Jump to content

Talk:Age of consent: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
NeilN (talk | contribs)
134,455 edits
Line 172: Line 172:
:::::::Yep. Like any other piece of information on any other page, information in a table should be supported by a citation to a reliable source, and certainly not to another WP page. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 00:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::Yep. Like any other piece of information on any other page, information in a table should be supported by a citation to a reliable source, and certainly not to another WP page. - [[User:SchroCat|SchroCat]] ([[User talk:SchroCat|talk]]) 00:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Looks like you're wrong:<br />{{tq|The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article. The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its own sections and subsections on the topic, and so on, until a topic is ''very'' thoroughly covered. The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details. ([[WP:DETAIL]])}}<br />— [[User:Wisdomtooth32|Wisdomtooth32]] ([[User talk:Wisdomtooth32|talk]]) 01:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
::::::::Looks like you're wrong:<br />{{tq|The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article. The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its own sections and subsections on the topic, and so on, until a topic is ''very'' thoroughly covered. The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details. ([[WP:DETAIL]])}}<br />— [[User:Wisdomtooth32|Wisdomtooth32]] ([[User talk:Wisdomtooth32|talk]]) 01:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This dispute landed on my talk page. First, I cannot see anything wrong with the behavior of the IP. They made a bold edit, were reverted, and now are discussing. Second, {{u|Wisdomtooth32}}, please note the text you quoted says '''nothing''' about sourcing. {{u|SchroCat }} is correct that material requires inline cites on '''this''' page. Policy states, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Editors must decide if the material "has been challenged or is likely to be challenged". One good rule of thumb to use in this case is to check if the material has a cite in the child article. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 02:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:17, 18 December 2017

Template:Vital article


Left-wing and right-wing.

When exactly did high age fulfill its' shift from being more of a left-wing idea to being a right-wing idea? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 01:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Any moral/cultural collectivism is fundamentally right-wing. In the US, the Social Purity Movement, which is the one pushed for higher consent ages, amongst its other agendas regarding prostitution and liquor, was practically indistinguishable from the feminist Suffragettes and the Women of the KKK. So, in essence, the shift was not from Left to Right, or vice-versa, but of labels. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Defining what "age of consent" means?

Pinging @Fabrickator:

I'd like to ping the original article authors but the article history is quite complex seeing there wasn't any one major contributor.

I wonder where the definition of "age of consent" came from (any particular source/dictionary?). I ask because there are cases where an age of consent is understood to be a certain age, but adults may still get in trouble for being with minors under certain "corruption of a minor" laws. Examples in the U.S.:

Both sources don't define these corruption of minors as within the age of consent laws, and they are not sexual crimes.

The relevant laws:

Media sources state that the ages of consent in Ohio and Pennsylvania are 16, but adults who have relations with 16 or 17 year olds can still be prosecuted under the states' catch-all "corruption of minors"/"promoting unruliness in a child" laws.

Donald Edgar Lukens is an example. In the appeal decision the Ohio court stated:

  • "In the present case, the indictment, charging defendant with contributing to the unruliness of a child, alleged that defendant had engaged in sexual intercourse with a sixteen-year-old female on November 6, 1988. Evidence of such an act, resulting in an adverse effect upon the health or morals of a child, would be sufficient to sustain a conviction under R.C. 2151.022(C), which defines an "unruly child" as any child "[w]ho so deports himself as to injure or endanger the health or morals of himself or others[.]""

In light of these issues, is "age of consent", in reliable sources (since U.S. state statutes usually don't use the word, you would have to find definitions in legal specialist dictionaries, law journals, reliably-sourced books, etc), defined as an age in which activity with someone at or above the age is always legal (except familial and/or authority reasons), activity in which it is conditionally legal/usually legal (provided parents don't complain and/or a jury doesn't believe morals/health were violated), or is it which activity with someone at or above the age is not a sexual crime or not rape (but may still be prosecuted as misdemeanor "corruption of a minor")? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why individual states need to factor into the general definition. We should define the matter with WP:Due weight. And if that means including two definitions, we do that, but the most common definition should be first. Furthermore, the current lead does an okay job at explaining that "age of consent" might refer to different things and that the age of consent for sexual activity varies. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are further inquiries/disputes, what might be a good idea is to gather up lists of definitions from reliable sources, and obviously the ones that are most common figure most prominently. In popular media I'm sure that the definition would be similar to what's in the article right now. I'm unsure how legal specialist sources would handle it. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd stick with academic sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have to stay with mainstream sources and peer reviewed articles. The more you do while allowing for alternative views the better off the understanding should work out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8102:cc63:654f:17d3:52c0:2870 (talk • contribs)

Age of Consent - Global.svg

User:Jytdog removed this image from multiple articles with the rather strange edit comment "thanks but this is unsourced". I think it's best to centralize discussion about this move, so please go here: File talk:Age of Consent - Global.svg#Sourced(?)

