Talk:Mandated reporter

message: I see that someone wrote that "in many states all citizens are mandated reporters."  Is this true?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrSteve (talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. What's the history of these things?--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled 

message: The article states RAINN maintains a database of mandated reporting requirements.
The link leads to a page that says one is not authorized. The RAINN web site does not appear to have such a database.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.108.185 (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAINN link 

message: This article is tagged with a statement saying it 'does not neccesarily reflect a worldwide view.' Trying to make it worldwide would involve deletion of a huge anout of work and data. I suggest a wholesale removal and creation of Mandatory reporting in the US. A much shorter article would remain to discuss the concept in general terms, with links to the US (and perhaps a new Australian article). Would any editors object?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  more than a little bit US centric 

message: This article has, in my opinion, become extremely large for such a topic, with copious repetitious detail about everything that is wrong with mandatory reporting, specifically in the US.
I have attempted to reduce some of the repetition, but it has systematically be returned by the original author, NationionP.
I have also attempted to simplify some of the repetitious citations, but these, too, have been returned by NationionP.
I believe that re- adding both of these changes will help make the article
* readable
* more about the topic, less about one opinion about the topic
However, not anting to edit war unneccessarily, i would liek to discuss this here first. 
1. Is there any reason why we shouldn't reduce the repetition of statements throughout?
2. Is there any reason why we shouldn't simplify the citations used? (I notice  yobot has attempted some of this simplification already) WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  general problems with this article 

message: :See WP:TLDR
:Certainly the article should discuss problems / effects (intended or unintended) etc., but the volume of material you've added is grossly excessive, and almost every section is clearly aimed at establishing or implying that mandated reporting requirements are heavy-handed, excessive, unduly burdensome, intrusive, evil, counterproductive, unnecessary... shall I go on? A section of statistics on #s of reports and outcomes of investigations (including trends over time), a section on possible conflicts between mandated reporting and reporters' other responsibilities or duties (e.g. clergy), and s section on criticism -- each two or three moderate paragraphs -- is all that's appropriate. Quoting all these opinions and statutes in full makes the article completely unreadable. If you don't believe my evaluation you might post a request for a third opinion at WP:THIRD. 
:EEng (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to clarify- I agree with EEng, so that would be a fourth opinion you'd be seeking.
The earlier version was so longwinded that I found it hard to understand what any of it was saying. When I "deleted a total of 47,499 bytes" I was barely making a dent on the readability of the article. I meant it when I said I was just removing duplicated quotes and references. 
The article, as it currently stands, is easily long enough. Making it TEN TIMES LONGER (120,309+ to 11,967) is overkill. Is there a reason you think it needs more than a paragraph or two outlining the problems of mandatory reporting? I'd think most people would come to an encyclopedia wanting to know what the term means, a bit of background and links to specific legal info for their jurisdiction WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Whew!

message: I have deleted the section titled "Substantiation by Maltreatment Type." 
It begins with an opinion, stated as fact- "Substantiation is often based on vague definitions designed to be overbroad to catch all potential cases and varies across jurisdictions/workers, using low standards of proof. It is rarely qualified or judged by an outside entity " (as a side note: I find it unfortunate- and frustrating- that so many quotes are being added (or re added) that assert a general trend when the quote is describing only the US situation.)
It followed with tables which ennumerated the types of maltreatment, and deducted the percentages of maltreatment by population. This is blatant WP:original research (specifically, WP:synthesis.
WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made some revisions to this section and believe it worthy of being added back in. Please refer to my user talk page for a complete explanation why. Thank you.
--NatonioP (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal of "Substantiation by maltreatment type" section 

message: I have removed the following from the 'history' section:
In 1963 in the US, there were 150,000 hotline calls. . By 2011, there were 3.4 million calls, an increase of over 2348%. In Australia in 2000-01 there were 115,471 notifications and in 2011-12 there were 252,962 notifications. These figures show a dramatic increase in hotline calls of which the majority of allegations are unsubstantiated, but not an expanding epidemic of actual child abuse and neglect.
I have a couple of problems with it:
* It isn't really focused on the history of mandatory reporting- it has gone off on the oft repeated tangent of "what's wrong with mandatory reporting".
* Inclusion of Australian data to help push the point made by the US source. (Krason and Besharov say nothing of the Australian situation, for all we know it is and expanding epidemic of child abuse here. (though, personally, I doubt it). It is just plain false to conclude anything about the Australian situation by quoting those authors.
* It includes a mix of wp:or- we need to quote exactly what others have said- not update the statistics and write what they would have said if they'd have said it a few years later. Krason notes only stats up to 1997, and an 1800% increase. 
* it had poorly written citation links. Easy fixed, just frustrating that these are throughout the article. I am gradually repairing them.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  history section- para deletion 

message: Some of WotherspoonSmith’s comments regarding this section were responded to above. Now I would like to address the other comments. The reader has the right to know about the facts about the number and types of maltreatment. National governments collect and publish this information to be available and understood (the data was from the most reputable, verifiable documents available). To delete government data is inappropriate. Responding to your comment about “blatant WP:original  research (specifically WP:synthesis)”: I am flattered that you consider percentages of population as blatant original research, but it is simple math with clearly known data: the populations and the substantiations, (e.g. There is 1 boy out of 100 children=1% boys). In addition the percentages, referred to in the material you deleted, are from an expert researcher in this area, David Finkelhor, who published the percentages (ratios) for 20 years for % of US children affected by sexual and physical abuse and neglect. From his graph one can see the percentages. His information is based on NCANDS. This graph shows the percentages per population of substantiated maltreatment as: less than 1/10th of a per cent for sexual abuse, less than 1/5th of a per cent for physical abuse, and less than 1% for neglect. To get all the data on one graph (page), due to extremely small rates, he based the rate on per 10,000 children and sexual abuse (x3) and physical abuse (x2).
Wikipedia policy -WP:synth states “if something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands it, then it is not synth. Given two sources, the conclusion is obvious. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison.” So the US chart is being restored since it is obvious from two sources. You stated the article was US Centric, so that is why data from other countries was mentioned, but it is up to you.
NatonioP (talk)  2013 August 28
: no. read the whole section of wp:synthesis. your edits clearly meet the criteria described there. it is very close to the examples given. 
: please, stop selectively quoting wp policy and read the full contents and spirit. It is doing a discredit to your edits- when you are that selective with policies we are familiar with, it brings your credibility into question on other things you have quoted. you may wish to seek a second (welll... third) opinion.
: (could you also please sign each of your comments. If you make one in each of several sections, please sign each one so that, when someone responds as I am doing here, we can see who each comment was from. Thank you) WotherspoonSmith (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of “Substantiation by maltreatment type” section

message: NatonioP, you must start giving greater attention to what is and is not acceptable in WP editing.0
* For starters, you must stop it with the long, adjective-filled verbosity. In conclusion extremely frustrating inappropriate repeatedly suppress better understand complex issue hide reality very dangerous unprofessional.  These issues need to be out in the open and discussed respectfully. None of that says anything about what should or shouldn't be in the article. It's meaningless verbiage that doesn't make an argument, and it makes you look ridiculous. 
* And stop saying persons X and Y are "in charge of the entire US child protective services system" or whatever.  There's no such nationwide system and if you keep talking that way it's going to raise serious WP:COMPETENCE issues with respect to the appropriateness of your continuing to work on this article.
*Stop making arbitrary changes to linebreaks in the source text which make diffs essentially meaningless, so that it's impossible to tell what you actually changed. When you do this in future I'll simply revert your changes. 
Those are just three random things that come to mind right now. Start with those and things will improve measurably. EEng (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Learning the ropes

message: URL given is: http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm09/cm09.pdf
The duplicate victim rate was 10.1 victims per 1,000 children in the population, while the unique victim rate was 9.3 victims per 1,000 children in the population. The number of nationally estimated duplicate victims was 763,000; the number of nationally estimated unique victims was 702,000… 
What were the most common types of maltreatment?
As in prior years, the greatest proportion of children suffered from neglect. A child may have suffered from multiple forms of maltreatment and was counted once for each maltreatment type. CPS investiga¬tions or assessments determined that for unique victims:
* More than 75 percent (78.3%) suffered neglect;
* More than 15 percent (17.8%) suffered physical abuse;
* Less than 10 percent (9.5%) suffered sexual abuse; and
* Less than 10 percent (7.6%) suffered from psychological maltreatment.
--NatonioP (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Text from Child Maltreatment Report 2009 (NCANDS) page ix:

message: The article used to contain the following line:
"Protective workers in the US are two to six times more likely to wrongly label an innocent family guilty than to label a guilty family innocent."
I have looked at the source, which does indeed say this. However, it cites a source- and when i checked the source, it said something subtley different- that only 2-6 reports are substantiated.
* we have written this already in the article
* making a report is not the same thing as "labelling an innocent family guilty." It is making a report of reasonable grounds to suspect abuse has occurred. Reported (in my Australian experience) are specifically required NOT to investigate, but to report concerns. All information i can find (including this wikipedia article) specify that making a report is not the same as making an accusation- so it is far short of accurate to say that a false report is "labelling an innocent family guilty."
I understand that the original quote was a good faith quote from what appears to be a reliable source- but in this case, the source has hyped up the data to say somethign emotive that it does not.
I have also removed earlier comments comparing hotline calls to substantiations, and made it clearer that a great many reports are never investigated. If a report is made but is never investigated,
1. this does not belong in a section on "outcomes of investigations", and 
2. it does not ruin peoples lives the way it has been alluded to in some of the literature on this topic.
WotherspoonSmith (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed hyperbole in 'outcomes of investigations' section. 

message: When Googling Wikipedia for Mandatory Reporting what comes up is Mandated Reporter, which appears to be the “catch-all” for this complex topic. Much information has been collected over the past four decades, since CAPTA was instituted, and a valuable Wikipedia article should provide a broad understanding of the topic.
Comments on Wikipedia editing include: Generally speaking, the more information it can provide the better.  Deleting content frustrates the proper editorial processes and discussions. Work productively together with editors to build a better encyclopedia with good faith and provide multiple citations from reliable sources.
With large proposed deletions … it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion to prevent edit warring and disillusioning the editors. Try to fix problems: preserve…content.
Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness and is here to provide information to people
The following areas (that have been in the article for years) are being restored as they are important to better understand the issue and are relevant to the topic:
  -Anonymity and immunity
  -Clergy-Penitent Privilege and Other Exemptions
  -Outcomes of investigations 
  -Substantiation by Maltreatment Type
  -Appeals/expunction
  -Child removals as a result of mandatory reporting
Slight modifications were made by moving a small amount of text to related areas (explained on view edit history). Previous editors comments on Talk page seem to be relevant to the current discussion, including: Listing the countries shows a wider world view. Rather than listing alphabetically, they were listed by size. The US was listed first because, it “has the largest population and by far the largest number of children and families affected each year, the most extensive statistical data collected yearly for decades, and the US policies often influence other countries. In comparison, Canada has 1/10th the population (smaller than California) and Australia has 1/15th the population.” There seems to be extensive detail about Australian states and territories compared to other countries (many are smaller than US cities).
General statements can be made but statistical data is a measuring tool to see what is happening. The information from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS-the “gold-standard” in data collection and the authoritative US yearly report that tracks extensive data and makes it public) is very important to understand the impact and outcome of the Mandatory Reporting policy. Although there is some information from other countries, NCANDS is the most comprehensive and thorough analysis of mandatory reporting. It has been collected over a period of decades.
Concern about potentially incorrect legal reporting information referenced as fact by RAINN. A legal disclaimer from RAINN website states: “The Rape Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) Web site provides general information that is intended, but not guaranteed, to be correct and up-to-date. …RAINN does not endorse, guarantee or warranty the accuracy, reliability or thoroughness of any referenced information”. Rmn116 (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Keeping Unbiased

