Talk:Insect indicators of abuse or neglect

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Insect indicators of abuse or neglect article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Law Unassessed

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 21 March 2008. Further details are available here.

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

A fact from Insect indicators of abuse or neglect appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 March 2008 (check views). A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/March.

Wikipedia

Merge Suggestion

Personally, I think a big "Forensic Entomology" umbrella directory containing a lot of the 29 groups' more specific pages would be easiest to navigate. Seeing all of the subcategories in relation to each other would spark questions pertaining to different fields. Since those umbrella topics get more exposure via keyword searches I bet a lot more people would be inspired to add something to one of the many sub-categories. The Christianity page is a good example with its navigation bar on the right. I had never heard of a lot of those topics before fooling around with wikipedia.Quatrevingtsix (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you guys think this should be merged into the "entomology" page, or perhaps the forensic entomology page? If not, why?ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the two should be merged "Entomology as ...." is a very decent stand alone article and both have enough information to be presented as full articles on their own. I think that people looking for information on insects or entomology in general may not want to peruse through an article that encompasses the sort of subject matter found in forensic entomology. "Entomology as ...." should definitely be linked, but not merged to the main entomology article. The two topics are different enough to be separate. Thank you for reading the article.--Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Entomology" I wrote my response in the wrong place. --Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is definitely unorthodox and rather verbose for an encyclopaedic article. Suggest that it is merged into forensic entomology or renamed as entomological evidence and made on the lines of subarticles in Evidence (law). Shyamal (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this to entomological evidence. Shyamal (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the title is verbose and needs to be shortened, but I think the current title is not clear as to the contents of the article. The new title is too broad, there is much more to legal entomological evidence than just indicators of abuse or neglect. Thank you for your help with editing and I will work on the title.--Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Can the "/" character be avoided in the title ? (See Wikipedia:MOS#Article_titles) Shyamal (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I will do that now.--Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprecise section ?

Quoting the "Child abuse or neglect" section: "Although the recognition of abuse is straight forward, some usual symptoms of child abuse/neglect include malnutrition, bruises (...)"

This raises a few flags/questions to me:

* What is the logic of this sentence ? isn't it illogical to say describe symptoms, but correct them with an "although" ?
* what is "straight forward" ? is it the same as "straightforward"
* is really the recognition of abuse "straight forward" ? I would have expected that, on the contrary, it's often not easy to characterize.

I am really not specialist but I feel that this section has serious flaws Farialima (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that needs attention. Thank you for taking the time to read the article and I appreciate you comments.--Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. That section definitely does not flow well. Thank you so much for your comments.Pinksugar85 (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case studies

Is there a particular reason all case studies presented are of elderly German women dying in 2002? If any one could find some more variable case studies to present, it would add much to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Versailles1798 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no particular reason for the case studies being from the same year other than the fact that the published research on the subject is quite limited. Thank you for reading the article. --Angelar.steinhauer (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. I wrote the section on elderly abuse and the only good evidence I could find for insects used in determing neglect were those about the German women. I did find more articles but they were not as in depth about the types of insects on the body or how they were used in determining neglect. Horsenerd09 (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Carol Lipps[reply]

One of the major reasons all cases of neglect and entomology are from German, is a major forensic entomologist Mark_Benecke, is from Germany and is responsible for nearly all the research into entomology and neglect. ABrundage, Texas A&M University (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This artical is quite interesting. I was unaware of the fact that young boys and elderly women are the most susceptible to abuse. Knowing a man who was neglected until almost dead, this subject hits very close to home. In case studies of the elderly, there could be other cases rather than only elderly women. Also, it is not only young or elderly that are abused or neglected. Many disabled people, no matter their age, are left to take care of themselves, many not always having been disabled do not know or are not yet able to care for themselves. Crosenbalm (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case studies

I added two to Mark's for variety.Referencing them is awkward.These were my own reports to hospitals and social workers and not published. You will find this true of much forensic work.This is unfortunate because experience an knowledge of other cases is everything here.Knowing what to look for is half the battle.Slainte (Irish for Cheers) Robert Notafly (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. It is greatly appreciated. If you have any more suggestions please feel free to share them. Horsenerd09 (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)(Carol Lipps)[reply]

Thanks so much for your addition. The variety is definitely appreciated. Pinksugar85 (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]