Talk:Child sexual abuse
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child sexual abuse article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
wording[change source]
The first para went too far in its interpretation in several places, and has been pruned.
- "makes" is far too strong a word: "asks" or "pressures" is much better, even though "pressures" is not simple. Possible "persuades" could be used.
- Again "kissing or hugging" is far too strong. Those are normally entirely innocent activities. On the other hand, I do like the sentence from En wiki "Under the law, child sexual abuse is an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses in which an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification".
- Third para, "incest", at least in English law, is not used for general sexual misconduct. It specifically means sexual intercourse between specified relationships. If there are writers who throw these terms around wildly, we should not be amongst them. The legal definitions are important.
- I'm not happy, either, with the oversimplification of the figures. See En wiki para 3 for the real complexity. I'm not sure we should mention percentages at all unless we can relate our figures to those discovered in research. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Stale tag[change source]
Auntof6, you reverted my removal of the merge tag, stating, "tag was not stale."
How is that tag not stale? You added that tag in September 2013. Before removing it, I looked on this talk page and at Talk:Child abuse and saw no merge discussion. Currently, there isn't even a merge tag at the Child abuse article. Is this tag supposed to stay up indefinitely, as something to prompt others to start a talk page discussion about merging? If so, well I just started the only talk page discussion about it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Flyer22 Frozen: I don't believe we consider merge tags to go stale. If you evaluate the situation and believe that no merge is needed, or if the merge is done, you can remove it, but saying that it's stale isn't a reason. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm stating that it's stale because it was added years ago and no discussion resulted from it. I don't think it should just stay up there indefinitely. I don't feel that an editor has to have an opinion on whether the merge should happen to remove the tag or argue for removing it. The fact that it's been up there since 2013 and no discussion resulted until now is reason enough to remove it. This isn't even a discussion that focuses on whether or not the articles should be merged. Obviously, during all the time the tag has been up there, one can assume that editors didn't see a need for a merge or at least didn't feel strongly enough about it to bother with it. When such a tag is placed, editors want to know if there was a solid reason for it being added. A talk page section accompanying it, explaining why it was added, is usually best. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Flyer22 Frozen: Then I guess we disagree. I think you're missing other reasons (besides not seeing the need for a merge or not caring enough): not having the manpower to follow up on everything on this small wiki (certainly not as quickly as would happen on enwiki), and the people who are here not knowing to follow up on this particular issue. Those things happen more than we might like with the small number of editors we have, but that's not a reason to remove a tag without addressing the issue. You don't have that many edits here (only six this year and one last year); you might want to become more familiar with this site before you undo things that others have done. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm missing anything at all. If one needs to state that they don't see a need for a merge just to get that merge tag off the article, then I guess that person will do so. I did consider this Wikipedia not being as active as enwiki as an explanation for why that tag remains, but I still stand by my above statements. I also don't think that I need to become more familiar with the site, certainly not to have the opinion I have about that merge tag. I've observed this site enough. And observing it doesn't require editing it. So agree to disagree. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Flyer22 Frozen: Then I guess we disagree. I think you're missing other reasons (besides not seeing the need for a merge or not caring enough): not having the manpower to follow up on everything on this small wiki (certainly not as quickly as would happen on enwiki), and the people who are here not knowing to follow up on this particular issue. Those things happen more than we might like with the small number of editors we have, but that's not a reason to remove a tag without addressing the issue. You don't have that many edits here (only six this year and one last year); you might want to become more familiar with this site before you undo things that others have done. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm stating that it's stale because it was added years ago and no discussion resulted from it. I don't think it should just stay up there indefinitely. I don't feel that an editor has to have an opinion on whether the merge should happen to remove the tag or argue for removing it. The fact that it's been up there since 2013 and no discussion resulted until now is reason enough to remove it. This isn't even a discussion that focuses on whether or not the articles should be merged. Obviously, during all the time the tag has been up there, one can assume that editors didn't see a need for a merge or at least didn't feel strongly enough about it to bother with it. When such a tag is placed, editors want to know if there was a solid reason for it being added. A talk page section accompanying it, explaining why it was added, is usually best. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
- Also, Auntof6, I do appreciate the work you do here. I meant no offense. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hello all, I removed the stale tag, it really is stale.--Eptalon (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Also, Auntof6, I do appreciate the work you do here. I meant no offense. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)