User talk:Penbat/Abuse cases

Expansion

The news is currently full of Roman Catholic child abuse revelations, but I think this template will expand sufficiently for the present purposes. I've made a start at adding the cases diocese and archdiocese by diocese and archdiocese and adding the template to the articles. I think it needs to be broken into country groups, but that is an open question.

I've usurped group i that was 'religion' and grabbed it for the RC stuff, at least for the present. Addnig extra groups is easy enough. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I foresee a challenge with expansion. This is solely a technical challenge to do with the numbering scheme of groups and subgroups. It looks as though that limit may be 20. It's certainly an arbitrary number. There are two solutions to this arbitrary limit:

1. edit the templates used here to increase that limit
2. create an intermediate level of hierarchy such as

• Europe
• The Americas
• Pacific

etc

I favour editing the parent templates at this point. I just don't fancy doing it! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You may get some useful advice here Wikipedia:Help_desk --Penbat (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed so. There is {{navbox long}} but, so far, no equivalent for {{Navbox subgroup}}. But I have left a message on the latter's talk page. That may bear fruit first. It looks reasonably easy to make {{Navbox subgroup long}} if necessary Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We now have a subgroup template that handles up to 38 subgroups. It is to be used with discretion. It's pointless to use it for 20 subgroups or fewer. It is intended to be used only when truly required. I've already added it to the template. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Red links

This article has a fair number of red links. "Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first." sez WP:NAVBOX. These entries should be deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm easy either way. In some places we encourage redlinks, in others we discourage them. As a community we are inconsistent. A reasonable compromise, since it is likely in the current feeding frenzy that the articles will be created, and since the template syntax is a tad arcane, is to leave them for a while and watch to see what transpires, article-wise. The item you quote from is an essay and a decent essay, but it is not a guideline and we do not always need to defer to it. In many cases a redlink prompts the creation of the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Article or template

Is this an article or a template? A bit long isn't it? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It probably needs to morph into a navbox with collapsable sections. It is a template. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have morphed it. It now meets the need for compressibility and thus appears substantially shorter. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Other and treatment thereof

(This comment and response is copied by request from User talk:Penbat:}

I think you are in error with the secular "other". The Catholic header is not an "other", rather it is a set of articles that, of themselves will never be wholly classifiiable as abuse cases but are part of the template nonetheless. I feel that you shouldreconsider that edit. While you do that, note the * on the Jersey entry. You missed it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Put this comment on the abuses cases talk page. I will reflect on this and maybe others will comment. --Penbat (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

default state of this template/bullying

i think i would prefer it if you 1st had to click "show" to see the 4 sub-templates. As it stands it seems a little too imposing especially if there are other templates (such as {{abuse}}, {{bullying}}, {{sexual abuse}}) in the same article.

I am not sure if bullying suicides ought to be included here as they are already on the {{bullying}} template. While it is true that bullying is a form of abuse, it takes some of the load off abuse if bullying is dealt with in a separate self-contained way and i have quite often avoided much of the abuse paraphernalia such as the {{abuse}} template in bullying related articles. You seem to have missed 2 suicides anyway. --Penbat (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Everywhere (almost) I've seen it deployed the template is compressed. It can be expanded by default using the selected parameter, something I experimented on in a couple of articles only. I regret I forget which ones, but I suspect it was ones where bullying was the core topic. You can see the effect in the documentation, where each subgroup is seen open separately, that is when the parameter selected is deployed with text typed in that is exactly equal to the preset text in the parameter abbr. In general the template is deployed with no explicit parameters, so it ought to be complressed by default.

I have no strong feelings either way about including the suicides from bullying. I am marginally in favour of them since the template is about abuse cases and these are true cases of abuse. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the way to go is have 2 separate templates "abuse cases - catholic" and "abuse cases - non-catholic" then you wont need to bother with template levels. It also solves the criticism from User:Mrbusta that "abuse cases" is overloaded with catholic stuff if it was shunted to its own separate template. --Penbat (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see my objection below. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Scouting sex abuse cases

