m →intergenerational transmission of abuse v cycle of abuse: missing "{" |
Herostratus (talk | contribs) →Barnstar: new section |
||
Line 260: | Line 260: | ||
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see [[User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day!]] and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see [[User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day!]] and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — [[User:Rlevse|<b style="color:#060;"><i>R</i>levse</b>]] • [[User_talk:Rlevse|<span style="color:#990;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Barnstar == |
|||
You certainly have patience to go with your erudition to put up with That Dreadful Woman. I just don't have the patience for these people anymore, but I'm sure glad that someone does. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 03:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#if: {{ifequal|{{{2}}}|alt}}|[[File:WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]|[[Image:WikiDefender_Barnstar.png|100px]]}} |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | The '''Defender of the Wiki''' barnstar, awarded to [[User:Legitimus|Legitimus]] for tireless application of erudite scholarship and cold logic in difficult and fraught subject areas to defend the Wikipedia from being hustled down dark paths of danger and error. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 03:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 03:43, 2 September 2010
Makhila
Hello and thank you for using my picture on your article, it’s very flattering. In answer to your question, the makhila that it depicts is about 1,05 metre, but each and every stick is unique, and made according to the size and weight of it’s future owner. I actually ordered this one from the Ainciart-Bergara workshop in Larressore (considered as the trademark makhila maker) for my dad’s 60th birthday. The delay was about 6 months, but it can be up to more than a year, with clients from all over the world (which seems surprising for such a small family business). If you have an opportunity to visit them one day, you’ll probably be surprised to see a wall covered with pictures of celebrities receiving a Makhila from their workshop (such as Ronald Reagan or John Paul IInd). It was funny how I had to « make my proofs » as a client to obtain their agreement to have a Makhila made from them, and as I conceived it (specific decorations, personal motto translated in Basque) : the manager asked me a series of questions to know who I was, what I wanted a makhila for, how I came to know them, what it meant for me etc. But it was worth it. On the D-day, I took my dad to the workshop pretending a simple visit, and he received his present from them. Such a great time. Cheers. --Jibi44 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I unfortunately have no idea how height and weight is used to determine the length and diameter, I suppose that it is part of the well-kept business secret (copies & fakes do great harm to luxuary business in France). All I can say is that my dad is 1,83 m. I can remember that the manager said that most of their overseas clients are from the US (meaning that someone must be able to understand written English), but they do not accept all orders (nasty Basque character ;-). If you still wish to order, the best way is to write a letter letting them know you height, weight (using the metric system), motto, motivations for buying & specific decoration + the different materials that you wish. --Jibi44 (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Good job!
On the typologies section at CSA. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
CSA page
HI Legitimus
Thanks for starting the new section, a welcome improvement to the page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello - in cleaning up from the recent disruption, I reviewed your edit but was not able to figure out what had changed, so it ended up being lost. If it's something you feel is important, please adjust the current version to include your changes. Sorry about that... --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
on pedophilia treatment
Don't be surprised if you don't get any answers to your question regarding treatment for non-offending pedophiles. People don't like to admit they exist. They find it hard to demonize someone suffering from a such a condition but they don't want to help, they just wait with bated breath for the poor sod to self-destruct so they can pull out the torches and pitchforks.
I've looked a long time for treatment, I haven't found any. You heard of any, doc? Finite (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for Comment
HI Legitimus: Thanks for your input on my suggestion to add an external link on child sexual abuse. I will wait a few more days and if no negative responses will add link.