Thx CapnZapp (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The map was created in 2011 based on (presumably cited) information on Wikipedia, and has been updated 22 times as laws have changed. Unless there is some specific citable evidence that there is something incorrect in the map (in which case, the appropriate course of action would be to update the map), I see no reason not to have the map in the article; it has been there six years without incident. The same goes for nearly every world or country map on Wikipedia which depicts data about individual countries or regions. Softlavender (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the appropriate course of action would be to update the map" — that was my intention with the introduction of the tables under Age_of_consent#By_country_or_region, but couldn't find an easy way to that dynamically, i.e. linking the table to the map (not too keen on handpainting 200 countries). — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why is the map still gone? This is typical deletionism. Don't just delete suboptimal stuff, improve it. Deleet (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Age of consent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DETAIL== Age of consent tables in the "By country or region" section ==

There is a serious problem with the tables in the "By country or region" section of this article. Not only are they redundant given that we already have age of consent articles for all regions of the world, but there are a lot of factual errors and inconsistencies. They are also highly confusing, especially given that they are simply split into "With Restrictions" and "Without Restrictions". "Restrictions" is a rather vague term which could imply many things (including things that may be illegal regardless of age such as rape), but "age of consent" is typically understood to mean the age at which it is lawful to have sex with someone indefinitely older than them. The tables do not seem to follow a consistent definition of "Restrictions"; sometimes it simply means "not including close-in-age exemptions" and sometimes it includes other potential restrictions such as student-teacher relationships and the like (for example, Canada's "Without Restrictions" age is 16 when it is illegal to exploit people under 18; whereas Washington State's "Without Restrictions" is listed as 18 when there is no age cap for 16+ except under certain circumstances based on the type of relationship the older partner has over the young person). While I appreciate the efforts, I personally think that the tables in that section are unnecessary and should be removed. In the meantime, I will put a disputed tag there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.157.203.2 (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not only are they redundant given that we already have age of consent articles for all regions of the world
Yep, it's called a summary table.
  • but there are a lot of factual errors and inconsistencies
Yep, this is a collaborative encyclopaedia. So, help correct it.
  • They are also highly confusing, especially given that they are simply split into "With Restrictions" and "Without Restrictions"
"Without restrictions" simply means without Age_of_consent#Defenses_and_exceptions.
  • whereas Washington State's "Without Restrictions" is listed as 18 when there is no age cap for 16+ except under certain circumstances based on the type of relationship the older partner has over the young person
Yep, "Without Restrictions" = without exceptions.
  • "age of consent" is typically understood to mean the age at which it is lawful to have sex with someone indefinitely older than them
Exactly. Hence WA's unrestricted consent age is 18.
  • Canada's "Without Restrictions" age is 16 when it is illegal to exploit people under 18
Corrected. You could've done that.
  • In the meantime, I will put a disputed tag there.
How can you dispute sourced data… from Wikipedia itself?? If there's an error, correct it. This is Wikipedia. Contribute. And sign your posts. Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 10:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Still, I think that it would be wise to treat close-in-age exemptions differently from other restrictions. The term "Age of consent" generally implies that a person indefinitely older can lawfully have sex with someone that age or older. The thing about the tables is that they don't distinguish "legal unless..." from "illegal unless...", which may confuse people. I think the table should include columns for close-in-age that are separate from the "With Restrictions" age. 45.58.210.15 (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It'll become huge, but you're welcome to expand it. As long as you're adding, and not deleting or putting for deletion, you're contributing. Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the table should be removed. The "restrictions" notion is very confusing. If one takes into account the close in age exemptions, then in some countries there is no age of consent, because the law only criminalizes the act if there is a certain age difference between the partners, whether defined in years or in a general way. For example, in Finland the general age of consent is 16 but the sexual act is not punishable if "there is no great difference in the ages or the mental and physical maturity of the persons involved". Also, if one takes into account all restrictions, then the age of consent is 18 in most countries, because most countries have restrictions with regard to positions of authority/power (ie. teacher, coach), wether it is an absolute ban, or one banning only the abuse of power to gain sexual access to the minor. 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:6465:5017 (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anything is "confusing", clarify it, improve it. Don't just trash it; contribute. The motivation of the table is to:
  1. Recreate the map that was eliminated because it was deemed outdated; and