I question whether this should be listed under the "Child sexual abuse - Secular" tab. At least as far as the Boy Scouts of America are concerned you must be a religious believer in order to be a member. Information about this can be found in Boy Scouts of America membership controversies - Position on atheists and agnostics. Secular means that it is "separate from religion". The Boy Scouts of America is more of an interfaith organization.Mrbusta (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Religion in Scouting also relevant --Penbat (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Boy Scouts of America are no the only scout movement in the world. The Scout Movememnt globally was founded by Baden Powell ithe UK. It was, in fact, a pseudo-military organisation! It is not a religious organisation, despite BSA requiring religion. I don't feel unduly strongly about this, but it is certainly non denominational. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Nondenominational does not make it "secular". Secular means that it is outside the bounds of religion. Nondenominational means that it accepts members of all religions. I realize that the Scout Movement is an international movement and that in some nations the Scout Movement may allow secular members; but the Boy Scouts of America is the largest branch of the scouting movement in the world and you must hold religious beliefs in order to be a member. The organization gives out religious awards. And the BSA is the organization with the most abuse cases. I am an Eagle Scout and I can tell you that religion is a big part of the Boy Scouts of America. I was specifically asked if I believed in God by the review panel when I made Eagle Scout. Scouting should not be put under the "secular" tab because it is not a secular organization even though some branches of scouting may be secular. I propose that Scout abuses be put under a new tab such as Interfaith or Nondenominational.Mrbusta (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You make a persuasive argument. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I made the change. I seem to have broken the documentation transclusion though. No gain without pain.

Split this template into 2 templates

I think that the way to go is have 2 separate templates "abuse cases - catholic" and "abuse cases - non-catholic" then you wont need to bother with template levels. It also solves the criticism from User:Mrbusta that "abuse cases" is overloaded with catholic stuff if it was shunted to its own separate template. It would also make it easier to resolve the Scouting sex abuse cases dispute above as the word secular need not be used and instead Anglican can just be a subdivision of Child Sexual abuse.--Penbat (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

I think that would be an error at present. It would also clash with {{SACC}} since one of the resultant templates would be similar to it in almost all respects. What is needed is a simple statement of purpose for this template. I think that "The objective when the template was created was and remains to create a navigation tool to let a researcher navigate with reasonable ease between abuse cases of as near similar types as can be grouped within a template. It's also intended to be economical with article real estate." is almost certainly what you intended when you created it. It is most assuredly what I intended when I added a number of links to it.

Now I don't want that to sound as if either you or I own this template, nor that my view or your view should hold sway. Rather, the community view should hold sway. Often the community makes its opinion known by leaving those active in an area to just get on with it. Consensus Nemine Contradicet works as well as one where folk opine. What I believe should happen is that this template carries on for a while in the broad format it is in, with the same broad mix of headings, subdivided further where appropriate. At some point an editor who has no particular interest in the template per se is likely to make a suggestion or make a bold edit. At that point the discussion should take place or the bold edit be judged, by consensus, on its merits.

I am not wedded to this template, nor the format, but I do subscribe to the statement in italics above. I think a split would devalue it. The collapsing groups handle article real estate perfectly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

another one to go in

Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse but i have no idea where you can insert it with the current structure for this template. it is a joke to have 2 (and now possibly 3) subtemplates with one entry and the catholic subtemplate far more than everything else put together.--Penbat (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this one does not fit content-wise. I looked at adding it a while ago but could not see that it dealt with a case of abuse. It seems instead to document what they do. Did I miss something? I have not reread the article just now. Adding it to the template is easy enough. We simply create a collapsing section for other religions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

template should default to collapsed state

It takes up far too much real estate in each article defaulting to uncollapsed so it should be:

|name = Abuse cases
|title = [[Abuse]] cases
|state = collapsed
|selected = {{{selected|}}}

i cant remember ever seeing any other similarly designed templates on Wikipedia defaulting to uncollapsed.--Penbat (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

For me it does. Every time. You might wish to ask the editor who made the selected parameter work and explained it to me. He set state to uncollapsed which seems to have something to do with making selected work. It definitely needs a template language expert to answer your question. May I suggest you pose a question and ask for help at the talk page of the base template that we are using at present?

