cleaning their baby's genital area after a diaper changing, or a parent who looks at a rash on their child's genitals out of a health concern would be engaging in the crime of child sexual abuse, which is not true under most CSA laws or under CSA definitions used by CSA researchers. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving child sexual abuse description as it was a little overbroad.