User talk:Student7/Sandbox 12

Standards for maintaining this article

Okay to edit these standards to measure up to Wikipedia standards or higher. Please copy these discussion "standards" when forking. Please discuss them way below, not within the "standards" themselves. Note that "standards" changes are NOT signed! We will see who made them from the history or watchlist. They will also need to be "reverted" when vandalized.

Suggestions on footnotes

Unlike other articles on sex abuse, it would be highly desirable to footnote at least each short paragraph if not every sentence with a reference from a recognized authority. Newspapers okay for recorded facts. Please avoid biased websites, blogs, and biased books. Let's keep this article unbiased and non-hysterical regardless of what has happened to similiar articles. (Having said that, some of the tips may come from these biased sources but they must be thoroughly researched in unbiased references before winding up in these pages).

Suggestions on forking

If article becomes too lartge - Some unique lead paragraph is necessary for readers who reach the article directly. Possibly some of that can be modified from lead paragraphs from the main article. Don't forget to copy all categories, eliminating all states except the one forked. The summary should generally not exceed a paragraph.

Suggest forking into separate article by region when total article exceeds 30 "print review" pages. Twenty might be better.

For subsequent forking, suggest copying main article discussion that seems germane.

Candidates

Candidates are teachers who are accused of physical sexual contact with a student at their school, otherwise, they are not doing anything differently than a regular offender would do. The teacher should have special access to the student. One of the worst things that could happen to this article is to trivialize it into petty misdemeanors against teachers. The people who don't like this section realize that and it may be one of the first things they try.

Also cover-ups of sexual abuse.

Forget non-sexual contact, drug abuse, pornography, etc. and misdeamenors. Forget felonious non-sexual accusations. Let's keep the issues serious.

However, this would still include "fourth degree sexual assault," a misdeamenor in Wisconsin and perhaps other areas. Assault (unwanted touching) is assault no matter how pleaded down it is.

Suggestions on content

While it is incorrect to state that someone who has charges dismissed against them or is not convicted by a jury is "innocent," my suggestion is to remove all charges that wind up in this category since they are "not proven." Let's not have an article that's specializes in innuendo. There's plenty of genuine cases out there with real convictions. We can well afford to be above innuendo.

More importantly, out of about 3,000 arrests for sexual misconduct a year for teachers, as few as 1% are ever punished. Once the prosecutor has come to a settlement short of using the word "sex" in it, or dropped the case, it should be dropped from our list as well. The only "truth" we know is from the courts and media, but the courts take precedence! So sometimes the prosecutor, knowing that he can't get a conviction for a felony, negotiates down to "disorderly conduct." We don't want to be in a position here of publicising disorderly conduct violators! We must delete the section on that person at that point.

Some are wrongfully accused.

Unlike the Catholic priest cases, we should drop items where the accused has died short of a criminal trial. If the accusers sue, then the article can be re-introduced.

"Former" sex offenders found to be working for the school system should not be included unless their previous conviction was for activity in a school.

Suggest sequencing by last name, alphabetically in the main article. Some can be included in the introduction.