| Revision as of 00:57, 18 April 2021 editPrimeBOT (talk | contribs)Bots2,048,701 editsm →top: Task 24 - removal of a template following a TFD (plus genfixes/cleanup)Tag: AWB← Previous edit |
Revision as of 04:10, 25 April 2021 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Child sexual abuse/Archive 9) (botNext edit → |
| Line 30: |
Line 30: |
|
|
|
|
|
Title. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
Title. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
== 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''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}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reference 121 == |
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty new to Misplaced Pages editing in general, but Reference 121 "Resources for Responding to Child Sexual Abuse" has been moved or was cited incorrectly. The proper source can be found here. |
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Families_and_Youth/Facts_for_Families/FFF-Guide/Responding_To-Child-Sexual-Abuse-028.aspx |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 17:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fixed it. Thanks! I'm pretty sure the content was simply moved.] (]) 18:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
.svg){kind=small}
