Talk:Mandated reporter

Untitled

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)

When did this law get signed? Tydoni (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. What's the history of these things?--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

RAINN link

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)

more than a little bit US centric

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)

Until the creation of any alternative page, i.e. Mandated Reporter US. or the like there of, I wish to reiterate the importance of the material added for the better understanding and knowledge of this topic. It is both researched and factual. Thank you. --NatonioP (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

general problems with this article

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)

Editing Mandated Reporter - The need for both sides.

First,let me state that I am still learning how to do this, so please forgive my crude editing.

Secondly, it is inappropriate to suppress national statistics and facts, and censor discussion by leading experts and leading court cases. This is a complicated topic, affecting millions of people each year. It deserves a well researched,and comprehensive discussion and not just an oversimplified opinion by one side.

Thank you. --NatonioP (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The grossly biased nature of the hypertrophied version you have repeatedly restored is manifest in the fact that its opening text (after the lead) reads:

According to Douglas J. Besharov, J.D., LL.M. and the first Director of the U.S. Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, "The great bulk of reports now received by child protective services would not have been made but for the passage of mandatory reporting laws and the media campaigns that accompanied it”.[1] He goes on to state, “But unsubstantiated rates of the current magnitude go beyond anything reasonably needed; a high rate of unsubstantiated reports should concern everyone. Each report results in what can be an intrusive and traumatic investigation that is inherently a breach of parental and family privacy.”[2] Besharov further states “that our eagerness to protect children cannot be allowed to overcome our nation’s commitment to fairness and due process."

Again, that's the opening text of the article. In addition the restored material

• is near-unintelligible in places;
• consists entirely of sections which are, each, one long run-together paragraph;
• has (for example) three sections beginning "Douglas J. Besharov, J.D., LL.M", and three sections/sentences beginning "Dr. Susan Orr, Ph.D., former head of the United States Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Services-Administration for Children and Families, 2001-2007"
• contains frequent illogical and tenuously-supported sequences of statements such as, "A pastor has a duty to hold in confidence any information obtained during a counseling session. A pastor who violates this trust might be on the losing end of a suit for an invasion of privacy or defamation.[37] For example: According to New York law, confessions and confidences made to a clergyman or other minister are privileged and cannot be used as evidence.";
• engages in gross WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which sometimes defies common sense (e.g. statistics implying a decline in abuse since 1992 are used to imply that mandated reporting is unnecessary; but since this roughly corresponds to the period during which much broader groups of workers became subject to mandated reporting requirements, one could argue with as much -- or more -- logic that mandated reporting is responsible for this decline, and therefore salutory);
• has innumerable other fundamental indications of copy-paste writing, lack of focus and organization, OR, SYNTH, and so on.

NatonioP, please, review WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, and WP:GREATWRONGS before restoring such material again. I notice that this is the only article you have edited -- it might be a good idea for you to get your feet wet by first working on other articles which have more active editors, with whom you can interact in developing new material.

EEng (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion and Proposal on how to proceed with article.

It would be nice to come up with a win-win situation where information from reliable authoritative sources could be presented to help the reader better understand this very complicated topic effecting millions of children and families each year. Thank you WootherspoonSmith for your suggestions and trying to accommodate this. Thank you EEng for referring me to the different Wikipedia policies, they were very informative on being a responsible Wikipedia editor and I have reviewed them. Since it may take some time to make forward progress, I am proposing that the article be returned to the state it was in after WootherspoonSmith’s first edit and taking EEng’s comment about Douglas Besharov out of the lead. Would that be okay? In an attempt to respond to the complexity of this topic I have divided my responses into the following six headings so that it is easier to follow and have discussion (It is my hope we can work together to make this a quality article):

1. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness and is here to provide information to people
2. How to proceed with an article that helps the reader understand this complex topic?
3. Review of Wikipedia policies
4. Entire deletion of well researched material by reliable authoritative sources is inappropriate
5. This topic deserves discussion
6. Insertion and deletion history

Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness and is here to provide information to people

Comments on Wikipedia editing include:

• Generally speaking, the more information it can provide the better.
• It is important for editors with an established interest in a page to be welcoming to new contributors, to respond to new opinions on an article’s direction with an open mind…being respectful and civil.
• A new addition may, in fact, provide something new to consider, regardless of the immediate negative emotional response that such a change might normally evoke. Do not simply assail an unwelcome view.
• Wikipedia is the product of editors, each bringing something different to the table … and a willingness to help.
• …deleting content frustrates the proper editorial processes and discussions. Work productively together with editors with opposing views 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.

How to proceed with an article that helps the reader understand this complex topic?

In researching Wikipedia articles with comprehensive subject matter, there seem to be 2 basic approaches. One is dealing with the topic in some detail with long paragraphs (like the heart article) and one is short paragraphs with links to other short articles (the human body). I would like to propose a format that everyone in this article follow, i.e. everything is either sent out to other articles or everything is included, not just send out my contributions to other articles, either everything is links or everything is included from all sides.

In an outline like article, there is basically a skeleton with a few sentences on various topics and then you can click on different words to see more information.

WootherspoonSmith had also suggested a US centric article, since obviously there is no documentation in the current article suggesting that people in every country or even every state are under the same rules as the ones mentioned.

These things need to be included in a discussion on the subject. I welcome your thoughts on how to proceed forward, but censorship and suppression of easily documented data is not a constructive path forward.

Review of Wikipedia policies

EEng referred to WP multiple policies saying the article violated some of those policies. However, those policies have the following quotes which seem to validate the contributions, rather than violating them:

WP:NPOV(neutral point of view):

• As such, the NPOV does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view.
• As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased.
• Neutrality requires that each article… represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources.
• Good and unbiased research based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements.

WP:OR(No original research):

• All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
• You must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic.
• Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles.
• Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources …is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic.
• Stick to the sources.

MP:UNDUE(Reliable sources and undue weight):

• NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source.
• The more reliable the source, the more weight you should give its opinion.
• A source which is explicit about the data from which it derives its conclusions is more reliable than one which does not.
• If two or more independent originators agree…then the conclusions become more reliable.
• In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources that are available to its editors.

WP:Coatrack:

• The comment refers to “hang” irrelevant material (the material is relevant)
• An article that presents factual information (including criticism) … is not a coatrack.
• It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background.

WP:What SYNTH is not

• If something is obvious to anyone who reads and understands the sources that are supposed to support it, then it is not Synth. So a typical reader can use the sources to check the accuracy of the comparison.
• In 2004, Jimbo Wales said “It seems clear to me that “synthesis of published work” was assumed to be part of the legitimate role of Wikipedia.

WP:Great wrongs

• we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable sources, what matters is verifiability.

WP:Be bold:

• We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.
• Assume good faith contributions, civility and politeness.
• Take care of the common good and do not edit recklessly.

Entire deletion of well researched material by reliable authoritative sources is inappropriate

A summary of what EEng said “it is grossly biased, hypertrophied manifest”, “near unintelligible in places”, “consists entirely of sections which are, each, one long run-together paragraph”, “has 3 sections beginning Douglas Besharov, J.D.LL.M., has 3 sections/sentences beginning Dr. SusanOrr,Ph.D.”, “contains frequent illogical and tenuously supported sequences of statements”, “engages in gross WP:OR, and WP:Synth and has asked me to review NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:Coatrack, WP:Undue, and WP:Greatwrongs.

Although I tried to respond to some of your comments in the previous sections (regarding WP:OR & WP:Synth and “bias”), I would like to now address other points.

First, I agree that there are places with long-run on sentences. This is a very complex issue so this was done to try to shorten the length of the article. There is no specific policy saying that one cannot have long sentences or paragraphs, and in fact many other Wikipedia articles have both. I think your suggestion to make this more readable by correcting this would be helpful.

Second, the deleted version was well researched with multiple authoritative and reliable sources which provided the reader with a better understanding of this complicated issue. These sources included:

-Two former heads of the entire US Child Protection Services system (their unique authoritative positions make their many comments extremely valuable as they can see the “big picture”. Since it was a lengthy article I thought it was helpful, if the reader only read certain sections, to know who Besharov and Orr are):

• Douglas Besharov,J.D.,LL.M.-First Director of the U.S. Center on Child Abuse and Neglect
• Susan Orr,Ph.D.-former head of the United States Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Services-Administration for Children and Families from2001-2007

Other reliable and prominent sources on the topic are (although there are others):

• NCANDS-National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (Children’s Bureau, US Dept. of HHS)

• David Finkelhor, Ph.D.-Research expert and Director- Crimes Against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire

• Stephen Krason, Ph.D., J.D.,-Professor and prominent scholar, and author on child abuse laws and CPS-His current work is “The Mondale Act and Its Aftermath: An Overview of Forty Years of American Law, Public Policy, and Governmental Response to Child Abuse and Neglect

• Paul Chill, J.D., Clinical Professor of Law at the University of Connecticut and member of the Connecticut State Commission on Child Protection

• Gary Melton-Lead author of the 1993 report of the US Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect and the lead editor of two related volumes

• Child Welfare Information Gateway (Children’s Bureau, US Dept. of HHS)

Journals/Publications referenced in the deleted article:

• The Public Interest,
• The Future of Children,
• Child Abuse and Neglect,
• The Catholic Social Science Review,
• University of New Hampshire Crimes Against Children Research Center,
• U.S. Dept. of HSS Administration for Children and Families,
• Children’s Bureau/Child Information Gateway,
• State statutes,
• Interim Report to Congress, state statutes,
• court cases.

Third, deleting the history and background was not helpful. Two people on the TalkPage had asked about the history (see comments from 2/6/11 and 7/18/12)

Forth, deleting information on the Clergy-Penitent Privilege is not helpful. According to Child Welfare Information Gateway, Children’s Bureau, US Dept. of HHS:

• “As a doctrine of some faiths, clergy must maintain the confidentiality of pastoral communications. Mandatory reporting statutes in some states specify the circumstances under which a communication is “privileged” or allowed to remain confidential. Privileged communication may be exempt from the requirement to report suspected abuse or neglect. The privilege of maintaining this confidentiality under State law must be provided by statute. Most States do provide the privilege…”
• The current Wikipedia article misleads the clergy and gives them the impression they are to always report. The Clergy-Penitent Privilege is available in most states (although many to most pastors don't know about it) allowing them the option of not reporting a private communication. This privilege is similar to the attorney-client privilege.

This topic deserves discussion

• 2348% increase in reports over 45 years since the first reporting laws

• approximately 43 million hotline calls in the US (1998-2011)

• 3.3 million calls a year (9,000/day, 63,000/week) affecting 6 million children and approx. 3 million families each year

• only 15% (approximately) of all 3.3 million hotline calls are substantiated each year

• 1 out of 10 families with children under 18 are reported and one out of 16 families are investigated each year

• over 2 million families investigated each year affecting 3.6 million children and 2 million adults

• more than 100,000 children who were removed in 2001-more than 1 in 3- were later found not to be maltreated at all – about 1 child every 5 minutes (US HHS)

• being investigated is not benign and can have psychological/financial effects on children and families

• millions of names are put on CPS Central Registries (different that the Sex Abuse Registries) for decades affecting employment, etc. (many are innocent)

Quotes from former Directors of the entire US Child Protection system (Besharov and Orr)

• “Besides being unfair to the children and parents involved, inappropriate reporting places a unnecessary burden on already overwhelmed child protective agencies- and threatens to undermine public support of their efforts.”

• “The nation’s child protective agencies are being inundated by “unfounded” reports.”

• “Much that is now defined as child abuse and neglect does not merit governmental interference.”

Insertion and deletion history

For clarification, I have not repeatedly restored edited material. I initially added much information on May 26, 2013 and once again restored information (in some places making new subheadings) on July 3, 2013. Major deletions were made by WootherspoonSmith on June 8, 2013 and my entire contribution was deleted by EEng on July 12, 2013.

Although, there are multiple entries, these are minor insertions and deletions to correct things.

On May 26, 2013 I added a total of 120,309 bytes to the existing article. On June 8, 2013 Wootherspoon Smith deleted a total of 47,499 bytes. On July 3, 2013 I restored a total of 27,204 bytes On July 12, 2013 EEng deleted 88,543 bytes, my entire contribution, leaving the article with 11,967 bytes

I hope we can make forward progress to make this a quality article without edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatonioP (talk • contribs) 03:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Whew!

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)

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)

Discussion on Article and Size

I am looking forward to getting a quality article available soon and hope we can make forward progress together. Meanwhile, I still propose restoring the article as referred to in the previous Talk page entry (neither EEng or WotherspoonSmith addressed the temporary solution) until we sort out the new format.

It would be helpful if the article included a broader and more comprehensive understanding of the topic rather than just part of the issue, which is basically instructions on reporting, liability and anonymity/immunity.

To summarize EEng’s proposal: allowing the following sections with 2-3 moderate paragraphs in each: Number of reports (also known as Prevalence), Outcomes of investigations, Trends, Conflicts-Clergy Penitent Privilege, Criticism. I have been editing to try to meet your request (deleting quotes and description of expert references, and references for national statistics. I have also tried to delete most court cases, statutes, not duplicating material, and trying to consolidate sentences to the bare minimum. It is impossible to meet your request and address this complicated topic and statistics without subtopics.

To summarize WotherspoonSmith’s proposal and comments: First, a response to the comment “I meant it when I said I was just removing duplicated quotes and references”. I appreciated that you did this as consolidating was beneficial. However, you did far more than this, as you removed the entire information on the child abuse registry, a direct result of mandatory reporting. This has a serious effect on millions of innocent people and the reader has a right to know that it exists. You also deleted additional insightful information from Douglas Besharov, Susan Orr and Paul Chill. Now to respond to your proposal: an additional topic on background would be allowed, as well as a section on the problems of mandatory reporting. Once again, this is a very complicated topic with many serious side effects. Reference was made that “the article, as it currently stands (with 11,967 bytes), is easily long enough.” I have briefly clicked on Wikipedia articles discussing other complicated subject matter for comparison and guidance:

1. Abortion: has 9 topics and 17 subtopics for a total of 26 areas; it has 161 quotes and 122,108 bytes.
2. Homosexual: has 16 topics, 41 subtopics for a total of 57 areas, it has 250 quotes, 160,066 bytes and a large reference area.
3. Pregnancy has 10 topics, 25 subtopics for a total of 35 areas, 125 quotes and 100,096 bytes.

Saying a very complicated topic should have approximately 12,000 bytes (including the information which is already there which excludes any of my contributions) is unrealistic; unless you provide basically only instructions for reporting, with no input regarding the history, statistics, insight from experts in the field, and nothing on the impact that effects millions of people and families annually, including removal of children and the child abuse registry.

People can make up their own mind where they stand on the issue when they understand it; but once again, it appears that to prevent relevant, authoritative expert material to get a short one sided article is not the proper way to deal with a Wikipedia article. In fact Wikipedia states, “generally speaking, the more information it can provide the better.” It encourages “well researched information from the best and most reputable authoritative sources available.”

So to make some progress, I am proposing the same original 16 topics and 13 subtopics, trying to avoid duplicated quotes and references, trying to keep the sections to 2-3 paragraphs (with links to other new articles as needed).

Thank you. --NatonioP (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If there were sources on this topic comparable to the sources available on those other topics, then this article could be as detailed as those articles. But there aren't, so it can't. No one's stopping you from building the article. Start by adding high-level statements supported by reliable sources, and then maybe wait for comment by others about on what a general reader might want to know more. Please don't add gigantic blocks of material as you did before -- no one's going to try to comb through it to see what's salvageable. EEng (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you'd like to make some progress. I don't believe that 16 topics and 13 subtopics are called for, but we can explore one at a time if you like. You mention that there is a need for "history, statistics, insight from experts in the field,... impact..., including removal of children and the child abuse registry." As we add and discuss each one, let's keep in mind the need for balance and an international perspective- this is one of the main reasons why 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.

Is there a section you'd like to add first, for us to collectively edit, before moving on to the next?

I'm also interested in the current "Abuse or neglect suspected at an institution or facility" section. It reads to me like it could be merged with the section before it. Is there something about "institutions or facilities" that make notifications there different from any other location? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to work with EEng and WotherspoonSmith. I appreciated EEng’s comment that “no one’s stopping you from building the article”and WotherspoonSmith’s comment “I’m glad you’d like to make some progress”. I have tried to accommodate the requests of EEng by limiting the paragraphs in sections with high-level statements supported by reliable sources and including areas that EEng and WoothersSpoon have mentioned in the above Talkpages.

Regarding WothersSpoon’s comments on need for an international perspective, I see you have added reporting requirements for other countries, so I added some relevant numbers for Canada, Australia and England and the UK. Again, there is a need for a broader more comprehensive understanding of such an important topic, not just reporting requirements as was being presented. Regarding WootherspoonSmith’s comment on the section on “Abuse or neglect suspected at an institution or facility”, I agree since all reporting details had already been mentioned elsewhere and were redundant.

To summarize relevant Wikipedia policies: no mass deletions, more information on the topic to allow greater understanding, and no one owns the article. Please respect the broader topic or create a new article on reporting requirements in various jurisdictions, move relevant sections to that article, and reference that article in this article. Also, please respect the opinions of the leading experts in the field, and the widely accepted statistics from the most recognized national governmental reports and leading researchers and don’t delete them. Thank you. --NatonioP (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

removal of "Substantiation by maltreatment type" section

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)

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)

References

history section- para deletion

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)

References

Statistics and quotes from authoritative experts are more objective than general statements

First, I’ll make some general comments and then tell what I am adding back in and why. I would like to thank WotherspoonSmith for editing some of the references. Again, I would like to state I do not want an edit war and am trying to meet your requirements, although it appears that there are repeated attempts to suppress reliable and valuable public information that doesn’t align with your point of view. General statements can be made but statistical data is a measuring tool to see what is happening. The information from NCANDS (the authoritative US yearly report that tracks extensive data) is very important to understand reality. Although there is some statistical data from other countries it is not as comprehensive and doesn’t affect as large a number of children (I tried to include it, but you deleted it.)

It is important to have balance regarding this topic-it’s not “all good” or “all bad”. When this issue was initially discussed in the 1960s, professionals had good intentions to help seriously abused and neglected children, and research and publications helped the public to be aware of this serious problem. It has helped children in the past and sometimes helps children today. Similar to those professionals who wrote about this in the past, there are many professionals that have become aware of and are writing about the negative unintended consequences of decades of reporting so many unsubstantiated suspicions/allegations and minor situations, that hurt millions of other innocent children and families each year by traumatic investigations/consequences and removals of non- maltreated children from their homes. These professionals also care about protecting children! It is unprofessional to ignore the data and input by experts in the field. Douglas Besharov was one of the originators of CAPTA and the first director of the entire US CPS system and his knowledge and experience is valuable (as is Susan Orr, also a former director). They state, as do many other experts, that the primary problem is the vague and overbroad definitions of abuse and neglect which varies across jurisdictions/workers, has low standards of proof or in many cases nothing has even happened, and that there is little due process resulting in a denial of people’s rights. For WotherspoonSmith to say that “it is unfortunate” and that she is “frustrated” with their quotes regarding trends, because it only describes the US situation, is troubling for several reasons: the US has the largest population and by far the largest number of children and families adversely effected each year, the most extensive statistical data collected yearly for decades, and their policies often influence other countries. In comparison, Canada has 1/10th the population (smaller than California) and Australia has 1/15th the population. I find it unfortunate and frustrating that there are repeated deletions of well researched information and statistics to deny the public the right to this information in order to have a better understanding of this complex issue. NatonioP (talk) 2013 August 28‎

History of mandatory reporting section

History is defined by: “continuous, typically chronological, record of important or public events or of a particular trend or institution”. History definitely includes what was and what is today. To show the huge growth (trend) in hotline calls in the US from 150,000in 1963 to 3.4 million in 2011 is very important from an historical perspective, as well as the fact that this dramatic increase in hotline calls (the majority of which are unsubstantiated), is not an expanding epidemic of actual child abuse and neglect but an epidemic of reporting. The growing problem of unsubstantiated calls is definitely a part of the history of mandated reporting.

-WotherspoonSmith mentioned that I quoted Krason as stating that there has been a 2348% increase in the number of hotline calls but that she thought it should have been an 1800% increase. Krason did state a 2348% increase in his latest publication, but I accidentally referenced his previous publication, it should have been the more recent work cited which I did now. Sorry.

I am editing the History section to include important deleted information. NatonioP (talk) 2013 August 28

Deletion of “Substantiation by maltreatment type” section

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)

Conflicts and professional privileges section

This section was in here before I became involved in editing. WotherspoonSmith deleted this entire section and combined a portion of the Clergy-Penitent Privilege information with the anonymity and immunity section. However it is off topic in this section and makes it difficult for someone to know about the Clergy-Penitent Privilege. Therefore, I am adding a topic heading so it is easy to find.

In conclusion, it is extremely frustrating and inappropriate to repeatedly suppress well known data to help the reader better understand this complex issue. To try to hide the reality is very dangerous and unprofessional. These issues need to be out in the open and discussed respectfully. As probably the most prominent respected authority on this issue, Douglas Besharov states in his article “Unfounded allegations-a new child abuse problem”, “To continue to ignore the present harmfully high level of unfounded (unsubstantiated) reports is to court disaster.” (Sorry about another quote, but it is difficult to present something without reliable verifiable sources.) Thank you. --NatonioP (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not suppress, "try to hide" or ignore the issue, and I think it is hyperbolic and unfair of you to accuse me of doing so. Nor did I delete it- I merged it with a relevant section. We have a section on 'anonymity and immunity'. since privileged information is, pretty much by definition, about anonymity and immunity, it is entirely relevant to include it there. I would expect anyone wanting to know about exemptions would look in that section and (after my edits) find info about privilege.

Your quote from Besharov is entirely irrelevant to this issue. I am not suggesting ignoring anything, and this section has nothing to do with ignoring the number of (US) unsubstantiated reports.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Learning the ropes

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)

Results of Mandatory Reporting by Substantiated Maltreatment Types and Rates

This information is important because it provides a very brief summary of the data results of mandatory reporting and the reader should be allowed to see this well-known published material from respected sources.

This is in response to EEng’s deletion (and request before reposting) of

1. types of maltreatment and
2. rates by type of maltreatment,

stating that page 1 of 2010 Finkelhor article did not give the figures quoted and said to correctly reference before reposting. EEng did not mention anything about why he deleted the types of maltreatment quoted in the 2009 Summary NCANDS (the %’s are out of substantiated reports). In hopes of keeping this from getting deleted again, I have copied the text with the numbers in context from both pages in both articles with the given urls and with the data previously quoted (in Wikipedia) in bold font. It is easy to see the references are correct and that the data is there. I am restoring the section and ask please do not delete this section again. Thank you. --NatonioP (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Text from Child Maltreatment Report 2009 (NCANDS) page ix:

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)

Text from page 1 of Updated Trends in Child Maltreatment, 2010 Finkelhor:

URL is: http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV203_Updated%20trends%202010%20FINAL_12-19-11.pdf

Updated Trends In Child Maltreatment, 2010

David Finkelhor, Lisa Jones, and Anne Shattuck

Indented line

…The data in the tables and graphs included below are derived from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS), which aggregates and publishes statistics from state child protection agencies. The most recent data from NCANDS were released in December, 2011, and concern cases of child maltreatment investigated in 2010 (USDHHS, 2011). http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm10/index.htm …

Breaking out data by type of abuse, the report shows that sexual abuse declined 3% from 2009 to 2010 to a nationally estimated 63,300 substantiated cases or a rate of 8.6 per 10,000. Physical abuse declined 2% to an estimated 118,700 cases or 16.2 per 10,000. Neglect was down fractionally to an estimated 548,000 substantiated cases or 74.7 per 10,000 (see Figure 1).

Comments on Finkelhor’s article and well-known elementary math:

Finkelhor frequently changes back and forth between percent, rate per 1000 and rate per 10,000. Percent means rate per 100. If there is 1 substantiation out of 100 children, that is a 1% substantiation rate.

So, 1 out of 100 equals 10 out of 1000, equals 100 out of 10,000 = 1%.(To read percent in a report, you have to see if it is saying the percent (number out of 100), number out of 1000, or number out of 10,000.) The maltreatment rates Finkelhor states on page 1 of his article are:

• Neglect is 74.7 per 10,000 (7.47 per 1000 or .747 per 100) which is less than ¾ of 1%.
• Physical abuse is 16.2 per 10,000 (1.62 per 1000 or .162 per 100 or .162%) which is less than 1/5th of 1%.
• Sexual abuse is 8.6 out of 10,000 (.86 out of 1000 or .086 out of 100 or .086%) which is less than 1/10th of 1%.

Finkelhor thinks it is important for the public to know the rates and I agree. --NatonioP (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is important for the public to know this.

I don't necessarily agree that an article on mandatory reporters is the place to record the details. (Your opinion of "very brief summary" and mine are a little different, BTW). first and foremost, it should always be about mandatory reporting, this appears to me to be going off on a side track.

I agree that, IF THESE FIGURES ARE TO BE INCLUDED AT ALL, converting them to a consistent format (eg rates out of 1000) is a good idea.

I have changed the data on Canada- the sentence was a bit broken before, I have simplified. I think percentages (rather than raw numbers of people involved) is easier to read and understand.

I have removed reference to the Canadian population. This is important: we can say what a source says about the investigation rates. We cannot add 'here's what the population of the country was (from another source) therefore here's the rate of reporting/ substantiation. that is what we're referring to when we say that the article has too much WP:OR and WP:SNTHESIS. Since the original source shows the rates, we can use it.

interestingly, the Canadian data shows not only substantiated/ not substantiated, but other variables (unsubstantiated but still a concern). It counts differently- focused on numbers of investigations, not on numbers of victims. If US stats are available on this, it will not reinforce Finkelhor et al's thesis, but it could be relevant. It would be good to see what observers who don't have this point to push have to say.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

removed hyperbole in 'outcomes of investigations' section.

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)

References

Keeping Unbiased

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)

I think it is ironic that, under the heading of "Keeping unbiased", you have reinserted a package of unsubstantiated paragraphs that, at best, are heavily biased towards the US experience. for example:

-Anonymity and immunity This entire section has no citations, and does not represent an international perspective of the situation.

-Clergy-Penitent Privilege and Other Exemptions this section has three citations, all US based (two, at lest, are for sentences specifying that they are about the US situation)

-Outcomes of investigations (now renamed) Primarily US only information.

-Substantiation by Maltreatment Type 10 lines, cited and referred to as being about the US situation only, followed by the weasel line "Similar information may be available from other countries."

-Appeals/expunction Only US information provided

-Child removals as a result of mandatory reporting Only US information provided.

