Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:04, 26 March 2013

Psychology B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1

TfD nomination of Template:Abuse

Template:Abuse 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)

Confusing definition

"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)

Please would you add to the definition of Abuse, "Abuse may be intentional or unintentional". Thank you. 81.99.104.50 (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Proper general article on abuse needed.

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)

Hey Penbat, here's the command which can limit how many levels out the Table of Contents can go: {{TOC limit|4}}. 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)

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)

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 scribs 22:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Prune and very long tags

It is beyond me why they were here. There are plenty of much longer[REDACTED] 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)

Dictionary-like

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)

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)

When I say "encyclopedic" I mean an article written in encyclopedic style about a coherent topic. A good article also complies with Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

Disability abuse ---just sayin'

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Hi there are some intrinsic ambiguities anyway. For example with Child Abuse "child" is the subject of the abuse but with Police Abuse "police" is the perpetrator of the abuse. Parent Abuse, for example, is confusing, does it mean abuse by parents to their offspring or does it mean abuse to parents by their offspring ? Thanks for your suggestion and I will consider it. --Penbat (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Economic vs Financial abuse

Do we really need two separate sections here?--Cybermud (talk) 07:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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)

Alphabetization

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)

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)

Split types section

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Neglect

"thereby resulting in the victim's demise."

This section says that if the victim doesn't actually die, it isn't abuse. I wonder if the article isn't wrong about this particular type of abuse. --95.34.7.47 (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems

I have neither the inclination nor the ambition to go through all of this, but there are a lot of problems with this article.

• Sourcing: Looking through the sources, a great number of references are citations to self-published books from vanity presses, anonymous web pages, blogs, Wikis and the like. I have found only one instance where the self-published source (Fuller, Footnote #3) probably passes the "previously published expert" exception under WP:SPS. The rest of these need to be eliminated.
• Dead Links: A lot of citations are to dead links, advocacy organizations that have gone out of business, etc. It is impossible to tell if these ever were reliable sources or not.
• Citation style: Many references are incomplete, in some cases so incomplete as to make identification of the source unverifiable. (EG #38 - is the entire catalog of everything Houghton Mifflin ever published the source here?)
• Scope: There is no rhyme nor reason, nor any consistent criteria as to what has been included in this list. The scope of the article is stated to be This article is about the mistreatment of people or animals. For other uses, see Abuse (disambiguation). And, yet we have listed "abuse of statistics", which links to Misue of statistics and "flag abuse", which are clearly neither, and a vast array of unrelated things whose inclusion is dubious at best (is "prejudice" abuse if not acted upon? Is antisocial behavior or incivility or rudeness "abuse"?...) I'm tempted to add an entry for "musical abuse" citing A Mighty Wind and the citations found here. Per WP:LISTN, this list needs to be based on reliable, secondary sources which gather together all these disparate concepts together, otherwise this is simply WP:OR and WP:SYNTH . Fladrif (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ref points 1, 2 and 3: This article largely consists of summaries of different types of abuse. In most cases there is a separate article for each type of abuse and a link is given. The summaries are taken from the leads of these separate articles so any issues with poor quality references etc are a function of those separate articles and not intrinsically of this article.
• Ref point 4: The scope of the article is not stated to be "This article is about the mistreatment of people or animals. For other uses, see Abuse (disambiguation)". That is just a simplistic summary for the purposes of mentioning the DAB page. The real summary is the lead text given afterwards. Anyway the text was depreciated by the edit done on the 13th of March which substituted "systems" with "animals". I have now put "systems" back in so that improves the sentence. There probably isnt any restriction in the scope of what can and cant be included in this article but it must be notable. Nearly all are deemed notable by the fact that they are deemed importance enough to have a separate Wiki article and any that dont have the potential in time to be developed into separate articles.

Incidentally Im now dubious whether we even need an abuse DAB page as I recently added substance abuse to the abuse article so there is only a video game called "abuse" left.

