NatonioP

Hi NatonioP I'm proposing a fork of the Mandated reporter article, moving most of your edits to a new article Mandatory reporting in the US. Since so much of the work is your own, and you have clearly researched extensively, I thought I'd drop you a line here to let you know that this has been proposed and that you can discuss it at the talk page. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mandated reporter may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "[]"s and 6 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

common goals

Hi NatonioP you've made a few comments on the Mandatory reporter talk page that I thought would be best discussed here. (I'm not sure how familiar with wikipedia protocols you are- the talk pages are for discussions about ways to improve the article, but this, your own personal talk page, is for discussions about what you yourself are up to. Of course, the two overlap- but you are free to delete anything on this page, whereas that is strongly frowned upon on the article talk pages. So feel free to delete this comment if you wish.)

You have made a couple of statements saying that you're opposed to people suppressing and trying to hide the truth. You commented that you don't think the article should show only one side of the argument.

It's just plain not what is happening. The article does include the down side of mandatory reporting. I'm not even sure what the "other side" of the argument is. I'm certainly not trying to suppress anything.

You seem genuinely concerned for the millions of innocent people this affects, and I applaud you for your concern. But, importantly, convincing people of this evident truth is not our job. We can (and should) mention it, but the focus needs to be on the topic, Mandatory reporters.

But please, understand, I'm not opposed to the message you are pushing, simply trying to make the article properly well rounded.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WotherspoonSmith for your comments. My goal is not to personnaly attack you, I simply am trying to make the best of this article as I hope we all are.

Thank you again. --NatonioP (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Substantiation and Percents by Maltreatment Type in Mandated Reporter

This includes the:

1. types of substantiation,
2. % of substantiated by type,
3. and % of child population effected.

This is not original research but a reporting of information from reliable sources and will be returned to the article. The percent of the substantiated reports is in the yearly US NCANDS reports (summaries of all data from each state). The % of substantiated reports is on page ix of the 2009 NCANDS Summary, as is the 9.3 non duplicate substantiations per 1000 child population. (Each year’s report is similar). The rates per type of maltreatment are on page 1 of Finkelhor’s paper “Updated Trends in Child Maltreatment 2009” (and 2010). It is slightly confusing since he 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%. So 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 or 7.47 per 1000, which is .747 per 100 or less than ¾ of 1%.
• Physical abuse is 16.2 per 10,000 or 1.62 per 1000 or .162 per 100 or .162%, i.e. less than 1/5th of 1%.
• Sexual abuse is 8.6 out of 10,000, which is .86 out of 1000, which is .086 out of 100 or .086%, which is less than 1/10th of 1%.

Finkelhor thinks it is important for the public to know this and I agree. --NatonioP (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Responding to WotherspoonSmith’s earlier comment.

-I will sign each section on the Talkpage in the future. I didn’t realize when I responded that it would make individual headings. When I referred to “In conclusion” I was summarizing my previous thoughts from my entire response in a concluding paragraph. When I referred to Besharov’s quote of ignoring the number of (US) substantiated referrals I was addressing the entire topic and was not addressing the Clergy Penitent Privilege. Sorry. --NatonioP (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)