Revision as of 13:24, 8 October 2013 editJarble (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users149,667 edits →These redirect pages are equating age of consent reform with pedophile activism. Are these topics really one and the same?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:32, 22 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,063 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Age of consent reform/Archive 2) (bot |
(46 intermediate revisions by 24 users not shown) |
Line 8: |
Line 8: |
|
|archive = Talk:Age of consent reform/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Age of consent reform/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|1= |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Biology|importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/WikiProjectNotice}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/WikiProjectNotice}} |
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Law|class=start |importance=low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=Start|importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
|
{{Age of consent pages discussion header}} |
|
{{Age of consent pages discussion header}} |
|
|
{{Child protection}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
== Netherlands == |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- ] 15:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC) --> |
|
|
The section in this article on the Netherlands describes the situation from 1990 to 2002, but does not say what happened in 2002 to change this, nor what the situation is now. This information should be included in the article if anyone knows the answer. It would also be interesting, but a lesser priority, to hear about how it worked before 1990. ] (]) 15:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pedophile groups == |
|
|
|
|
|
], an editor I'm familiar with because we have worked on pedophile matters together on Misplaced Pages, ; he cited ] for the removal. But, like I stated, in , "Considering that this matter is a significant interest to pedophile groups, as documented in various ], some material about that should be in this article. It's already noted in the lead." And per ], the lead should summarize the article's most significant aspects. Now we have a lead that mentions the pedophile aspect, but no material lower in the article for detail on that. And if the material is removed from the lead, I don't agree with that either. The Pedophile advocacy groups section might have been too long with regard to ], but I don't think it should have been completely cut. ] (]) 22:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Well we could change the lead? I perhaps edited the article against my better judgement but I was looking at it on another issue. I do believe this is such a fringe viewpoint it should go into an article on pedophilia, sure, but not this article. Fringe noticeboard for more opinions? Or perhaps just a one liner not in the opening?. Thanks, ♫ ] ] ] 22:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hey, SqueakBox. Per above, I don't feel that there shouldn't be any mention of this in the article. Perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere in the article without being in the lead or without being placed in its own section because perhaps doing either is giving the material WP:Undue weight. But, yes, it is already mentioned in the ] article. ] (]) 22:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I've tried to meet your concerns. How does it look?. Thanks, ♫ ] ] ] 22:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yeah, I saw that you went ahead and took the initiative and However, because sections consisting of a single sentence are usually discouraged, per ], it's probably best to move that material up to the '''Initiatives to change the age of consent''' section...immediately under the first paragraph without it being its own section (meaning without it being a subsection). ] (]) 22:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I have made it a sub-section. I dont believe putting it above the countries sub-sections would be helpful, though, due to ] issues. Thanks, ♫ ] ] ] 23:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I understand. It's still better not to have a section or subsection that consists of a single sentence. However, your addition isn't the only section like that in this article. So thanks for working with me on this. ] (]) 23:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::'''Note:''' I tweaked because I realize that you may have read that as me suggesting a subsection, and someone else probably would have as well. ] (]) 23:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==These redirect pages are equating age of consent reform with pedophile activism. Are these topics really one and the same?== |
|
|
are essentially equating age of consent reform with ], which seems to be a ] description of this topic. Should these redirects be kept this way, or should they be re-targeted? ] (]) 13:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC) |
|