  2. Give more nuance to the nominal age of consent stated by each jurisdiction, acknowledging their restrictions and exemptions, and how differently they treat men and women, and hetero and homossexual sex. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to (1) - content that does not fit Wikipedia standards should be removed. With regard to (2) - this article is a general presentation of the concept of the age of consent. For country specific details we have the individual articles. 2A02:2F01:502F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9FF7 (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
content that does not fit Wikipedia standards should be removed improved. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Until it is improved it must be removed. And the table also serves no purpose, as explained above. 2A02:2F01:502F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:9FF7 (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaboratively edited encyclopaedia. People can't edit what they don't see. And the purpose of the table is explained above. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 05:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot source the table to other Wikipedia articles. Not only is it lazy but Wikipedia is also not a reliable source. It cannot stand as is. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to get WP:CONSENSUS before unilaterally removing a large table from an article. And yes, lists are often used whose sources are in the wikilinked articles. If you find that any information in the chart is inaccurate, please either note it here (with explanatory citations) or change it. Softlavender (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying Wikipedia is a reliable source? 91.49.71.240 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote: Lists are often used whose sources are in the wikilinked articles; this is very common. If you find that any information in the chart is inaccurate, please either note it here (with explanatory citations) or change it. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did read that. It was just my understanding that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. No exception. But if i am wrong, i am wrong. Could you point towards the guideline that states what you tell me? Not that i don't believe you but i would like to read it so i can learn for the future. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't citing Wikipedia. The citations are in the wikilinked articles. Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please point me towards the guideline that allows for this? Why are the cites not in the table to begin with anyway? If they are there, citing other Wikipedia articles is plain lazy. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote: "We aren't citing Wikipedia. The citations are in the wikilinked articles." If you want to additionally add citations to this chart, that would be fine. Softlavender (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was not what i asked. I asked for a policy that allows lists to be sourced through other articles. I really don't want to be difficult or waste time here. The topic does not even interest me. I don't care to win, i don't care what the article looks like. I was trying to do the right thing policy wise as far as i knew it. If i did something wrong, i want to learn from it. Getting consensus, totally understand that. Core principle of wikipedia (hence why i did not editwar or any such nonsense). But you saying "Lists are often used whose sources are in the wikilinked articles" without any pointer towards an actual policy does not help me to prevent a similar mistake in the future. It is just you saying that is how it is, does not help me nor answer my question for the actual policy you are refering to. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The table looks like WP:CIRCULAR. Citing another Wikipedia article for sources on the statistics without giving reference to the source article per WP:COPYWITHIN noted with this edit here. Also rollback was probably a misuse instead of a revert since it was not obvious vandalism. Just my 2 cents PackMecEng (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:COPYWITHIN refers to, but thanks for that diff. Wisdomtooth32 used Wikipedia inapproriately there; I will fix that. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would still like to be referred to the policy that allows for sourcing lists through other articles. And a comment about why you rolled back instead of reverting would also be nice in light of the comment by PackMecEng. I most certainly did not intend to vandalise the article and thought i made my thinking very clear in the edit notice plus my prior comment on the talk page. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say we are sourcing lists through other articles; as in the majority of lists on Wikipedia, the citattions are in the wikilinked articles. If you find any errors, you are welcome to correct them. Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realise this is going into semantics but how is saying "Lists are often used whose sources are in the wikilinked articles" not saying the list is sourced through other articles. You are saying "We aren't citing Wikipedia.", you are saying "I wouldn't say we are sourcing lists through other articles"... well, how is it sourced then? And i really dont want to be a smartarse here, pardon the language, but can you please give me the policy you were basing all your prior comments on. Whatever the exact terminology of what the sourcing may be based on is in the end, what policy is it based on? The exact policy is what i am interested in at this point. I don't even care about the list anymore. I just want to understand the issue here. Not even to mention the use of rollback. As i said, i really don't care about what the article looks like but you must see the point of my confusion at this point. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As with most lists on Wikipedia, the citations are in the wikilinked articles. If you can find a policy that prohibits this, please link to it. If you do not understand the difference between a citation and a wikilink, read those two pages. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You seriously are asking me to provide a policy based reason for my question after i have asked you for one nearly a dozen times now and you have refused, or more likely are incapable of, citing one?!? You must be joking... I am the newbie here. I am starting to get a little frustrated here. I know i shouldn't be but this is becoming more and more bizarre. Listen, if i am wrong, i am wrong. I don't care about being right at all. I care about understanding how Wikipedia policy works in this case, what exact policy you based your comments regarding the list sourcing on and most importantly bettering myself. If i knew the exact policies i would not be asking you to point me towards what you base your objection on. You say i did something wrong so you should have a policy based reason you can point out to me. I am asking what that reason is because i have no idea. You telling me "If you can find a policy that prohibits this..." after i asked you quite a few times what policy allows it... seriously?!? This is way past content for me, i just want to understand what is going on at this point. Nothing else. This is just way too bizarre. I am not even sure what to say at this point about your objection... (well... that is not entirely true i guess looking at how much i ramble, hahaha) 91.49.71.240 (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to get WP:CONSENSUS before unilaterally removing a large (48,000 bytes, nearly half the article) table from an article. That is policy. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I told you i understood consensus. That was not what you were objecting and talking about though. You mentioned consensus once in the first comment. I said consensus is a core of Wikipedia and you have not mentioned it again until now. After that it was all about how it is ok to cite lists through other articles, or however you want to nitpick in regards of semantics, and consensus was never an issue... What do you say about your use of rollback? Was what i did obvious vandalism? Did i not explain my reasoning? What policy are your repeated comments about lists being sourced by wikilinks based on, your main objection throughout? Why did you ask me to provide a policy prohibiting sourcing of lists through other articles, or wikilinks... same difference, after you refused, or were incapable of, providing one allowing it after i asked you more than a half dozen times by now(which you still have not answered). This is getting frankly rather rediculous. No wonder Wikipedia is struggling to gain more editors if this is what people have to put up with. You are grasping at straws with the consenus thing in my opinion. I am still trying to figure out what you were objecting to for the majority of this conversation before flip flopping back to consensus. But i guess that is you conceding there is no policy explicitly allowing lists be sourced through wikilinks, as you have pretty much claimed throughout and more than once. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You unilaterally deleted nearly half the article without consensus. You need to get WP:CONSENSUS before unilaterally removing a large (48,000 bytes, nearly half the article) table from an article. That is policy. Softlavender (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And you have nothing at all to say about everything else raised before? Use of rollback, something which i have trouble calling anything other than lying about list sourcing by now(hate to call it that but what else is there left than state the obvious), trying to deflect the question of me asking for a policy you based your entire objection on, until flip flopping back to consensus that is, by asking the same question in reverse? Consensus is your fallback then? Well at least now you found a policy reason, took you long enough after being seemingly lenient with the truth with every other point you raised. Well done but i would expect much better of an experienced editor. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and before i forget... I would never claim it to be consensus but so far there were two other people voicing their opinion on the matter. One here and one on your talk page and both agreed with me. So even claiming consensus is utterly against me is not really that strong an argument. Again, will not claim i have consensus for what i did but so far only you said i did wrong, while refusing to point to any policy after me asking a dozen times up until flip flopping back to WP:CONSENSUS, out of three people weighing in on the issue. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 06:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You neither had WP:CONSENSUS when you deleted half the article (the editor who replied to your query told you not to remove it but to fix anything you found wrong), nor do you have consensus now, since that editor's and my points still stand. I am not going to reply further to your repetitive questions. Softlavender (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Citation please for "(the editor who replied to your query told you not to remove it...". Was it the editor who told me "The edit was perfect, all the unsourced data was removed and nothing else was altered. No bother at all."? Or was it the editor who said "The table looks like WP:CIRCULAR. Citing another Wikipedia article for sources on the statistics without giving reference to the source..."? And seriously, i never claimed i had consensus. Where did you get that from? I stressed twice that i would never call it consensus. I said two editors besides you commented and neither said what i did was wrong, only you did. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To add, the first editor contacted me after i boldly removed it, and as i pointed out agreed with it(second of the three quotes in the above comment). How can you say i was told not to remove it when every comment happened post removal. And the first was positive until you rolled back something that cannot in any way be described as obvious vandalism. So if anything, the only one who really breached any sort of policy was you. Not that it matters in any way. I don't care about such little things. 