message: Shorter article with relevant links to manage information and make it more reader friendly
This article states in the first paragraph that “mandated reporters are people who have regular contact with vulnerable people such as children, disabled persons, and senior citizens”. Because of this, reference to Wikipedia articles on Elder abuse and Disability abuse should be referenced in case one is interested in these areas.
The majority of the information in this article is regarding children. Due to the fact that there has been a growing amount of research and articles on this subject, this article has become very lengthy trying to include a comprehensive discussion of the topic and reporting requirements/report statistics for multiple nations and states/ provinces. When trying to include information and discussion on individual countries, states and provinces it is becoming apparent that the article should be a general article with links to additional Wikipedia articles. In reading past comments on the talk page, I noticed that WotherspoonSmith had made the following suggestions to link articles:
*“A much shorter article would remain to discuss the concept in general terms, with links to the US (and perhaps a new Australian article). Would any editors object?” 6/8/13
*“I’d think most people would come to an encyclopedia wanting to know what the term means, a bit of background and links to specific legal info for their jurisdictions”. 7/23/13
*“…I think the article needs to be shorter, general information only. If it included the proposed detail on all countries that have mandatory reporting it would be even bigger”. 8/4/13
Since WotherspoonSmith has already “forked” a separate article on Mandatory reporting in the US (on 8/14/15), it makes sense to do the same for Mandatory reporting in Australia or Mandatory reporting Worldwide (which includes detailed numbers of reports/statistics by countries and detailed reporting requirements by international jurisdictions; and would allow a place to add more information on additional countries as it becomes available). I have forked a separate article, Mandatory reporting Worldwide to retain information. This leaves a shorter article with general information and links to other articles (as WotherspoonSmith had suggested earlier). 
Links have been provided at the beginning of the article to allow the reader to easily be guided to the area of their interest for more information. (Elder abuse, Disability abuse, Mandatory reporting in the US, and Mandatory reporting Worldwide).  Currently, the information that was removed and “forked” to the new article on Mandatory reporting in the US, is more difficult to access as it is now only available after reading to the end of the second page of statistics of reporting by countries.
In addition, past comments on the talk page indicates a need for separate linked articles from a more neutral general parent article. Three of the major issues include: 
-When Googling Wikipedia for Mandatory Reporting what comes up is Mandated Reporter, which appears to be the “catch-all” for this complex topic. (As a result, this is the priority article and much information from various points of view should be discussed , which is important for balance, but has caused editing wars in the past with much information deleted and then needing to be restored to address more than reporting requirements. Also, as more information is added , it is difficult to accommodate the various aspects of this topic, as the article becomes lengthy and harder for the reader to locate information they are interested in.)
-A desire to have an article that includes both a broad understanding of the complex/complicated issues of mandatory reporting over the decades, with many intended and unintended side effects , as well as general guidelines for reporting. (Much of the research came from the US over the past decades, possibly because of the years of US research, the size of the US population and the huge number of referrals; resulting in comprehensive analysis of data to help understand the results and outcomes of the reporting policies (both positive and negative). It would be helpful to get broader information from other countries, if available, on more than number of reports and lists of people required to report).
-A desire to have a greater international/worldwide  focus on countries other than the US, explaining who are designated reporters and the number of reports in each country/jurisdiction, etc. (After WothersoonSmith forked the Mandatory reporting in the US, much additional information was added to the parent article to detail designated reporters and number of reports in various countries/jurisdictions, which appears to be this editor’s priority for the article. As additional information becomes available, it would be useful to include reporting in other large countries such as China, Russia, India, Japan, Latin America, countries in South America (although Brazil was added) Arab nations, African countries (although South Africa was added), and Asian nations (although Malaysia was added). A link to Mandatory reporting Worldwide would accommodate these additions and would provide information for readers that are interested in this focus. Rmn116 (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  RE: " it would be useful to include reporting in other large countries such as China, Russia, India, Japan, Latin America, countries in South America (although Brazil was added) Arab nations, African countries (although South Africa was added), and Asian nations (although Malaysia was added)." AFAIK, the countries listed already are the ones that have mandatory reporting requirements (of child abuse, at least). I don't think we'll find any mandated reporting requirements in the nations/ regions you list. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Was Growing:

message: We recently forked off the article Mandatory Reporting Worldwide from this one. As I noted above, I don't think this was necessary- I think we have now made two articles where one would be more appropriate.
If this article is about Mandatory reporting, it should be about mandatory reporting worldwide, it's one and the same thing. I propose we re- merge the two. Any thoughts?
(the US centric article on Mandatory reporting in the US would remain untouched by this proposal.)
WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mandated reporter. 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/20130524064542/http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/6882.pdf to http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/custom/heartland_migration/files/pdfs/6882.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The list of specific professions seems unnecessary and irrelevant.  It specifies a select list of professions, which applies to some places but not others. It is more accurate to leave the general description of the types of roles that may or may not be mandated ( eg "child care professionals" or"medical professionals" , rather than listing the different types one by one). As stated in the article, some jurisdictions require all adults to report, many require none.  WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed list of possible mandated reporters-