Thanks again Ginerbread (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
hey on the Brown topic
yeah man i see what your saying about the "active campaign against satanists but really a deliverence ministry is frontline direct spiritual warfare with satan. What happens is they basically cast the demons that oppress you away but... I really believe it doesn't do too much because what is really happening is that the "shall we say" delivence'ee gets the demons cast out but unfortunately if they do not change their lifestyle they will have the demons return sevenfold (i would tell you where this is from but i am not a bible scholar yet haha) so yeah im not sure if that helped at all or opened you eyes and also what Elaine states in her book i have seen to some extent (except for the human sacrifices and Satan in physical manifistation) but other than that i have seen it. i was once heavily involved in the occult (you see i was bathed in blood and dedicated to satan as a child and i saw demons and talked to them for as long as i can remember and yeah first hand experiences it exists it really does but the whole regional bride of statan i have never really heard of. so yeah there you go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.189.182 (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Would you please remember to take your clozapine? It really does work but you need to take it on time and consistently. 150mg in the morning and the evening. Stick with it, and you'll be using capitalization and spell-check in no time at all. Legitimus (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Haha
Funny stuff man, clozapine does sound like the answer to his problems... Hey, if you don't mind though what do you think about demons and witchcraft? You see I am doing a study on it and I just need some input.ThroughTheDarkness (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, see your page.Legitimus (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help! I appreciate it —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThroughTheDarkness (talk • contribs) 23:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Your comments on this matter would be much appreciated. Flyer22 (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Infobox added in Captain Alatriste
This is a stock message to a number of people who have contributed to the article on the ‘’book’’ series of Captain Alatriste as an FYI. I have added a character infobox to the article. If you have time, enter the edit function in article and fill in appropriate information after the = sign. Fill in only what you think applies, but please leave all fields there. If nothing comes after the = sign, then it won’t appear in the article. On the other hand, if someone DOES think the field applies, they can add pertinent info. I do understand that this is technically a series article and not a character article. I’ve added the info box because 1) the series does revolve around Alatriste in large part and 2) the box really does improve what little is on the article right now. If a character article is created, we can copy and paste over. IMHO (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes diagnosed as a disorder
Hey, Legitimus, does the second reference you provided for that new addition state ages? I'm having a difficult time believing that experts would consider a sexual preference for late teenagers, such as 17, 18, and 19-year-olds a disorder. People are confused enough on this subject. Hebephilia should be stated as sometimes being diagnosed as a disorder before ephebophilia is. We do not state Transsexualism as a disorder in the lead (it mentions diagnosis but not disorder), even though transsexualism is listed as a disorder. Well, as we know, ephebophilia is not truly listed as a disorder. I do not see what good can come out of stating that "ephebophilia can sometimes be diagnosed as a disorder"... I mean, forgive my being passionate about this, but I have dealt with enough misinformed people (not you, of course) on the subject of what pedophilia is and ephebophilia is, such as parents actually having the nerve to call a 20-year-old a pedophile just because that 20-year-old was dating their 17-year-old daughter. Or people feeling that a 30-something year old man is pedophi-lish or "sick in the head" for dating a 19-year-old. I mean, tell that to Hugh Hefner.
I feel that the lead needs to be worded in a way that it does not leave people with the sense that ephebophilia is truly a disorder. Right now, I am going to tweak the lead away from stating the specific ages (15-19) and rather to simply state mid to late adolescents solely; it leaves people with more freedom to determine what they consider late adolescents without saying, "Hey, a sexual preference for 19-year-olds could be considered a disorder. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
User talk:James Cantor#Original research in Ephebophilia article?. You might want to weigh in on this, since it is about the paragraph you mostly constructed in that article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Adolescent age
A certain IP/editor keeps changing the age range in the Ephebophilia article, insisting on my talk page that adolescence generally ends at age 14. I am not sure where he got his information, but he cannot keeping changing the definition simply because he disagrees with it. I explained at User talk:Flyer22#Adolescent age, but this may not be the end of it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Damnatio memoriae
Hi Legitimus - I saw your comment about damnatio memoriae on another talk page, so I looked up the topic. It has an interesting history. Sort of like the Wikipedia version at WP:SHUN. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
fyi...
Hi Legitimus, you may be interested in viewing this at ANI: [1]. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sources
Please take a look at this page history. On that topic, since it's so specialized, some sources that might not be reliable on a more general topic may be OK within that local context. But the problematic self-published source that has has been previously removed from several other articles remains unreliable on any page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Another couple topics, another agenda-IP: Would you please take a look at these contribs? The IP is probably dynamic or a Tor/Proxy, so some contribs might not show up in that list. It would probably be a good idea to also keep an eye on all related articles. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Fringe/undue...
Hi - your input is welcome here... Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding the new info and sources, that part of the topic has much better context now. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
egosyntonic
Interesting term... [2]. Your comment is unsigned though, in case you want to add your sig. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
fan of Drew?
So are you a big fan of Drew/Adam, or coming into it from the medical angle only? tedder (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Molestation Recidivism Statistics
This is concerning the deletion of the recidivism section of the Child Sexual Abuse article, in which you deleted, that read: “A study done in California in 1965 found a 18.2% recidivism rate for heterosexual pedophiles as opposed to a 34.5% recidivism rate for homosexual pedophiles after 5 years.”
