This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 104.156.109.235 (talk) at 17:25, 23 February 2021 (→Reference 121: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:25, 23 February 2021 by 104.156.109.235 (talk) (→Reference 121: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child sexual abuse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child sexual abuse article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
Archives | |||||||||
Index
|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Per the Misplaced Pages:Child protection policy, editors who attempt to use Misplaced Pages to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships, or who identify themselves as paedophiles, will be indefinitely blocked. |
Link number 195 no longer works.
Title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.194.204.37 (talk • contribs)
RfC about mentioning child prostitution based around caste
This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the "Asia" section contain information about caste based prostitution involving children in India? JustBeCool (talk) 21:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes per my comments above. It is discussed in good sources like The Guardian and Al-Jazeera (see WP:RSP). It meets WP:V and appears to be WP:Due. This RfC is about this material, by the way. Crossroads 05:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- JustBeCool, don't forget that the closer won't know your position on the matter merely from having opened the RfC. Crossroads 06:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes per Crossroads since it is backed by reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 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"? Misplaced Pages is not for speculations or dubious information. 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. Clearly the Misplaced Pages text is creating out a meaning which is not exactly in the source. 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 WP:UNDUE. NavjotSR (talk) 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? JustBeCool (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- No per above and WP:OR. Kaweendra (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- No as per above 2 reasons. It is WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. 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 this article.-Dr2Rao (talk) 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. --John B123 (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes per John B123. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 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. JustBeCool (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- No per NavjotSR. Misplaced Pages isn't for poorly written speculations per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 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. Comatmebro (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Per comments above. Poorly written WP:SYNTH, which is almost off-topic to this subject in hand, should be disallowed in a heavily covered subject like this or anywhere else. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
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.
104.156.109.235 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class law articles
- Mid-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- Mid-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
- Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
- WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
- B-Class psychology articles
- Mid-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- Unassessed Human rights articles
- Unknown-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics