Talk:Age of consent

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)

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.:

• A former Pennsylvania prosecutor said that the question of consent is entirely different from the question of whether you're corrupting their morals
• Ohio's law against "unruliness" is not a sexual offense, nor is "interfering with custody"

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:

• Pennsylvania (6301. Corruption of minors. which refers to Chapter 31: - note that Endangering welfare of children applies to parents and supervisors only)
• Ohio (2919.24 Contributing to unruliness or delinquency of a child (Unruly child defined here) and 2919.23 Interference with custody.)

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)

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)

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)

I'd stick with academic sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Agreed! — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091114131934/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s208.html to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s208.html

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

content that does not fit Wikipedia standards should be removed improved. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

So you are saying Wikipedia is a reliable source? 91.49.71.240 (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

We aren't citing Wikipedia. The citations are in the wikilinked articles. Softlavender (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)