Within the edit summary you stated "4 decades old and information is misleading. Actual recidivism is not known with any certainty" I'd like to address that argument.
When you site the age of the study as a problem I assume you are implying that my logic contains time period fallacy, thus making the information misleading. However the problem with that is that for a study to be misapplied to a latter date in time there would have to be some difference in relevant areas of the subjects that changes over the time periods. I see no reason why someone sexually attracted to children would experience a different level of temptation between 1965 and 2009. If you do please feel free to explain.
Your opinion on the information being misleading is flawed in that I make no intent to lead anyone to a particular conclusion by presenting the information of a study. I made no conclusions in that section that recidivism is known with any certainty. If you are curious as to why I would feel it warranted inclusion to the article it is so that it can aid individuals reading the article in drawing their conclusion on the risk of child molester recidivism. However after rereading the section I do see how you could have come to the conclusion that I was stating the percentage of child molesters that recidivate when I stated that they “found a … rate.” I only intended that to mean for the pedophiles of their study and apologize for not being more clear. Thus propose to modify the statement to
“A study done in California in 1965 found a 18.2% recidivism rate for the heterosexual pedophiles of their study as opposed to a 34.5% recidivism rate for homosexual pedophiles of their study after 5 years.”
As far as your opinion “that that recidivism is not known with any certainty,” you are absolutely right. Child Molestation would fall under the realm of Social Science. Nothing in science is known with any certainty. No inductive reasoning is. As solid as Newtonian Physics seemed, Einstein still found it was flawed. Social Science in particular is plagued with the flaw of being without certainty. To state that is however a good point. Another added statement to the recidivism section could then have read:
“Individuals have questioned the validity and accuracy of recidivism studies to the real percentage of offenders that recidivate.” (Followed by another citation for source 16 of course)
Opinions? Joshua Phillips (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I note the ref you seem to be talking about is titled 'Treated sex offenders who reverted to sexually deviant behavior.' Given this was 1965, what exactly is meant by 'treated', would it mean the same thing for homosexual and heterosexual offenders, and would it not be rather different now either way so that the circumstances from which the statistics were derived no longer apply, and may never have applied anywhere other than America, or evn just some states? Sandpiper (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Reply from joshua
Personally in my opinion the likely difference between the recidivism rates of homosexual and heterosexual pedophiles comes from Pedophiles who lack gender preference. Most child molesters are male and a child molester who lacks a gender preference would have a much greater chance of gaining access to children of their own gender. Thus it might appear that they desire only boys when in fact that is merely what they had access to. For instance look at the Pedophiles caught in the Catholic church. I'm no catholic but I've never heard of an altar girl. If after a stirring sermon on god and morality the pedophile preist found himself wanting to "get some" he would only access to his alter boys. Sadly I don't know any writers who have displayed this opinion even though it seemed logicial to me. Joshua Phillips (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
We know who it is...
...so should we report him? Or not unless he continues to do this? Flyer22 (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Just so you know, the troll very recently decided to send me and some others a "friendly message" on my talk page. I'm going to report this to the administrator who was involved in that discussion, and see what he does. I am beyond tired of this troll, even though I have not heard from him in months. I do not take well whatsoever to being called a pedophile or a pedophile-pusher. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Strange talk posts in Pedophilia
I've noticed you've made several postings to the talk page for pedophilia, yet never responded to any of them. I dare say most of them seem off-topic or provocative, and seem to lack a clear idea of the subject matter. Please stop leaving these posts, especially if you never intend to reply to them.Legitimus (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- I do intend to reply to them, at least most of them. Pedophilia in general is a controversial topic, so it is difficult to sub-divide anything that would be especially controversial and anything that would not be. ADM (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well let me address your most recent here, for this reason: It's in the wrong article. Technically the subject matter relates to child sexual abuse, so you probably should move it.
- Some background on this and problems noted in the other posts: Pedophilia and child sexual abuse (CSA) are separate subjects that are often confused with one another. CSA is the actual abusing of a child; pedophilia refers to a person's mental sexual attraction to children (specifically, children who have not reached puberty), not the act of abuse itself. Many of the previous posts seem to have the mistaken assumption that pedophilia is the act of abusing a child.
- Another matter is the somewhat inflammatory nature of two post, about the Talmud and LGBT adoption. Both of these subjects are frequently issues brought up by bigots to use in propaganda, so naturally are bound to rile many people.Legitimus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- Most people in the general public tend to assume that an attraction to children, especially a same-sex attraction to children, is highly conductive to child sexual abuse. As I said above, it is only a formal convention to assume that the two are separate. Also, what I am interested in here is public perception of social phenomenons, and not necesarily the medical distinctions that specialists like to make. If something is deemed to be sociologically controversial, and it is proven by the public to be so, then it certainly deserves to be mentioned somewhere in our entries. Furthermore, I had been reading about the social legitimization of these things. If it appears that the Talmud allows LGBT adoption in certain circumstances, and it happens that this is relevant, then it should be cited with appropriate sources. That is all. ADM (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC
Hey, Legitimus. I am not expecting you to agree with me simply because we sometimes work together, but I need your help on this matter. Will you respond on it? I need a sufficient number of opinions about this; I am the main person editing this article, as well as the main person keeping it free of vandalism. The talk page is not active. I have asked some other editors to respond on this matter as well, but I am not sure how many of them will show up to do so. Any assistance you can provide on this would be much appreciated by me. Flyer22 (talk) 06:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Leadership Council
I've re-removed the leadership council external link and posted a rationale here. I was removing all the leadership council convenience links I could find and this one also turned up - I have no problem with the criticisms of the study being included if they can be found in peer-reviewed publications, but including non-notable advocacy websites just seems like lowering the reliability bar for no good reason. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
I wish you the best, Legitimus. Flyer22 (talk) 17:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Revictimization and Rationalization
Thanks very much for your text on revictimization. It seems to tie in quite well with "Self-image of victimisation" and "Self-victimisation". If I could find a decent source I would add text on the revictimization of bully victims as well.
If you can spare the time, please can you have a look at the dispute here: Talk:Rationalization (fallacy) --Penbat (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- One of the sources I added has some material on bullying. I'll read it in more detail. For "self-victimization" I recommend working in matters related to malingering and factitious disorder (known popularly as "Münchausen syndrome"). Self-harm may warrant a look, though I'm not sure it fits with the model of the article.Legitimus (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- Self-victimisation redirects to Victim playing which mentions "Münchausen syndrome" which is a type of attention seeking. Self-harm is not necessarily attention seeking but probably ought to be mentioned in victim playing. Victim playing currently has more emphasis on victim playing as a ploy used by abusers and manipulators.--Penbat (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
exaggeration
Thanks for looking at this. Bizarre that "exaggeration" had not been done before. I have changed it from "exaggeration (psychology)" to just "exaggeration". The current redirect from exaggeration to "hyperbole" was inadequate. It is a very interesting subject. I want to tighten it up in the sandbox for the whole of March before unleashing it. Feel free to contribute as you wish. --Penbat (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have just put it in mainspace as exaggeration as I think it had matured sufficiently. Please "watch" it and feel free to improve it.--Penbat (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Victims who become abusers
Another very important topic that needs covering (maybe in a Victim article and the abuse article) is the phenomina of victims turning abuser. I think this is covered in individual abuse articles but should be pulled together in 1 place. One obvious suggested mechanism for this is that for some victims the abuse may seem like normalised behaviour to them. Do you know any relevant academic terminology for "Victims who become abusers" so i can do some google searching on this? Related to this in some way is the mess here: Malignant_narcissism#Victimology. Personality disorders are obviously not contagious like an infection but in some cases, presumably through normalisation, PD traits get passed onto others.--Penbat (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- That's an interesting topic. While I don't know of an agreed upon catch all for this, "abused becomes the abuser" is a good string. Also "intergenerational transmission of violence/abuse" is good, as well as "cycle of violence/abuse."Legitimus (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. It does tie into Cycle of abuse but Cycle of abuse is another weak area of Wikipedia that needs sorting out as well. I have started a sandbox on this User:Penbat/intergenerational_transmission_of_abuse. No rush but pleaae add any relevant info you come across.--Penbat (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice work.
I very much liked your improved summary of Krafft-Ebing in pedophilia.
