Jump to content

Talk:Child sexual abuse in Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously badly written

[edit]

"Sexual offenses often involved notable people of the country."

This sentence should have been identified as problematic before this article became a front-page DYK article. It is a ridiculous sentence.

The problem with the sentence is the use of the word "often". What on earth does "often" mean? Does "often" mean that the perpetrator is more likely to be "notable" than not notable? Does this mean that the crime of child sexual abuse is more likely to be committed by a person who is notable than not notable?

What it really means is that the incidents that are reported in the press are more likely to be the Rolf Harris incidents than the local football coach incidents or the stepfather incidents.

More care is needed in wording an article that is about a sensitive subject. Are we condemning all Australian celebrities as potential abusers?

Moreover, in Australian English, the word is "offence".

Amandajm (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Amandajm:, thanks for your edits. I would like to add that nothing was wrong with the previous version, as long as it was written in a short time,(took me like, 25 mins?), and many of the words that have been used in the article had no offense with the wikipedian style of writing. Your edits were constructive, although I have changed the "Offenders" to "Notable offenders" once again, because we don't have the list of all Offenders. OccultZone (Talk) 10:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? Are you telling me that you put up an article on a subject as emotive, and possible personally distressing to a great number of people, and listing a number of living people, with only 25 minutes thought and consideration for what you were doing?
Your very poor lead sentences should have been thought out better than they were, regardless of whether, by some technicality, the article "complied" with what it takes to get a DYK.
So it was scoring a DYK that was the aim, was it?
Amandajm (talk) 10:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no violation of WP:BLP because only those people have been added to the list, who had been convicted of the crime, each of them include reliable sources, and similar has been done with the non-living names as well. Not sure what you meant by the aim. OccultZone (Talk) 10:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the implication of the lead, and the list of living individuals didn't match.
As for the "aim", the aim, particularly when writing about a sensitive subject, ought to be to deal with the matter as resposibly as possible. The lead indicates a lack of thought. The 25 minutes spent on this sensitive subject indicate a lack of thought, but, despite that, you got it on the front page, by putting it up for DYK.
If the aim had been to deal with this personally and socially confronting subject welll, then you wouldn't have been in quite such a hurry to score a DYK for it! If this was not a sensitive subject, it really woudn't matter, and I would not be writing to you here about it. But if you are going to take on subjects like this, they need to be handled with more awareness. Whoever passed this should have looked at your first sentence and sent you back to rewrite it. Amandajm (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Child sexual abuse in Australia. 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) 23:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_sexual_abuse_in_Australia&oldid=1215608549"