Talk:Sexual abuse

I just want to say how amazed I was to see such an important article so seriously neglected. I have added a bit, but it still needs a lot of work. User4 (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Here are some articles (made before the "great pedo pogram/purge" was instituted) with a little better information, but still containing some serious errors:

http://web.archive.org/web/20050106091844/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

http://web.archive.org/web/20070810173316/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

http://web.archive.org/web/20070214034307/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

http://web.archive.org/web/20071228105122/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

This one is (I believe) after the pedo purge:

http://web.archive.org/web/20081219084433/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

That's not unusual. "High-level" articles often go neglected. Leucosticte (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

By "High-level" I suppose you mean difficult or complicated? Well, I left more questions unanswered than were there originally. Actually, the caliber of many of the articles at BW leaves me speechless... User4 (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about general overview articles. Speechless in a good or bad way? Leucosticte (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Many articles seem to be written by what I would consider to be amateurs - so I am left speechless "in a bad way". Some of the articles with the most hits are among the worst. Go figure... User4 (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)