| Revision as of 00:09, 23 September 2020 editNewslinger (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators62,827 edits →RfC about mentioning child prostitution based around caste: Tag as disrupted discussion (WP:BE, WP:SOCKSTRIKE, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Souniel Yadav)← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 13:20, 20 September 2024 edit undoRJJ4y7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users734 edits →an open source educational resource: new sectionTag: New topic |
| (73 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Vital article|topic=Society|level=5|class=B |
|
| ⚫ |
}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Safety resources}} |
|
|
{{Template:Distressing article}} |
|
{{calm}} |
|
{{calm}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Law|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Human rights |importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/WikiProjectNotice}} |
|
{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch/WikiProjectNotice}} |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Human Rights}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive index|mask=Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive index|mask=Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
| Line 22: |
Line 22: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|small=yes|age=15|index=./Archive index|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|
|
{{archives|index=./Archive index}} |
|
{{archives|index=./Archive index}} |
|
{{Child protection}} |
|
{{Child protection}} |
|
{{findsourcesnotice|""|child (molestation OR "sexual abuse" OR rape)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Link number 195 no longer works. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Title. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== an open source educational resource == |
|
== RfC about mentioning child prostitution based around caste == |
|
|
{{disdis|Dr2Rao|spi=Souniel Yadav}} |
|
|
{{atop|{{nac}} '''No consensus''' to mention child prostitution based around caste. While the arguments in support of the material were stronger in number and quality, they were not sufficiently so to overcome the opposition based on ]. - ]] 19:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)}} |
|
|
Should the "Asia" section contain information about caste based prostitution involving children in India? ] (]) 21:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' per my comments above. It is discussed in good sources like ''The Guardian'' and Al-Jazeera (see ]). It meets ] and appears to be ]. This RfC is about material, by the way. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 05:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
**{{u|JustBeCool}}, don't forget that the closer won't know your position on the matter merely from having opened the RfC. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 06:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' per ] since it is backed by reliable sources. ] (]) 22:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No'''. It is not exactly backed by the reliable source. The text says "'''perhaps''' at the age of 11, most are '''expected''' to start doing sex work", is not same as saying "they start doing sex work at 11". Are we going to write that "''Perhaps most girls in Sagar Gram village are expected to engage in sex work by the age of 11''"? ]. None of the words from the source support what you have been restoring; "In India, in what is termed 'caste slavery', an estimated 100,000 lower-caste women and girls are groomed into prostitution as a family trade." Especially when "women and girls" can be of any age and not just children, that is how the source is being misrepresented badly. ]. Now since the whole story from The Guardian is itself about only a single village where prostitution is taking place, why we are even adding it when the broader details about the entire country already exists? This is a clear breach of ]. ] (]) 04:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
::This source is 'being misrepresented badly' because 'girls' can be any age not just children? The literal title of the article is "The Indian village where child sexual exploitation is the norm". The actual misrepresentation is to do an acrobatic stretch and say the article is not talking about child sexual abuse. The other allegation which was seconded by the two users below is that this is only about a single village. It is about a caste, which is still worth mentioning, and even when the latest edit to mention about other castes was put in , it was still removed by you so then why complain? ] (]) 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No''' per above and ]. ] (]) 11:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No''' as per above 2 reasons. It is ], ] and ]. I however believe that the religion based prostitution involving children in Pakistan can be added. There are enough reliable sources online supporting that non-Muslims are victimized - please see ] article.-] (]) 20:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes''' Whilst the Guardian focuses on one village, the source estimates 100,000 women and children are in this situation, so the village is being used as an example, rather than saying it only happens in that village. The 100,000 includes women and children, but we don't know the proportion of juveniles. Whatever the proportion, some lower-caste children are being prostituted; to exclude the information over semantics is at best burying your head in the sand over this abuse. --] (]) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' per John B123. ] (]) 18:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' this topic was removed with the edit summary "clear consensus to remove, per talk page" after the first discussion above when there were three editors in favor of keeping the content and three editors in favor of removing the content and another asking it to be edited further to show a nationwide picture, so how was it 'consensus' let alone the need to add the adjective 'clear consensus'. Concerning the editor asking to change to show a nationwide picture, that was taken to account and edited but was still removed by the same editor who objected to the topic. Perhaps this did not actually need a RFC but I started one as a courteous way to stop edit warring. ] (]) 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No''' per NavjotSR. Misplaced Pages isn't for poorly written speculations per ] and ]. ] (]) 07:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes''' Agree with JohnB: burying our heads in the sand over the abuse doesn't seem like the appropriate way to go. ] (]) 00:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i reacently found a website (started by a social worker academic) which is a database of freely available, open source social work textbooks on every course a social worker would need to take from entry all the way to an advnced practice degree. will be useful for building Misplaced Pages articles. also please spread the word if any social workers you know would benefit. URL: https://opensocialwork.org/textbooks/ ] (]) 13:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''Oppose''' Per comments above. Poorly written ], which is almost off-topic to this subject in hand, should be disallowed in a heavily covered subject like this or anywhere else. ] (]) 14:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
{{abot}} |
|
i reacently found a website (started by a social worker academic) which is a database of freely available, open source social work textbooks on every course a social worker would need to take from entry all the way to an advnced practice degree. will be useful for building Misplaced Pages articles. also please spread the word if any social workers you know would benefit. URL: https://opensocialwork.org/textbooks/ RJJ4y7 (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=icon}
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