What browser and client environment are you using? That might be relevant. Mine is Mac and Safari. It would be worth stating that in the request for help that you post. I'd do it myself but I can't see what you see. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've asked the editor who helped me to pop over here and have a look. I have a trivial understanding, they have skill! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change the default state, it was already set to uncollapsed. That just means you can see the headings instead of only the title bar. The individual groups are collapsed, but (the top level of) the table as a whole is uncollapsed. —Codrdan (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

er yes i thought i was blindingly clear, if you just change state to collapsed as i already suggested that would be much better IMHO. However my preferred solution is to separate the catholic stuff into a separate template then you can scrap sub-templates altogether.

|name = Abuse cases

|title = [[Abuse]] cases

|state = collapsed

|selected = {{{selected|}}}

--Penbat (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

What you wrote was clear to you as the writer, not to me as the reader. There are twin collapsed states. I thought you were referring to the minor one not the major one. Hence my bewilderment and the discussion. So I have changed that parameter. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgotten Australians

one to go in ? not sure if it can be considered secular or interdenominational as historically quite a few religious groups were involved ref Child migration Home Children. --Penbat (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This one (pair) is complex. I'm not sure that it is, of itself, abuse. Many of the children were abused once they had arrived. Some were abused by being migrated against their parents' will, and others had good, decent and loving care on arrival. The question os how to add it (my opinion is as secular) without devaluing the template's usefulness. So I'm pleased you started the discussion instead of making a simple addition. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A further question, assuming the consensus is to add it, is whether to add it based upon the source nations or the target nation, or as multiple nations? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgotten Australians is relatively clear cut IMHO. It is bssically secular and the primary abuses were in Australia so it should be listed under Australia and secular. However I think at some point it is best to split this template into 2 templates (catholic and non-catholic) in which case sub-categorisation of non-catholic becomes less necessary. However it is best to see how the {{SACC}} template develops, now it has been saved, to ensure it isnt seen to duplicate any new catholic specific abuse cases template.--Penbat (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you fundamentally about splitting this template. It is structured well enough to be useful without splitting. Its purpose is to allow navigation between similar abuse cases, and it does that well.

Looking at the articles you've mentioned I don't see how they can be filed under Australia. They are umbrella articles for various international forced migrations, etc, and they cover several nations as the destination nations for the migration. That is not of itself challenging, we have other umbrella articles in the template. It looks to me that their best home, at present, is in other abuse contexts categorised as Forced Migration Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Abuse in public schools / boarding schools

There have been plenty of notorious cases of sadistic caning and child sexual abuse in public /boarding schools in the UK at least, often perpetrated by the head teacher. However, unlike the other abuse cases on this template i think it is basically just a large number of prosecutions of individuals and no systematic investigation although i think that a big reason why corporal punishment was banned in UK schools was the perceived sadisticness of many teachers at public schools who obviously got off by caning pupils. There have also been cases of pupils abusing other pupils such as John Peel So to cover this on this template you would have to list individual prosecutions. As per catholic priests, abusing head teachers were often allowed to carry on abusing at another school having been found out at one school.--Penbat (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Having experienced the UK school system, corporal punishment was broadly irrelevant, though looms large in the mind of non UK nationals for some reason. It was banned because it became outmoded. People simply stopped using it way before it was banned. Of course, that does not make a news story. All it did was hurt a bit. As a punishment it was over fast and reasonably convenient for the boy and the teacher concerned. Your supposition of sadists getting off on it is wide of the mark. I think you need verifiable evidence of your assertion about head teachers abusing elsewhere.

You are correct in your analysis that it is prosecutions of individual pederasts and individual scandals, though there have been some bigger news stories such as http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/men/article4820193.ece I'm not yet sure that a section is supportable because it requires articles here on Wikipedia to make it work. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Transclusion of template documentation

A technical limitation, presumably of Mediawiki software, resulted in the sudden lack of transclusion of the documentation sub page. A solution offered with success was to substitute {{Navbox subgroup}} for {{Navbox subgroup long}} which had been deployed in readiness for in excess of 20 nations where Roman Catholic Sexual Abuse is reported as a courtesy to less experienced editors. An alternative solution is to reduce the transcluded examples in the documentation, something which I have just done. I have checked that this works by visiting the template versions in the history.

On the basis that this solution works I am returning the long subgroup template to the article because it is highly likely that more nations than the current 19 will be required in the Abuse Cases template.

I have seen the arguments that this means that the template should be split into Catholic and non Catholic cases, but close inspection shows that this is not a valid technical solution, since the Catholic abuses are likely to blow such limits on their own! The technical limitation is to do with the number if transclusions, including nested transclusions. If the template is to be split it should be done by consensus and for whatever the right reasons are for the encyclopaedia. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

It is time to build a consensus on Redlinks in the template

Simply deleting the redlinks without consensus building runs counter to the community consensus building process. So does adding redlinks.

I have reverted them to the status prior to the recent deletion and noted the comment by the editor who deleted them with its attendant suggestion to add further for Belgium.

I will state my own position, one which has changed slightly from then I did a fair bit of work on the template:

• I oppose removal, certainly for the present, and I also Oppose adding any further redlinks. I believe we must build consensus for or against each process. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Odd

This template is 90% CSA - might it not be better to restrict it to CSA only, and split off other forms of child abuse and adult/elder abuse? Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

This is the point i made at Template_talk:Abuse_cases#Split_this_template_into_2_templates. It may well save going down a level. However care would have to be taken as we already have {{SACC}}. I have quite a few non-CSA links on their way at some point such as abuse cases in schools and hospitals. Notable workplace bullying cases would be good but the corresponding articles remain to be written. --Penbat (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

POV

Clearly this template deserves a POV tag. the author did his best to write tens of articles about abuse in christian churches and putting them on top of this template while ignoring all other stories, giving the impression that priests are responsible of more than 50% of recorded abuse cases worldwide. (funny that a whole entry is created only to include one article concerning the Anglican church). Being in the netherlands I can think of multiple abuse cases by homosexuals.(nl:Amsterdamse zedenzaak, Gorningse seksfeesten and many child pornography cases where the perpetrator turned out to be homosexual) how would you feel if i create stubs and put them in top of the template?--Rafy talk 12:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont think it is intentionally POV, its just that not enough articles involving different kinds of abuse cases have been written about on Wikipedia. If you know of a Wiki article which describes a different sort of abuse case that has been proven then feel free to link to it. Penbat (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Penbat. It is the lack of other articles that is the skewing factor, not the template itself. It is not of itself POV and simply records the volume or lack of volume of articles about abuse cases. If others can be created and cited then the template should reflect them. It is not a matter of what one likes that holds sway here. So create those articles, stubby or not, and make sure they are cited and will withstand the rigours of Wikipedia and include them with a good heart. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't think classifying abuse into "inflicted by christian churches" and "other" was unintentional. Some entries like Canisius-Kolleg Berlin, Kolleg St. Blasien, Archdiocese of Munich and Freising are articles of institutions added because of allegations of abuse. Other entries like "Tarcisio Tadeu Spricigo" merely redirect here. Some have been cleared of charges like "Sexual abuse scandal in Galway, Kilmacduagh and Kilfenora diocese". All those have been put together here in a way that emphasises on the role of the Catholic Church. Why not add article about human trafficking, forced prostitution, etc... Those are also cases of abuse--Rafy talk 13:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some abuse links that can be made at the section level, for example there are some secular schools or hospitals where there is, for example, proven physical abuse as corporal punishment as a section in an article covering a school or college in general but I havent got round to organising this. Also at some point some workplace bullying case articles will get done. I did say previously on this page there is a case for splitting the template. Template_talk:Abuse_cases#Odd Template_talk:Abuse_cases#Split_this_template_into_2_templates Penbat (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Bullying/cyberbullying