— James Cantor (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, that means a lot coming from you. I don't consider myself a great "primary writer" so there are no doubt some proofreading and corrections that may be needed.Legitimus (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
DSM issues
Hi. :) If you and your copy of DSM are available at some point, SandyGeorgia has requested a review of Tic disorder at the CP listing. I hate to keep an article in limbo if there's no issues at all. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I appreciate your assistance, especially with those articles in which no problem existed. Shame to blank them for no reason. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Sibling abuse
Hi Legitimus
What do you think of this article -- Sibling abuse ? To me it seems like the statistics may be incorrect or incorrectly interpreted, and it's almost all from one source that's not so strong. I wonder if there is enough there for a full article, or if it might be better handled with a merge to Child-on-child sexual abuse. Whether it's merged or not, over time it would be good if we can improve the factual info and the sources. No hurry, just thought you might want to check it out. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
minimisation (psychology) and exaggeration dispute.
If you can spare the time please can you comment on the dispute at Talk:Minimisation_(psychology) "Edits by User:Jojalozzo here and in exaggeration" section
thx --Penbat (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Drew Pinsky
Hi. Please do not use inappropriate edit summaries, as you did with . Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'll be good. Snarky perhaps; I got carried away a bit. Just felt it was warranted in light of an edit that was so defamatory it could result in legal action against the user or Wikipedia.Legitimus (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/74/Ambox_warning_yellow.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_yellow.svg.png)
The article Michael Catherwood has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Rettetast (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Up for weighing in on the above linked topic? Flyer22 (talk) 14:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit reviewing tool
Hi Legitimus
I hope you don't mind, I added your name to this list:
User talk:Risker#Editors who should have Autoreviewer/Edit reviewer activated ASAP
It looks like your reviewer status was activated today.
(User rights log); 16:44 . . Amalthea (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Legitimus from (none) to Reviewers (trusted user)
The trial of the reviewing feature is just getting started. It might not apply to articles you're working on, but in case something comes up you'll have the needed tool.
More info here: Wikipedia:Reviewing
--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
intergenerational transmission of abuse
I intend spending the next couple of weeks developing this in my sandbox before unleashing as an article: User:Penbat/intergenerational transmission of abuse
Feel free to add any useful constructive material.--Penbat (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts on this. I havent made as much progress as yet as i would have liked on User:Penbat/intergenerational transmission of abuse partly because i have got sidetracked doing some other articles in my sandboxes (see User:Penbat). I do want to push forwards on User:Penbat/intergenerational transmission of abuse but am also spending time on other fascinating articles. One very interesting topic i stumbled upon is User:Penbat/social undermining. Other things i am looking at at present include: User:Penbat/professional abuse and User:Penbat/Setting up to fail.--Penbat (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Many thanksJacobisq (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again re email-still lots of neat tricks to learn!Jacobisq (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
intergenerational transmission of abuse v cycle of abuse
"intergenerational transmission of abuse" seems to overlap with cycle of abuse but cycle of abuse strangely currently just covers what Lenore Walker means by cycle of abuse which is cycles between individual instances of abuse which seems quite meaningless to me. Also we have cycle of violence which actually has quite a lot more google hits than cycle of abuse. Is "intergenerational transmission of abuse" the same as cycle of abuse in which case would one article cover both ?--Penbat (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- The term cycle of abuse as used in that article is popular in the US with lay-person domestic violence education. One flaw to that article I might add is that there are a lot of derivatives that do not necessarily originate from Walker. Rather the general concept is just that abusers often hit someone, then apologize and try to make up for it, only to lose control again at a later time in a cyclical fashion. A undeniably observed pattern, but as noted not all abusive relationships function in this pattern.
- I feel "cycle of abuse" (or at least the meaning used by Walker and others) should remain distinct since it is a separate concept, referring to a pattern rather than transmission. "Cycle of violence" may be worthy of development and interconnection, though is a very broad term referring to many different things, and can include things as large as warfare. "Intergenerational" is fine but does imply a a child victim who grows up to adulthood before becoming an abuser. So cycle of violence may be a better place to start if you wanted cover transmitting abusive behavior as a whole concept, inclusive of intergenerational.Legitimus (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Happy Legitimus's Day!
![]() |
User:Legitimus has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Barnstar
You certainly have patience to go with your erudition to put up with That Dreadful Woman. I just don't have the patience for these people anymore, but I'm sure glad that someone does. Herostratus (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
![]()
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
The Defender of the Wiki barnstar, awarded to Legitimus for tireless application of erudite scholarship and cold logic in difficult and fraught subject areas to defend the Wikipedia from being hustled down dark paths of danger and error. Herostratus (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC) |