Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kotra (talk | contribs) at 22:13, 9 July 2007 (→Ages of consent (again)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please click here to leave me a new message, signing with 4 squiggles ~~~~

User talk:SqueakBox/history

This user is not an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify)

Ages of consent (again)

You reverted the page move we discussed earlier. Since you hadn't replied in over 20 days I took your silence as agreement. So I moved the North America page to "North and Central America" as you quite rightly pointed out Central America, although included as part of North America in the 7 continent model, had become somewhat of an orphan.

Once again;

• The "Ages of consent in..." articles are sub pages of the Age of consent article.
• They were created solely because there was too much text for a single article.
• We needed an arbitrary way to divide the World up into several articles with roughly the same number of jurisdictions in each.
• That division needed to be well defined.
• It was decided to use the 7 continent model as only one country (Russia) falls over a boundary and we can use a clear colour key so that people may find the page they need.

• The term "Latin America" stands separate from any other division of the World. It does not form part of a holistic demarcation we can easily use.
• From the article; "There are several definitions of Latin America, none of them

perfect or necessarily logically consistent". As well as not dealing with the rest of the World, this model does not provide a clear and understandable definition within itself.

What possible logical reasons can you have for this move? Disrupting this set of articles in this manner damages the project as a whole. --Monotonehell 21:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already made my reasons abundantly clear. Chopping the real entity of Latin America in half is unacceptabl;e and reflects terribly on the articles (that is why Central Am,erica has been ignored. You know this already and my reason is abundantly logical. Your comments make me think you know little and care less about Latin America, SqueakBox 15:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Again I ask you to consider the set of articles as a whole. Consider the reader trying to find an article. How likely is it that someone looking for a particular country would enter the terms "Latin America"?

Do you intend to nominate other divisions for the rest of the World where there are significant cultural differences? You say that this is the reason why there are few articles regarding Central America. Why then are there few articles regarding South America? Or Africa? Or Asia? I suspect the inherent bias of en.wikipedia rather than what page name they appear on. You complain that Central America is being left out and yet you reverted my page move to North and Central America.

How does it reflect terribly on the articles? Why is it unacceptable? All you've provided so far is emotive normative statements. Give me something I can identify with and I'll consider it, I may even agree with you.

Attacking my imagined political position about Latin America is not helpful at all. I could ask you why are you so intent on this objective separatist kind of division? As opposed to a more inclusive World view where all jurisdictions are treated equally? --Monotonehell 04:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The reader is exactly who I am considering and all are the other divisions are fine. I was responding to your earlier comments and your resistance to Latin Am,erica as a concept and yoyur sdesire to arbitrarily split Latin America in 2, something that doesnt occur anywhere else in this series of articles, SqueakBox 17:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that you don't seem to be able to be swayed with logic on this I've made a new map and fixed all labels for the links that the move has disrupted. If anyone complains about this scheme I'll refer them to you to defend it. ;) --Monotonehell 22:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, there are other continents which have similar situations where the cultural differences (across Asia for example) are even more vast than from Latin countries to the US. Canada and most of the US have a fairly wide gulf in AOC laws despite their similarities. When we first split the article up into 6 parts we decided to go along completely arbitrary lines to avoid such political/cultural arguments.

Of course now that you've made yourself known, I expect you to contribute well referenced discussions of the laws of the countries that are missing from Ages of consent in Latin America - :) :) Cheeky grin :) :) --Monotonehell 22:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh indeed and starting with Honduras (I got involved because of my paedophile watch involvement). Asia is actually very different, different areasd there are glued together whereas with LA the region was torn apart, SqueakBox 22:46, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to comment on this. SqueakBox, you are correct that having a North America and a South America article would break Latin America in half. However, if we have an article on Ages of consent in Latin America, what countries are included? Are Belize and the Bahamas included? Mexico? Jamaica? Suriname? Guyana? If not, then where do they go? Suriname and Guyana certainly aren't in North America, and the others I mentioned (and more) are all disputed. No, using Latin America as a region when the subject is not about language is unnecessarily problematic. Also, Monotonehell rightly brings up the question of other regions. Ages of consent in North America currently suffers from an incorrect name, because it excludes Mexico and Central America. This is confusing at best, and it doesn't need to be that way. Using the standard North America and South America is the best option, because it eliminates all questions of POV, is used internationally, and has uncontroversially delineated borders. I advocate reverting Ages of consent in Latin America back to Ages of consent in South America, and moving the content about Mexico and Central America (there still seems to be none, so much for the switch allowing Central America to not be ignored) into Ages of consent in North America. -kotra 21:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

We could call it Latin America and the Caribbean. I would strongly opose an arbitrary breaking though my preferred solution wopuld be to have one AoC for the Americas which has a relatively small population (less than either India or Africa), SqueakBox 23:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling it Latin America and the Caribbean still wouldn't solve the problem of countries in the same region that do not speak Spanish or Portuguese, nor would it solve the problem of the North America article still being incorrectly named, nor would it be consistent with the other regional AoC articles, which are all geographic/political continents, not perceived cultural or social regions. As for your suggestion of one Americas article, that would be a solution only if population was relevant to the AoC articles (and if Australia and Oceania was ignored). However, population isn't relevant to the laws regarding age of consent. What would be more relevant is the number of legal jurisdictions. North and South America each have a comparable number of jurisdictions to the other continents. -kotra 00:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So lets have an AoC in the Americas, though there is no question that Latin America is considered a political region while North America is not, encompassing as it does 2 different regions, one very rich and English s

Personally I think that the 7-continent model is the more political model, because it is used to describe political entities more often. For example, Mexico (a political entity, not a geographic entity) is almost always described as being primarily in North America, not Latin America.. Cultural is irrelevant because the article makes no claims about how the age of consent relates to the culture or cultures of the region. The laws are the only thing these articles should describe, and despite your claim to the contrary, some Latin American countries have similar age of consent laws to those in Canada and the US (Argentina and Brazil, for example). Therefore, the Latin America/Anglophone North America model groups the regions by their age of consent laws just as badly as the South America/North America model.

As for treating the United States as one entity, that doesn't make sense in this situation because each US state's description is as long as that of other countries, as it should be because of how the US's laws are set up. The whole purpose of splitting the age of consent articles by region is because having a single article for all the countries would be too long. The reason is length, not cultural division. Probably not even political division either, so the entire Political line of discussion is probably moot anyway.

Since you have said you live in Honduras, I wonder if you are pressing this point because you don't want your country to be in the same category as the United States and/or Canada. I hope that is not the case because that's not what this should be about. The AoC articles make no claims about how the countries are 'similar' culturally, politically, or otherwise. The only things being discussed are the laws. -kotra 03:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to add something: if the previous model didn't work, then the current model doesn't work just as much. There still aren't any sections about Central American countries. -kotra 03:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW if we assume the uS contains 50 states we have something over 60 in North America and only 13 in Soyuth America so that doesnt work either. I'll see what I can get together for the Central American states. I dont want my (adopted) country to be in the same page as the US/Canada, not because I am against these countries (I certainly am not that) but because I recognise the culture here is a Latin culture very like South America and not at all like Canada and the US, so be assured it isnt prejudice against the US or Canada that motivates me here or in life (some editors would dsya I have a pro Brit POV but that isnt the same thing at all). But I am pro Latin America and if I have a prejudice here it is not wanting to see it split in two. I am of the opinion (developed during our discussion) that one article for all the Americas would be best, which of course would mean Honduras and the US ont he same page butt hat is okay by me). I dont agree that culture is irrelevant in AoC, quite the opposite I would sday and nor do i agree that Mexico is not considered a part of Latin America but instead a part of North America, that is simply not the case, SqueakBox 19:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't work with over 60 in North America and 13 in South America. There's nothing that says each section has to have the same number of jurisdictions. As I said earlier, the point of breaking the AoC list into regions was so that the articles wouldn't be too long and unwieldy. I don't think North America or South America is in danger of that anytime soon. However, a single article for all the Americas would probably be too long, and it wouldn't fit with the other AoC articles either. Consider North Africa, which is very similar in culture to most of the Middle East. Or Malaysian and Indonesian culture's similary to that of Papua and West Irian Jaya. The areas aren't divided culturally because culture isn't the focus of Age of Consent. It's just a legal topic, nothing more. I don't understand your view that culture is relevant enough to this subject to determine the way the regions are sectioned off, because there aren't any claims made about culture in any of the AoC articles (I might be wrong on this, because I haven't read all of them). But even if it were a cultural subject, drawing borders around cultural areas is extremely difficult and problematic, and needs a well-though-out discussion before changes are made, and anyone who says otherwise is completely ignoring the complexity and unavoidable subjectivity of culture. But if you want to go that route, at least keep it consistent. All the other AoC articles must be reexamined and revised to meet some sort of objective cultural map that reflects some sort of consensus. In my opinion, that's nearly impossible.

As for Mexico not being part of Latin America, I think I was misunderstood. I said that Mexico is described as being primarily part of North America (as the dictionary definitions I linked support), not Latin America. Latin America is noted only secondarily, if at all. Sorry for being unclear there. -kotra 21:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You just seem to bve justifying splitting Latin America into two whereas I dont think any of your arguments do justify such a split and such a split merely harms the set of articles. There are avrious soluitions thta dont involve splitting this region up and we should use one of them, I think you underestimate how much of one region Hispanic America is, the idea that Brazil and Colombia are in one region and Mexioc, honduras etc in another region simply fails to reflect the reality and there is consistency of AoC in spanish speaking Latin America as attitudes are very similar, SqueakBox 21:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am justifying breaking Latin America in two, but for good reasons: (1) the definition of Latin America is vague at best, (2) both the Latin America/North America model and the Americas model are inconsistent with the other AoC articles, (3) Age of consent is a legal issue, not a language or cultural issue, and (4) the purpose of splitting the AoC articles is for length, not to group them into similar regions. I have provided examples backing up each of these arguments. I have no problem with Latin America, and I'm not totally ignorant about it, either. I work for a nonprofit organization that is devoted to economic development in Latin America and the Caribbean through venture capital and private equity (lavca.org). My work requires good knowledge of LAC and its diversity. But I know when the more universally accepted continent model should be used, and that is the case here. I welcome you to prove me wrong, because I would prefer to leave the articles alone if I was convinced they were better that way. -kotra 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, this is Michael Howard speaking through Crowqueen, she is a friend of mine (not a famous one) and she contacted me when she read my biographical page. (I don't have an account, I know of Misplaced Pages but don't have time to edit or participate in discussions, so I've borrowed hers.) You left a message on her talk page regarding WP:BLP which I will look at in a bit. I've cleaned up my own page and will contact other colleagues about theirs. For example it was not at all necessary to have "Criticism of the 2005 Campaign" on my page at all and I am actually fairly frustrated that there was no balancing "What went right in 2005 for the Conservatives" article in order to balance it out, and that the page was not flagged with a POV tag.

The difficulties with being a serving Opposition politician in the UK have been greater since New Labour took over as there is a definite bias even in published material here and (for example) David Cameron's page has largely become a discussion page as to his fitness to become Prime Minister or cheerleading for the way he has lead the Conservative Party, as opposed to a strict biographical page. This I feel is a direct reflection of the way the British media have treated both of us over the past four years, whereas, for example, I know that it has been the other way round in much of the international media who were disappointed in our poor showing in May 2005 due to genuine scepticism about my ability to overturn a 100+ majority at one go. In this country it is very difficult to find accurate information even about past government appointments - not suggesting Labour is corrupt and we weren't, but because of the internal workings of government and the lack of any stringent Freedom of Information Act like you have in the States it is very difficult to obtain unbiased material from published sources unless you go deep into the archives and have personal knowledge of the people involved like Crowqueen - Ms Louise Stanley - does. My own career I know has been falsified: I was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade from 1985 until after the 1987 election, when I was moved up to Minister for Trade on the retirement of my colleague Alan Clark. Where genuine confusion emerges is that in the United Kingdom my role as a junior minister, particularly after 1987, was designed to prepare me for my Cabinet roles by involving me in extra-departmental administration to assist in the policy-making role of a British Cabinet Minister. As Home Secretary (1993-1997, where I made my real name as a government minister) I was often castigated for explaining, patiently and not-so-patiently that it was the role of the Secretary of State to make policy rather than carry out the routine administration. Again I feel I was treated unfairly by the media at the time who supply much of the "published sources" that Misplaced Pages necessarily relies on when dealing with public figures.

Ms Stanley is a political researcher but one who tends to want to work from unpublished sources like interviewing me and my colleagues in all three parties (she has spent time as a member of all three and I am honoured that meeting me in 1999 at a party was why she eventually ended up in the Conservative party, and she came to my attention again when she wrote a comprehensive account of her experiences in the grassroots during the 2005 campaign which she spent in two marginal seats, one Conservative-Labour and one Conservative-Liberal Democrat. We became good friends when she presented her report after I decided to step down and although it was too late to save me, she hoped to turn the tide in the party to stop them succumbing to overtly biased criticism in the media. This is why I feel - strictly off the record, and I hope you will respect our privacy on this - that Cameron has done little in office to continue the good work I started in 2003-2005. She tried to warn the party not to ditch me and to rally round when I was forced out of office by the Labour-supporting media by interviewing members of the public and trying to suggest pointers for the party to continue its progress in a genuinely popular manner, and feels that she was belittled by the media and party apparatus in Westminster when she tried to present her criticisms of Cameron in early 2006 after she rightly guessed that I was bounced by the party machinery into leaving Parliament at the next General Election. We met together shortly afterwards and I explained what was going on and that I would be able to come back, but not until Tony Blair had left office and Gordon Brown assumed the premiership. Luckily this happened relatively recently and Louise is now putting together a new report of her own personal experiences of David Cameron's leadership and public reaction to same.

What we've done here is pared my page right down to the bare factual minimum pending publication of a corrected biography - I am not one to go giving interviews to biographers because of my controversial image in this country and I rather think that I will have Ms Stanley write my own, so she is currently researching my activities during 2006 and 2007. Michael Howard, via the account of Crowqueen 20:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Johnston

Could you please explain this edit? The biography section is fully sourced and contains no controversial or libellous material. Why did you remove it? It passes WP:BLP standards. The article is useless without that section.

Secondly, the kidnapping section should be a summary of the kidnapping, which was what was there, not a one-sentence "He was kidnapped on X and released on Y".

If you think it should be removed, please start a discussion on the talk page (or if you really think it's that serious, WP:BLPN) instead of unilaterally removing it. Thanks. – Chacor 01:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

No the kidnapping section was a lot more than just a summary, it was paragraphs of material already at teh kidnapping article. We should be like everyone else and respect Johnston's privacy right now which giving personal details of his life is not doing, and thus the material is controversial, SqueakBox 18:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's nonsense. I'd challenge you to go to BLPN - there would be no consensus to agree this is controversial whatsoever. Since when has Misplaced Pages censored content for privacy of others? Daniel Brandt doesn't count, he's not notable. This award-winning journalist is. – Chacor 01:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that you can delete the material because it is "controversial." A BLP argument does not give you the power to remove material merely because it is controversial, it must be both unsourced and controversial. Such is not the case. This is a very famous individual, the information is widely published, there are no privacy concerns here. Quatloo 01:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

If unsourced then controversy is irrelevant, I am surprised to see you brin gn those 2 together. But the real question is "how does the material I removed improve the biogrpahy" and "how does its removal make for a worse encyclopedia. Johnston was not notable either until a bunch of criminals/terrorists made him so so his notabaility is as a kidnap victim and not as a journalist while he has made a very clear statement of wanting to return to obscurity. Are a few anonymous wikipedians going to stop that? IMO the bio should be merged into the kidnap article as has happened with many victims of British crimes only notabl;e for that reason, eg Murder of Sarah Payne and I am mulling over whether an afd is the answer (given the precedent of merging victims of British crimes inot the bio of the crime itself. At the end of the day I can delete because that is how things work round here, its called the edit button and there are no policies against that. People like to quote imaginary policies to justify opposing deletion of material but I have never come across a real policy that says this is unacceptable), SqueakBox 16:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)