91.49.71.240 (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicted there so i hope it is fine i insert this where it was intended)One last thing, i would apreciate it if you could strike your unbacked and unsubstantiated aspertion that i was told not to remove it unless you can quote Boomer_Vial saying that (has to be them you are attributing that aspertion to as PackMecEng commented on the issue more than 4 hours after my edit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.73.234 (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you are being given some deeply misleading information here, and I'm not entirely sure why. Firstly, despite what was said above, you do not need consensus to take an action before it happens (unless it is in an area of known conflict or sensitivity and this isn't). You have been bold in doing what you thought was the right thing, which is exactly what you should have done. Secondly, deleting from articles can be as constructive as adding to them—I've taken articles up to FA standard that are smaller than the original version because I cut repetition and dross from it during a rewrite. (I make no judgement on what you have removed here is right or not.) Thirdly, the claim that list articles are sourced to articles they link to is wrong (and I say this as a former Featured List co-ordinator). I see you've asked for a link to the guideline or policy that says that and it hasn't been answered. It won't be, because there isn't such a guideline. All pages here, whether list or article, should carry citations to sources, not to other Wiki pages. It's fairly obvious why. I am sorry that you appear to have been given the runaround here, and that such misleading information has been given to you, although I am not sure why. – SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is all good and fine but that does not help about the aspertions being cast above. I am glad to see that the third out of four editors is backing up my bold edit but again, all leniency with the truth, flip flopping with the basis of opposition of the above editor among other things still stands. And yes, i did what i thought was right, i did not edit war to get my way (because i don't care about that one bit) so i honoured a disputed consenus after my bold edit was reverted. If this is the way experienced editors are allowed to behave, i am deeply troubled. 91.49.73.234 (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Telling a bold faced lie that i was told "(the editor who replied to your query told you not to remove it..." really topped this whole experience off. I very much doubt i will ever do anything of the sort again on Wikipedia after this experience 91.49.73.234 (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to see that and I hope you reconsider. Unfortunatley IPs tend to be treated rather shabbily on WP, and I find it odd that when you have acted in such obviously good faith, you have been treated like some vandal or troll and given such erroneous advice against all our guidelines and policies simply to defend something that could have been discussed sensibly on this page. Instead you have had to spend far too much time defend yourself against baseless accusations and had to go round in circles because of incorrect statements about our guidelines. I really a man sorry about the way you've been treated here. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair i am a bit of an argumentative fella anyway, so the masochist in me somewhat enjoyed it, hahaha. But still, if this is what passes as an experiened editor(someone people like me should learn from and aspire to be more like), this place is in deep trouble... And while i may never have made an account i am not new to wikipedia and have been lurking for quite some time. I have to say, i apreciate your effort deeply and it somewhat restores my faith but... this was more than the usual suspicion and... i don't even know what else to call it... i get as an IP editor. I know i could make an account but i just don't want to(call it pride or stubbornness and episodes like this make me want to make an account less) and am somewhat used to shabby behavior... never have i encountered anything like this and i even have posted on ANI before(shame on me, i know), haha 91.49.73.234 (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"But still, if this is what passes as an experiened editor(someone people like me should learn from and aspire to be more like), this place is in deep trouble.." This behavior is not what should pass as an experienced editor. Especially not one that is handing out advise. I'm truly sorry that this happened to you, and that you were treated this way. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 22:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, this matter is pretty much done for me except for the part where a bold faced lie still stands above to make me look bad, is totally unfounded and deceitful. "(the editor who replied to your query told you not to remove it..." is not remotely true and should be struck. It cannot be allowed to make things up as a desperate move in a disagreement. Especially one that is only intended to make me look like a vandal. So i ask again for it to either be supported by a diff, very unlikely but i want to offer the chance nontheless(maybe i missed something), or it be struck. I don't even ask for an apology for the behaviour, i just want this to end without any unsubstantiated lies about me left standing here or on other talk pages where i am being called an SPA and even a sock. 91.49.73.234 (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, peeps, chill. It's cool to have all countries summarised in one single table, for comparison sake, rather than spread on half dozen different articles. I would've liked to include the federations with varying state laws there as well (Australia, Mexico and US), but couldn't figure out the formatting to make them collapsible. I wish this was a ready-made template actually, since it's so frequently used for any sort of country/state-level data. Next, I was looking for a way to link the table data directly into a map to replace the one that got trashed ('cause apparently it wasn't perfect enough, and whoever trashed it found it easier to just delete it than to actually fix anything, obviously). — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chill? No, I get bloody annoyed when editors are lied to by people who should know better. The IP was treated damned shabbily and lied to on several occasions, which isn't something to to 'chill' about. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I actually think Softlavender was incredibly patient. Besides… c'mon, log in. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bollocks. Both you and SoftLavendar piled spade-loads of deceptive nonsense onto that IP. All he did was ask for links to policies and neither of you had the manners to to AGF. This guy is an IP editor. He doesn't need to log in, and you need to get to grips with the fact that an IP has as much right to edit here as you or I. - SchroCat (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's just polite to introduce oneself. And offer a talk page to resolve any side issues ;) — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. An IP has as much right to edit here as you or me or Softlavendar. Try and remember the "encyclopaedia anyone can edit" line that this place was built upon. - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note, i was only involved in this from removing the list(well one talk page comment before actually) and after asking what policy their objection was based on("that is how it is" was not an acceptable reason for me.). Everyone else was other people i have no connection to. And to be honest, i think i was pretty damned patient with Softlavenders lies and aspertions, kept it civil, asked for policy etc. And "c'mon, log in."... Seriously, i don't have an account(!). I don't want one, never had one and neither is it demanded. And i am frankly more than a little disgusted that i again am shown as some kind of offending party, annoying poor old lying Softlavender with my "wikilawyering" or in reality, understanding what they objected to to not do it again... You know... Actually trying to better myself to not run into problems... Absolutely disgusted at this point... 91.49.90.173 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the initial discussion, though — rather than the discussion about the discussion — would people here be happier if the table were moved to a separate List of Consent Ages by Country standalone page? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was that the entire list is sourced through other articles. Move every source over so it diectly attributes what the list is saying. In other words, make a direct connection from the claims in the list to the actual sources without the middle man of other articles. And on top i find the "hetero-homo" distinction pointless. Yes there may be jurisdictions where being gay is a criminal offense but that surely could be marked differently, like with an asterisk to a note at the bottom of the list. Otherwise it is the same age regardless for every country after glancing over it. 91.49.90.173 (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my suggestion anyway. Easy discussion to have when asked and not lied to about other things, haha. And with that, i will leave you to it because i have zero interest in the subject matter. My issue was quality, lack of direct sourcing, of the list. Have a good day though. 91.49.90.173 (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • make a direct connection from the claims in the list to the actual sources without the middle man of other articles
    Not sure how to do that without creating duplicate, and possibly contradicting, content. In fact, duplicate content is bound to to become contradictory as soon as it starts being updated or corrected in one page and not the other. And having to do both is just needless labour.
  • And on top i find the "hetero-homo" distinction pointless. Yes there may be jurisdictions where being gay is a criminal offense…
    It's not about being gay, but having gay sex, and the age of consent for that. Even in Europe these do differ in some jurisdictions (let alone Asia, Africa and South America).
— Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any information on this page needs to be supported by sources on this page. We cannot source content on this page to a page somewhere else. You may think it needless labour, but it's not needless by any stretch of the imagination. What happens when an information on another page gets changed and the source updated? This will be both out of sync with the other page and with the source. It's an utterly sub-standard approach and I am surprised to have seen a claim that this is how it should be. I can only say that as a former Featured List co-ordinator, I can say that this is just entirely the wrong way to build any form of table. - SchroCat (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great, show us the right way, then :) — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly the same way as any other article. - SchroCat (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that to build a summary table, one needs to copy over all of the content from the source articles?? — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Like any other piece of information on any other page, information in a table should be supported by a citation to a reliable source, and certainly not to another WP page. - SchroCat (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're wrong:
The parent article should have general summary information, and child articles should expand in more detail on subtopics summarized in the parent article. The child article in turn can also serve as a parent article for its own sections and subsections on the topic, and so on, until a topic is very thoroughly covered. The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details. (WP:DETAIL)
— Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute landed on my talk page. First, I cannot see anything wrong with the behavior of the IP. They made a bold edit, were reverted, and now are discussing. Second, Wisdomtooth32, please note the text you quoted says nothing about sourcing. SchroCat is correct that material requires inline cites on this page. Policy states, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Editors must decide if the material "has been challenged or is likely to be challenged". One good rule of thumb to use in this case is to check if the material has a cite in the child article. --NeilN talk to me 02:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Age_of_consent&oldid=815921387"