I'm not convinced that the "bullying/cyberbullying" section really belongs in this template. Unlike most of the linked pages, and certainly unlike all of those outside of the "other" section, these incidents do not really involve "abuse" as it is generally understood, since the bullying is more or less peer-to-peer. Should that part be deleted? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bullying is most certainly a type of abuse and this template suffers from a lack of diversity anyway.--Penbat (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a form of abuse in the vague sense that it's a form of: bad behavior, nastiness, anti-social behavior, unfairness, treating someone badly, etc., etc., etc. But you do not persuade me that it is the same kind of abuse that is covered in each of the other sections. Those all seem to focus on mistreatment of a person (typically a child) by an authority figure (typically a clergy person) who is taking advantage of their position of authority. I accept that the plan here is, as you say, to diversify the template, so that it does not carry the appearance of an anti-Christian or anti-religion POV. That's good. And it makes sense to me to add things like Abu Ghraib, because they still follow the pattern of abuse by a person taking advantage of a position of authority. But once we start to extend it to bullying of one young person by another young person, effectively by a peer, how far does that go? Do we count as "abuse": cybersquatting, tax evasion, bigotry, election fraud, double parking? What isn't abuse? If the eventual result would be an unmanageably large template of everything bad, I doubt that it would really be of any use. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked at Abuse, and it's illuminating. I guess the first thing I need to concede (subject, however, to WP:CIRCULAR) is that it does include bullying. But look at what else it includes! Way too much for a single template, even if one confines the template to pages about cases. If we start adding a section on animal abuse cases, for example, I can imagine the objections that it would elicit. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a tough one as various issues need to be considered. It would probably be a good idea to move all the catholic abuse stuff to a separate template as catholic stuff dominates but we already have {{SACC}} so that may cause confusion. There arnt many non catholic abuse case articles currently in Wikipedia so it isnt likely that this template would get very big (if the catholic stuff was removed). --Penbat (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is made more clear by cyber-bullying. If I call you fat on facebook, that can be cyber-bullying. Is it abuse? It could be, but it usually won't be in either a literal sense or in a way that people generally undersand the term.LedRush (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

One of the reasons that LedRush and I are here, raising this issue, is that a page we both edit, Suicide of Tyler Clementi, is listed on this template, but there are objections to having the template on the Clementi page, on the grounds that the events do not exactly match what most people would consider to be "abuse". It really does not make sense to have this template on multiple pages, characterizing the Clementi page as being about abuse, but the page itself has an uneasy consensus against calling it abuse. I have put a tag on the bullying/cyberbullying line of the template, to indicate that the sub-category is under dispute. I think that there needs to be a decision here, that is consistent for all the pages on that line. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Bullying is a subset of abuse which is a very diverse concept - hence there are 108 types of abuse listed. Abuse by an authoritarian figure is just one kind of abuse. "Bullying" is a social construct referring to some types of abuse collectively in particular contexts, either by an authority figure or a peer.--Penbat (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I fear that this discussion could degenerate into an "is abuse" – "isn't abuse" back-and-forth without getting anywhere, that is spilling over onto pages where the template might or might not be kept. How can we come to some kind of consensus on this issue? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Bullying is abuse full stop.--Penbat (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that leaves a lot of room to discuss different viewpoints :) Bullying can be abuse, but isn't necessarily. Cyber-bullying is even less likely to be abuse, though it can be. I think in the case of Tyler Clementi, it is not, nor has it been characterized as such by reliable sources. By leaving this on that page we are making a declaration which is unsupported by RSs. I think this could be a BLP issue. Of course, if we're just going to play the "nuh-uh"/"is to" game, Tryptofish is right and there isn't much to discuss.LedRush (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

And obviously I don't want to reply "Bullying isn't abuse full stop." Above, Penbat pointed out that there are 108 types of abuse listed at abuse. I cannot imagine a useful template with 108 lines, each containing a dozen or so page entries. I think that a lot of the talk on this template talk page has pointed to problems that are inherent in trying to cover so much in a single template. We already have template:bullying which adequately covers the pages within it, and I have trouble seeing a good reason to have both templates on bullying-related pages. Maybe the abuse template should no longer list individual pages about individual incidents. Instead, it should link to pages about categories of abuse, such as bullying, cyber-bullying, child abuse, animal abuse, and so on. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I realize that we already have Template:Abuse, which serves that function. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, I'm thinking of taking this template to WP:TFD, and just leaving templates for specific kinds of "abuse" instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. There's a link to the discussion at the top of the template page. Comments in that discussion would be welcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Too much navigaton overhead

The major sections on Anglican Communion by country and "in interfaith or non-denominational contexts" should just be merged into the "in non-religious contexts by country." Since there are only 3 articles in the sections I mention it is wasteful to have two whole major sections for them (they would take less space if just put in the main template without sections at all). Zodon (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

List of articles which used this template

Now that the discussion has been closed, here is a list of the pages which used to transclude this template: [1]. This may be helpful when adding smaller, more targeted templates to replace this one. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I would particularly advise caution with respect to recreating any templates pertaining to bullying. They need to stick to the sources for the actual pages listed, not just the sources for "abuse" in general. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)