Jump to content

Talk:Age of consent/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

While I understand that very few people actual understand the complex system of the law, I have noticed that some countries such as Japan, which has a national law implemented on the age of consent, is in actuality governed by regional law on the matter. While I understand that going by national law rather than regional law is one method of going about this page, a country like the USA, has its age of consent divided by region. I find it very inconsistent that each country has their age of consent judged differently, and it should either be determined on national law for all countries, or regional law for all countries. Honestly, what I believe the problem of this page to be is that it paints a very black and white picture of age of consent when the subject is actually very complex, and cannot be, and should not, simplified to a simple "age of consent in country X is Y". I believe the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform people, not give people an inaccurate picture. It is better to not explain at all rather than explain inaccurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sassyftw (talk • contribs) 06:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough comment. Generally speaking the US is often covered in far greater detail than other countries, and non-English speaking countries often get the least level of detail. But that's not intentional: the volunteers that edit this page simply don't speak those other languages, so it's often difficult to find primary, reliable information and source it. Bilingual editors are a treasured resource, but hard to recruit.Legitimus (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I would be happy to provide the necessary edits with the appropriate sources. The main purpose I put this discussion up was to confirm whether or not the page was open to such a change. While I have only studied British law, I am sure that I can find appropriate material from Japanese Government sites. Unfortunately Japan is the only country that I can actually research in detail, outside of Japan, there is little I can do. I also apologise if my earlier comment was on the aggressive side. It was actually reading a recent newspaper article, and the comments on it, that had me irritated rather than Wikipedia. I will admit that I am not entirely familiar with Wikipedia's editing system, but I am sure I can learn. Seeing as this page doesn't actually outline the countries in detail, the necessarily detail should be added to the Asian page instead? Sassyftw (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Certainly it is open to editing if you want to make changes, especially if you have reliable sources. Editing takes some practice, so I suggest when you make edits, press "Preview" first instead of "Save page" and look at how it appears, then make appropriate changes to your material. Often the various codes and marks can take some trial and error to get to appear correctly. I and other editors can make fixes to your edits as well.
You are correct in that this page is meant as a summary, whereas fine detail is provided in the sub-pages like Ages of consent in Asia. However if the summary on this page seems misleading about the nature of the law in certain nations, you can make some changes to this page as well as long as it doesn't get too long-winded.Legitimus (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Jailbait

Earlier today a large amount of information was boldly cut from the article Jailbait and pasted here. Whilst i'm certainly not opposed to having a mention of jailbait images here (in the same style that the sub-section child pornography has) I strongly do not think this entire section, with a thorough description of what jailbait images are as there is no main article to link to, and with it's own sub-section about a controversy involving jailbait images that doesn't really have much to do with age of consent laws on its own, belongs here. I strongly think the jailbait images should have its own article (back at jailbait like it did before it was moved here), and if anything this article should have a brief mention of the legality regarding said images with a link to the main article just like the child pornography sub-section has. I would very much like the opinions of others on whether this entire section should have been removed from its original location and transferred here. Freikorp (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

For others, see Talk:Jailbait#reducing to redirect for the main discussion. A WP:Permalink (in the case of that section being archived) is here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have since shortened the sub-section here, with a link to the newly created main article Jailbait images. The information at jailbait regarding jailbait images was boldly split into the new article by the same user who moved the information here in the first place. This action is contested, see Talk:Jailbait#Creation of the Jailbait images article. Freikorp (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

"Age"

JMJimmy: The source in this edit does not, so far as I can see, discuss "the age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts" or, more specifically, "how birth dates in leap years are handled, or even the method by which birth date is calculated" in relation to age of consent. I have been referred to page 41 in the source. The page numbered 41 is the cover page for a new chapter and does not seem to mention sexual acts in any context. The 41st page of the document (page # 27) also does not seem to discuss the topic of this article in general or the text it is cited for in relation to age of consent.

Similarly, the next edit[1] refers to a source that does not seem to discuss age of consent.

Am I missing something? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources are backwards in your comment (not in the article) - that was my fault, I didn't notice both fws and screwed up the edit descriptions. Sorry about that.
Assertion: Ages can be different based on the calendar used, PKK article states (p41) "If a mature man sodomizes a minor, the active party will be executed while the passive party who was consenting will receive up to seventy four lashes" and in section 3 defines minor vs mature in terms of the lunar calendar and discusses when the Gregorian calendar and discretion can be applied in other laws.
Assertion: birth dates in leap years. I didn't source this rather linked to the article which discusses it in appropriate detail. Uses the example of English common law which treats feb 29 as March 1st vs New Zealand which treats feb 29 as feb 28 in non-leap years. That simple difference can change both the age of consent and majority between countries. It's particularly important when combined with alternate calendars that use different leap days.
Assertion: method by which birth date is calculated - this is difficult to source, however, countries do codify how to calculate years. These laws differ in minor ways in most of the world, however, in some like Korea they start from age 1 (vs age 0). The source I did use, ilpa, illustrates the difficulties encountered in figuring out ages between countries which goes to the entirety of the assertions. Duarte, 16, from Angola case shows how an official assessed/calculated the boys age to be over 18. As a result he was put in a situation where he was raped/forced to perform oral sex by an adult. Upon a standards based re-assessment he was determined to be a minor (16). This wasn't so much a discussion of the specific age but of a consequence with regards to the method used in calculating age. JMJimmy (talk) 06:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

We want to be careful about imputing motivations for old laws

An editor added this paragraph to the end of the "History and social attitudes" section (before the "Modern laws" subsection):

The purpose of these laws was to preserve female virginity and protect the ownership rights of the father (whose daughter could become unmarriageable if deflowered) and to prevent premarital sex -'fornication'. The concept of child exploitation/child abuse as understood contemporary would develop much later.[1][2]
  1. ^ http://inter-disciplinary.net/ati/els/els1/dcruze%20paper.pdf
  2. ^ The Emergence of a New Taboo: The Desexualization of Youth in Western Societies Since 1800. by Martin Killias. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Vol.8 (2000). ISSN 0928-1371.

The preceding paragraph says:

  • In the 16th century, a small number of Italian and German states set the minimum age for sexual intercourse for girls, setting it at 12 years.
  • Towards the end of the 18th century, other European countries also began to enact similar laws. *The first French Constitution of 1791 established the minimum age at 11 years.
  • Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, initially set the minimum age at 10–12 years. [N.B. no dates given]

and I assume these are the "these laws" referred to. (If the paragraph is intended to cover all the laws described in the entire section, going back to antiquity, that's an extremely broad area and I'd be skeptical of any one-sentence summary of the motivations for all of that.)

But the first ref (D'Cruz) doesn't support the assertion, at all. D'Cruz, though versed in the subject generally, does not write well so it's not always clear what she's saying, but she doesn't say anything close to that (her paper is mostly about adolescent girls in Britain 1850-1940 anyway). Killias I can't access.

This got me wondering "Why was the French Republic motivated to especially protect paternal property rights and prevent fornication, while the Old Regime wasn't?" since the Republic wasn't reactionary on most matters, I think; I know little of the details of this period, but it's a reasonable question, and similar questions arise for the other instance. Figuring out why people made a law is hard, particularly when it was 500 years ago, and I'm leery of presenting a single one-sentence cause to the reader and saying "that's it". So I'm skeptical that Killias (or anyone) can do that, and doubly so since I know the other ref presented (D'Cruz) didn't, so I removed the paragraph for now on that basis.

The editor did add other useful material elsewhere for which I thank her, and D'Cruz offers some good material (mostly in her refs) and it might be useful to offer the reader some suggestions on what was going in people's heads when they made these laws, but it's probably complicated and we want to be cautious here. Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

How come changes have come due to HIV/aids virus? Wasn't syphilis (and others) bad enough to "deserve as punishment for loose morals;" likewise AIDS? Too bad of a sexually transmitted disease?Gnostics (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Section "Impossibility defenses"

Section "Impossibility defenses" reads:

Impossibility defenses

In 2009, federal agents in Puerto Rico arrested Carlos Simon-Timmerman on suspicion of possessing underage pornography, after an airport search showed that he had a DVD titled "Little Lupe the Innocent".[49] At trial, a pediatrician testified that Lupe Fuentes must be underage because of her appearance; lawyers for the defense contacted Lupe through her website and subpoenaed her to testify. Her passport showed that she was 19 years old when the movie was made, clearing Timmerman of the charges.

This doesn't make much sense. It is only indirectly connected to the subject of this article; and it is more about defense in criminal law in general. I'm removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F0A:508F:FFFF:0:0:50C:9034 (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Bolivia

The age of consent in Bolivia is now 14. Ages_of_consent_in_South_America#Bolivia


The world map from this article must be modified.

Also this map: File:Ages_of_consent_in_South_America.svg at Ages of consent in South America must be modified too.86.121.66.57 (talk) 06:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Please fix the map (Spain)

Spain has now raised the age of consent to 16. Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Spain The map must be modified to show the change.


See also: Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Please_fix_the_map_.28Spain.29.188.25.161.193 (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


I removed the map since noone has updated it. Please change Spain to 16 on the map.2A02:2F0A:507F:FFFF:0:0:524C:EF5C (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Age of consent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Texas

Texas must be colored on the map. It can't stay gray forever. There have been discussions on whether the age of consent is 17 or 18, but a consensus must be reached and the map fixed. It's very unencyclopedic and uncomfortable for the reader to see the map like that.

See Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Texas, Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#Texas, and Talk:Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Texas for discussions. 2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:BC19:ADEC (talk) 12:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Age of consent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


"Little Adults", "Unattached parents" and "No notion of childhood"

These notions of Medieval/Christian Europe are based on some very fairly outdated and flimsy research. I have access to several books (Nicholas Orme in particular) which are direct refutations of these claims so I'm thinking of editing those particular passages out of this article. TheSteelShepherd (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A lot of your data is a bit bull hardy.

You are including in this, same age partners. The age of presumed consent is between/for adults, to inhibit abuse by adults onto minors, and not between minors.

Nations in europe have same age conscent, while you have adult humping first blossom consent.

It should be no wonder that the term you use would be 'con' scent, that being what that is, a con, from the historical perspective of, 'she doesn't as of yet have any potencial veneral contractual disease'. Not quite true, these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.39.82.107 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links 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) 18:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(album) not sufficient?

see this In ictu oculi (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)

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)

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)
I disagree. I actually think Softlavender was incredibly patient. Besides… c'mon, log in. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
Great, show us the right way, then :) — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
It's exactly the same way as any other article. - SchroCat (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

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)

One good rule of thumb to use in this case is to check if the material has a cite in the child article.
That's the whole issue, @NeilN: SchroCat is saying it's not enough for the data to be cited in the child article. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
@Wisdomtooth32: SchroCat is right. If the material is cited in a child article then there's a good chance someone decided the material "has been challenged or is likely to be challenged" and so it needs a cite in the parent article. That's the rule of thumb I mentioned. --NeilN talk to me 04:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Note I've blocked Wisdomtooth32 for 72 hours for their behavior on another article. --NeilN talk to me 04:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why i did it but i did go through the list and i cannot see the claim of gay and hetero being treated any different age wise bar a single country, the Bahamas. Where it is 18 instead of 16. Several where it is outright forbidden(which could be colourcoded or given a note at the bottom).Otherwise the age seems to be the same for every other country as far as i could see. A couple had a difference to male and female(Ecuador, Democratic Republic of the Congo) regardless of sexual preference. So is this whole seperation really needed only for the Bahamas? Mind i may have missed some other countries because the list is not very good to see any actual difference at a glance. What european countries treat it differently? Which asian ones? I cannot see any difference, bar the Bahamas, and having less coloums would make it plain easier to get the data one desires from the list. Was just bored and while going over this mess to see if i could have behaved any better your claim about that cought my eye so i actually checked it. Then again i just may have missed it. Take it or leave it in the end, just a suggestion to improve readability. 91.49.68.147 (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I looked the the individual region articles and Vanuatu, Paraguay and Chile. Possibly Papua New Guinea as well although our article is fairly confusing (is there no age of consent for males for heterosexual acts?) Mind you I didn't check the cites so I'm not sure if any of these are correct. It's possible there are a small number of others, quite a few don't seem to be that well cited or are confusing. Which perhaps isn't completely surprising since the laws in some places can be fairly vague and implementation highly variable. It does seem differences based on sexual orientation, other than it being completely illegal, are very rare now. You could perhaps get into additional complexities depending on how you consider transgendered and non binary individuals. For example, some countries have additional age restrictions for anal sex. Do these restrictions apply to penetrative acts not involving the penis? If they do not, then depending on how you deal with transgendered and non binary individuals and whether there are any other restrictions you could say same sex relations is unrestricted for female same sex by a certain age, but for male same sex or heterosexual relations it's a different age. Nil Einne (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I'm going to remove the table.86.120.244.37 (talk) 12:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed the table.2A02:2F01:501F:FFFF:0:0:6465:4603 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2018 (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.:

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)

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)

I am new to wikipedia editorial system so please forgive me if I am doing something wrong. And I am not legal expert, have in depths knowledge of this topic, or speak English as mother tongue. However, I created an account to write this because I saw people in reddit saying age of consent in Japan is 13, and misunderstanding the concept of this to the extent that having sex with minor, say 15, in Japan is legal. I am genuinely concerned that this article and "the map" is adding danger to Japanese children by misinforming foreigners that it is ok to have sex with minors. I understand there are more aspect to the definition and meaning of the age of consent i.e. while having sex with under 13 immediately becomes a rape case, sex with under 18 will be a criminal act of having sex with children, not a rape case if consent was proven. However, the fact that it is illegal to have sex with children under 18 in Japan is not explicitly mentioned in this article or map (where I assume is the first place for people who search for sex age legality will land), and one has to go to "age of consent in Asia - Japan" section to access this information. I hope changes will be made to both the map and the article to help people informed correctly, to protect children. Thank you. --Todorun (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Age_of_consent/Archive_4&oldid=1027343208"