--Penbat (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It is no excuse for the sourcing on this article that is just mirrors other articles with bad souces. Clearly, you are very interested in this subject matter, and properly sourcing not only the portmanteau lists you've created, but also the individual articles themelves should be a priority for you. As for those individual articles, I see that quite a number of them are extremely problematic. Some are completely unsourced, others are extremely poorly sourced, and virtually all of them are replete with sources that do not meet the basic standards of WP:RS and WP:V, and have been tagged as such by others for literally years. There is a very substantial question as to whether a number of the subarticles are notable at all. Others, quite frankly, appear to be an abuse of the word "abuse", calling anything and everything imaginable as "abuse". To admit that the scope of the article is, for all intents and purposes, without limit and to have no real criteria as to what should nor should not be included is to admit that there is no notability, and no reliable secondary source report for the creation of this list. It does not matter if every single thing on the list is notable in and of itself. The list itself must be notable and sourced as a list. You might as well make up an article "People named "John" who have Misplaced Pages articles about them. This is just a glorified disambiguation page, that fundamentally violates WP:LISTN Fladrif (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Arguments about the notability or otherwise of an individual abuse type should be had on that abuse type's talk page not here. This article was originally just a DAB page but unlike other DAB pages there are many common threads, links and relationships between the differing DAB items (in terms of the underlying psychology etc) although not the same ones in each case. There is a debate to be had whether the scope of this article should be restricted, for example up to recently "substance abuse" and "drug abuse" was omitted. Just to mention "flag abuse" - that is obviously not just abusing an inanimate object as the action of destroying a flag has huge societal symbolism. Im not aware of any more notable abuses that need to be added to the abuse article.--Penbat (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

If this is just a DAB page, then it should be cut down to a DAB page. I should not be an article unless the list is notable as a list. The notability of the list is whether reliable secondary sources present these items gathered together in this manner as a list. WP:LISTN According to what reliable secondary source are all the things in this list related? No such source is cited at any point. According to what WP:MEDRS compliant source are they related according to underlying psychology? No such source is cited at any point. Without those sources, this list is simply the original research of the Misplaced Pages editors who compiled it. Fladrif (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No you are misrepresenting what i just said. This article is an unusual case as it is about halfway between a DAB page and a fully fledged article. Converting the page to a DAB page would seriously debase the articles value. The text summaries of the abuse types often contain links to other abuse types so the interrelationships are apparent. Also at the end of the article a start has been made to cover the underlying psychology of abuse in general terms.--Penbat (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And, you are pointedly ignoring what I have said. The interrelationships are not apparent at all, and there is no source to support the assertion that there is a relationship of any kind. The claim that there is any relationship whatsoever between some of these items, no less in terms of "underlying psychology" is ludicrous and laughable, and the little essay at the end is utterly irrelevant to the basic question here which you have proven incapable or unwilling to answer. Explain, for example, what the underlying psychology of Misuse of Statistics, or the informal logical fallacy of argument ad hominem, or flag desecration, just to use a few examples, have to do with the other things on this list, and don't just explain - provide reliable secondary sources not your own rationale.

Turning a DAB into a nonsensical article with no criteria and no sources whatsoever other than you own whim, and then having the audacity to rate it by yourself as Highly Important on two Misplaced Pages project is the height of arrogance. What an examination of individual articles shows is that you've classified all sorts of things as "abuse" and added them to your various lists without any basis whatsoever, sort of like a workman whose only tool is a hammer, so everything looks like a nail. Fladrif (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No it is you who have ignored what I said. I already said that there is a discussion to be had about the scope of the article, for example I already explained that "substance abuse" and "drug abuse" were previously omitted. I also already said that although there are common strands for the different abuses they werent necessarily the same strands in each case. There is quite a lot of underlying psychology behind "abuse of statistics". --Penbat (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no information whatsoever in the article Misuse of statistics discussing in any way the "underlying psychology behind 'abuse of statistics', nor any source whatsoever to support your bald assertion that there is "quite a lot" of it. Fladrif (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a flaw in Misuse of statistics that it doesnt cover the social psychology. It may get written one day. Misuse of statistics is widely used in coverups, deceit and power abuses etc. Article does say "In others, it is purposeful and for the gain of the perpetrator" - that needs expanding. Deception is definitely rooted in psychology or social psychology. I notice that Category:Deception is a parent to Category:Misuse of statistics.--Penbat (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. It would be an absurd WP:COATRACK to have include a chapter on social psychology. We've got a perfectly good article Lies, damn lies, and statistics on the old adage. Beyond that, most misuse of statistics is explained by Hanlon's Razor not psychology. I give exactly zero weight to the whims of Misplaced Pages editors adding articles to categories at their whim. Fladrif (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not gong to waste my time giving you a lecture on psychology and social psychology. It clearly isnt your forte. And I dont give much credence to Hanlon's razor.--Penbat (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• B-Class psychology articles
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles