This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Idealigic (talk | contribs) at 22:12, 26 May 2020 (→RfC about mentioning child prostitution based around caste). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:12, 26 May 2020 by Idealigic (talk | contribs) (→RfC about mentioning child prostitution based around caste)(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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | 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)
More rounded view of Rind Controversy
Hello, I recently studied the Rind controversy in a course about science and culture. When I reviewed the summary here, I felt it omitted important some published/peer-reviewed responses to the article. As such, I attempted to write a concise but rounded overview of the debate that occurred after the article's publication. I hope it was a productive edit.Fixer1234b (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- The prior version was a bit too brief, I will grant, but these edits I feel start to tip a little too far the other way. It's a touchy subject because the study was and still is used by egosyntonic pedophiles to justify their actions, whether that was the study author's intent or not. Did you read the main article on the Rind et al. controversy? It's very comprehensive.Legitimus (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Reverted. Also, the Fixer1234b account is very likely a sock. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH
I am not getting where did John B123 found any connection of this and this with the "Child prostitution" or "Child sexual abuse"? Source does not even support the content. The source is nowhere being specific about the victims being children, then why you see the requirement to misrepresent the source? The source has been badly misrepresented.
You agree that my removal was correct but you are trying to find a way to get through the content anyhow. This is not allowed per WP:SYNTH. The information has to be about "child prostitution" or "child sexual abuse" or else it is just POV pushing and original research. The source mainly talks about a village where girls work as prostitute as they outnumber boys.
Given the discussion on your talk page here, you are only WP:STONEWALLING at this stage. NavjotSR (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- NavjotSR, WP:Synth is not being violated here. I've now read the source. It states,
When they are deemed old enough, perhaps at the age of 11, most are expected to start doing sex work....She remembers what the adults in her village told her when she was 15, and her family was having money problems....That was when she started....Girls in Sagar Gram, which lies next to a highway, are groomed for this life virtually from birth. Parents decide which of their daughters will fetch the best price. Older girls teach them how to attract customers from passing trucks and cars. The younger ones sometimes stow under beds, observing the others at work....The legal age of consent in India is 18. Madhya Pradesh, the state in which Sagar Gram is situated, recently passed the death penalty for anyone who rapes a child under 12, also increasing jail terms for adults who have sex with someone under 18. Police say seven people were arrested for child sexual exploitation offences in Sagar Gram in the past year, five of them women who sold their underage daughters.
The only way this could be synth would be if this was not child sexual abuse. Why are you claiming it is synth? Crossroads 13:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)- Firstly, You agree that my removal was correct but you are trying to find a way to get through the content anyhow is a complete fabrication. As I have previously told you, I do not agree your removal of the content was correct.
- Your edits have been reverted by myself and other users. Despite Crossroads's warning about removing the same content on Child prostitution, you continue to WP:EDITWAR over this content. Please comply with WP:BRD. --John B123 (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Crossroads: Your 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 on both articles? This is a clear breach of WP:UNDUE. NavjotSR (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I've had a look at the reference and I'd like to point out that it discusses one village, Sagar Gram, as well as one caste, the Baccharas. As of now, the article makes it appear that the behaviour described in the paragraph is occurring on a national basis, rather than among the Bacchara caste of Sagar Gram. Additionally, if you all decide to retain the information, the 100,000 estimate should be attributed to Ashif Shaikh of Jan Sahas, rather than using Misplaced Pages's voice; I should note that he seems unsure of the figure, however. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 00:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with the above that the content is UNDUE and OR and it must go given the speculations and dubious relevance. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is frustrating when editors meticulously address questions brought up only for it to not be looked at anyway. Makes it hard to have good faith and think every time an issue on India comes up, users get embarrassed or offended. @NavjotSR, you first brought up that "The source is nowhere being specific about the victims being children" and then user:Crossroads quoted the source that literally talks about children and that counts for nothing to you. The issue is brought up that this is not representative nationally, but that it has to exist everywhere in the nation was never a criteria. JustBeCool (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- Then you must avoid misrepresenting sources in first place. The information in question is backed with words like "expected", "perhaps", and is ultimately about "women and girls". You need a lot better argument than selective WP:CANVASSING and violate WP:NPA. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- My comment concerned the paragraph as it was written extrapolating the tragedies occurring in one caste of one village to the entire country. I do not have a problem with mentioning the information, if that is the consensus between the lot of you; however, claims should be properly attributed and the village should be specified, rather than making this seem to be a country-wide activity. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam 02:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- Then you must avoid misrepresenting sources in first place. The information in question is backed with words like "expected", "perhaps", and is ultimately about "women and girls". You need a lot better argument than selective WP:CANVASSING and violate WP:NPA. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is frustrating when editors meticulously address questions brought up only for it to not be looked at anyway. Makes it hard to have good faith and think every time an issue on India comes up, users get embarrassed or offended. @NavjotSR, you first brought up that "The source is nowhere being specific about the victims being children" and then user:Crossroads quoted the source that literally talks about children and that counts for nothing to you. The issue is brought up that this is not representative nationally, but that it has to exist everywhere in the nation was never a criteria. JustBeCool (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
RfC about mentioning child prostitution based around caste
 |
|
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)
- Yes per Crossroads since it is backed by reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- 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
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment