Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is part of the Age of consent series of articles project.
In the interest of accuracy and quality it was decided by consensus to hold these pages to a high standard of verification and to avoid ambiguity through the use of prose (not dot points) discussing the relevant statutes, case law or other authorities.
To this end all information must be properly referenced. Where writing about legislation or other law, the appropriate statutes and similar must be cited.
Where appropriate, portions of the legislation can be quoted.
Where possible, a link to an up-to-date online copy of the legislation can be included (preferably, but not necessarily, in English).
It is preferable to include any such references in-line, rather than in a separate <ref> section at the bottom of the page. This is to make it easier for readers to find the references in context.
The unfettered age of consent should be in bold text, in order that it stand out. No other ages should be in bold text. Any exceptions to should then be discussed afterwards (close in age exceptions, same sex relations etc).
Please note that ageofconsent.com is not an acceptable reference as it has not been updated since 2002.
Netherlands
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. Credulity (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Pedophile groups
SqueakBox, an editor I'm familiar with because we have worked on pedophile matters together on Misplaced Pages, removed a section about pedophile groups; he cited WP:FRINGE for the removal. But, like I stated, in this edit summary, "Considering that this matter is a significant interest to pedophile groups, as documented in various WP:Reliable sources, some material about that should be in this article. It's already noted in the lead." And per WP:LEAD, 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 WP:Undue weight, but I don't think it should have been completely cut. Flyer22 (talk) 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, ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs22:43, 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 Pedophilia article. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that you went ahead and took the initiative here and here. However, because sections consisting of a single sentence are usually discouraged, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, 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). Flyer22 (talk) 22:59, 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. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Pedophiles have had a lot to do with age of consent reform (their attempts to lower the age of consent and continual advocacy of lowering the age of consent no matter what part of the world). And considering that there is a section on it in this article, which used to be significantly healthier than it is now (per the #Pedophile groups section above), it was not inappropriate to redirect those terms here. You should know by now that many redirects point to articles because those articles also deal with the subject, not always because those articles are mostly or only about that subject. Sometimes that article is the best redirect for the term/concept and it is therefore often not "potentially misleading," certainly is not equating the whole topic with that term/concept or necessarily biased. And when it is obvious that the term redirects there because the article is clearly covering the subject, readers don't need to be told with a hatnote that the term redirects there. Not to mention that it's clear the term redirects there anyway. That stated, in this case, the Pedophilia article is the better redirect for those terms. Not only because it is the main article about pedophilia, but because it currently covers the topic significantly more than this one does. I'd already redirected pedophile activism and pedophile advocacy to the section in the Pedophilia article about the topic before reverting you at this one. The other terms and spelling variations about pedophile activism should be redirected to that section of the Pedophilia article as well. Flyer22 (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