I have reworded some of the headings in this article to prevent the inference that either

• The US experience is typical
• The US experience is the only one that matters

This article once stood for a long time as an example of lobbying of one opinion of one country's experience. As such, it did need substantial culling of opinion and unsubstantiated generalisations, regardless of your quoting of Wikipedia policies. RE: "NCANDS is the most comprehensive and thorough analysis of mandatory reporting." This may be true, but is it the "gold standard" most comprehensive and thorough analysis of mandatory reporting worldwide? Does it analyse information from outside of the US? If not, we should not present info as if it is.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have forked a separate article, Mandatory reporting in the US. to retain info. I have reworked this article to make international.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Article Was Growing:

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)

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)

Deletion of prominent link to Wikipedia Article on Mandatory Reporting in the United States prevents readers from having quick access to valuable information

The prominent link to the Wikipedia article has been reinstated as it provides easy access to valuable information. After information in the Wikipedia article “Mandated reporter” had been forked to make 2 new Wikipedia articles as per WootherspoonSmith’s original suggestion, the articles “view history” (seen on “Page view statistics”) showed that there was vastly more interest in the “Mandatory Reporting in the United States” (which has a broader discussion of the topic) than in “Mandatory reporting worldwide”. It is important to have the link to “Mandatory reporting in the United States easily accessible (rather than buried in WootherspoonSmith’s article on “Mandatory reporting worldwide”). The US has the largest population and by far the largest number of children and families effected each year, the most extensive statistical data collected yearly for decades, and their policies often influence other countries. In comparison, Canada has 1/10th the population (smaller than California) and Australia has 1/15th the population.

Review of Talk Page discussion-a brief History on the Wikipedia Mandatory Reporter article: - WotherspoonSmith, who recently deleted the prominent link to “Mandatory reporting in the United States” which the majority of people coming to this article (regarding children) are interested in as seen by the “Page view statistics”, had previously supported this link as seen in a previous Talk Page entry: “I suggest a wholesale removal and creation of Mandatory reporting in the US. A much shorter article (Mandated Reporter) would remain to discuss the concept in general terms, with links to the US.” WotherspoonSmith (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2013. Now she wants the link in the main article removed. - 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 with WootherspoonSmith since 2013 with much information deleted and then needing to be restored to address more than reporting requirements. -Talk Page comments in the past on Wikipedia’s editing policy include:

• Generally speaking, the more information [the article] can provide the better.
• Wikipedia is the product of editors, each bringing something different to the table … and a willingness to help.
• NPOV does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view.
• NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source.
• We would like everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.

To summarize relevant Wikipedia policies: no mass deletions, more information on the topic to allow greater understanding, and no one owns the article. Please respect the broader topic or create a new article on reporting requirements in various jurisdictions, move relevant sections to that article, and reference that article in this article. Also, please respect the opinions of the leading experts in the field, and the widely accepted statistics from the most recognized national governmental reports and leading researchers and don’t delete them. Thank you. --NatonioP (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Rmn116 (talk) 16:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I really don't see why we forked off the article Mandatory Reporting Worldwide from this one. 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. My proposal was to keep one article ("Mandatory reporting" or "Mandatory reporting worldwide", if you insist) and create a forked new article ("Mandatory reporting in the US") with a link from the first to the second.

It is noteworthy that you mention the policy about 'nobody owns the article.' I guess there's no way for me to prove it, but I don't feel that way about any of the articles (despite your reference to "WotherspoonSmith's article" earlier in your post.)

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source" is also a noteworthy statement, and the basis for most of my edits. Note the word 'fairly'- the article used to be overwhelmingly weighted to one particular opinion, and one nation only.

It seems your overall point is that the US article is more important and should be given more prominence, mainly because the population there is bigger, and the page visits are bigger. I disagree, but am happy to hear the views of others on this. Page views, for example, are not a good indicator of importance. If we were to take this logic for all of Wikipedia, it would be a vastly different encyclopedia. I guess we'd end up with an encyclopedia dominated by articles showing a Chinese, Indian and US perspective.

(Interesting reading on this topic, by the way: [[1]])

Where this Americentric attitude has been a problem in the past is the tendency for information about the US to be seen as universal. We had sections about who should report and how things were reported and no shortage of the problems of mandatory reporting etc- all from a US perspective, all pretending that it was universal in its application. Regardless of the page visits or populations, it was false information to make such assertions.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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)

I have now merged the pages. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed list of possible mandated reporters-

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)