Talk:Age of consent/Archive 2

message: Looking at this article what we really need to do is have, for each country, a reference to the statutes (or, if no statute, other documentation) setting the age of consent. Only then will the article truly be sourced. I'll do some of it... anyone else want to join in? The Land 18:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, did I set some kind of standard with my edit of the Australia section? I agree wholeheartedly, a lot of AoC information is created from hearsay and doesn't cite actual law. Monotonehell 13:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a hidden note in each section requesting people to add an authority when they edit. Hopefully people will look up their local statute or similar authority and add the source from now on. Monotonehell 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing 

message: Also this talk page could do with an archiving. Done. Monotonehell 13:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page itself need(ed) cleaning 

message: Joey Q. McCartney makes an good point that the legal discussion should include dates. He's kindly placed one on the New Zealand entry and I believe this is another requirement that should be incorporated into the rewrite. --Monotonehell 12:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Update dates

message: I've just edited an addition that was a bit  PoVy to try to ballance it a bit. But I'm not sure that I've suceeded. I've tried to state it as an opionion instead of a fact. Any opinions on it? --Monotonehell 05:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage section

message: This table keeps causing headaches. People alter it or add to it without citeing their sources or adding to the subpages, it's the main target for drive-by vandals, it's difficult to maintain and it misrepresents some information as it's fairly close to impossible to properly convey the info without 400 footnotes.
I'm sugesting we delete it and just stick with the subpages for specific information. Also trying to keep the main page general and non-jurisdiction specific. Opinions? --Monotonehell 05:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about adding a disclamer?  Also state that it is a general guide and that the laws are too complex to all be summarised by a table.  Kalmia 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at the history that was all included in many and various forms, including editor's notes in the html code. But people constantly ignored these pleas and edited away (this is wikipedia after all) --Monotonehell 07:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The table

message: I've been looking at this passage for some time now and have tried to reword it several times...
"In countries where "protection" of youth in terms of sexual behavior has reached its zenith (e.g. the United States), there has been a growing tendency to charge minors as adults for some major crimes. This leads some to consider why it is that a 15 year old could be too immature to agree to sexual relations, yet be mature enough to be tried as an adult for committing a crime and sent to prison, possibly for life.1"
...I realised that I was labouring under a fallacy. The AoC laws are intended as a protection for children as victims, whereas a murder charge is about protecting the murder victim. I can see why this passage was added, but the argument is non sequitur and a tad irrelevent so I've zapped it. --Monotonehell 19:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed passage 

message: The content of this article needs to be based on verifiable reliable sources. Parts of it look like an essay instead of an encyclopedia article. FloNight talk 13:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - the current form is more of a template for others to add information to, "Suggested topics". I've added a call for references template to the top. --Monotonehell 07:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need verifiable, reliable sourced content

message: While the entries by Dr. Waites are most welcome, his enthusiastic effort to properly reference this article has unfortunately resulted in making it look a little like a promotional tool for his new book. While I'm sure this is more a result of the existing serious lack of references than any bad faith on his behalf, it is a problem. It's possible that the only way to truely rectify this is to add further diverse sources. But in the mean time are there any more suggestions on how to incorporate Dr Waites's research while holding onto balance? (EDIT: I've just cleaned up the formatting which has helped on the surface) --Monotonehell 06:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome Dr. Matthew Waites 

message: Oppose for reasons of size. There's actually two pages of concern here. Initiatives to raise the age of consent and Abolition of age of consent laws. The first is barely a stub while the second contains a lot of text. IMO the second article is too large to be merged. Unless it can be shown that a large amount of text can be removed without damaging the article I think it would be best if Initiatives to raise the age of consent and Abolition of age of consent laws be merged together into something like Debates over age of consent laws. Which would then be summarised and included as a heading in Age of consent with a "See full article here" link. --Monotonehell 06:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, merge them into an age of consent "debates" or "initiatives" page, and add a summary and link to this article. There's too much there to merge it into this article. -- Avenue 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. I advocate either merging the info in Initiatives to raise the age of consent with Abolition of age of consent laws in a new article, as suggested by Monotonehell, or radically improving the Initiatives to raise the age of consent which at the moment is just a vague reference to "some groups or individuals" who favour raising the AOC (see weasle words)... -Neural 11:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the proposed-merge tag on this one for now. Please see my reasons at Talk:Initiatives to raise the age of consent. -Neural 03:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger: Initiatives to raise the age of consent 

message: I oppose this proposal too, again on the grounds of size. If any regional articles are to be merged, we should start with the smallest articles (e.g. Ages of consent in Africa, Ages of consent in Asia), but I'm not sure we should even do that. By the way, what's the situation in Antarctica? -- Avenue 08:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, I did consider Antarctica when creating the regional layout, but well you know... All six of those subpages have the potential to be quite large if all the regions are added, that's the reason they were separated on that basis. So I don't think it's a good idea to merge them just because of apathy due to systemic bias. All it takes is one editor to make the difference - the Europe page was looking a little sad until one editor added the bulk of the data on there. --Monotonehell 09:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and added a couple of sentences on Antarctica, for completeness, but I'm open to any objections. -- Avenue 11:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 10 points for completeness that boy! XD --Monotonehell 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. I see no reason to single out the South America stats to merge here. -Neural 11:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Ages of consent in South America]] 

message: In the Abolishion of age of consent laws section, consent before puberty is a red link. Is there any plan to write an article about this, or should the [ [ ] ] be removed? -Neural 18:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it seems that the merger has gone ahead over at that article so I've put a summary of sorts and linked the combined effort. It's not good however as I have little idea how to summarise that mishmash of opinion, other than link it and let it stand for itself. --Monotonehell 03:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL If you remember what it was be sure to tell us about it. Sounds interesting. --Monotonehell 11:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consent before puberty 

message: There should be a history section included in this and other related articles.  How has it changed over time?  What have been the trends?  What were the laws canturies ago and the times in between?  I realize some of this info may be hard to find, but it would be good to add.   --Kalmia 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see my answer on Talk:Ages of consent in North America, any country specific information should go on the sub pages. We need to be general in our discussion on this page. But if you can outline a general history with a worldwide perspective go for it (cite sources! ;) --Monotonehell 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Iceland seems European to me whenever I see something on TV about the country however I hear Belize is rather European also. The map shows Iceland having the same color as North America. Until someone finds a different map and there is consensus to use the new map Iceland should stay in North America. --Gbleem 11:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh I didn't even think to look at the map] we are using as an "authority". Iceland is red on this [[Continent}7 continent model]] so North America it is. --Monotonehell 15:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceland and the second map. Europe or North America 

message: We've got the great problem that information on ages of consent often are not quite correct, incomplete or interpreted in different ways. How can we improve the presentation of ages of consent?
1. We have to recite the relevant laws - literally! This has to be cited, link to an (official, if possible) page of the criminal code and the exact date of this information.  (avoid citing pages like ageofconsent.com - they already did not cite correctly!)
2. We have to interprete the laws and give sources as accurate as possible (preferingly experts publications).
3. We have to present these information in an clear and understandable (and - the most important: checkable!) way, distinguishing between minimum vs. secure age of consent and penetrative vs. "soft" sexual relations. 
minimum age of consent = the age only after that an individual can engage in sexual relations with another who is also at or above that age, without the older person forcibly beeing punished when discovered. 
secure age of consent = the age at or above which an individal can engage in unfettered sexual relations with another who is also at or above that age, without the older person beeing in risk of punishment at all. 
=== Example of correct citing ===
====Belarus====
The minimum as well as secure age of consent of all kinds of sexual relations in Belarus is 16, as specified by Articles 168 and 169, which read: "Sexual relations, sodomy, lesbian acts or other actions of sexual character of an adult, reached eighteen years of age, with a person who obviously has not reached sixteen years of age, at absence of attributes of the crimes stipulated by articles 166 and 167 present codes, are punished by restriction of freedom of two years to four years or by imprisonment of two years to five years." and "Dissolute actions accomplished by a person, reached eighteen years of age, concerning a person who obviously has not reached sixteen years of age, at absence of attributes of the crimes stipulated by articles 166, 167 and 168 present codes, are punished by arrest of about six months or imprisonment of one year to three years."
Belarus Criminal Code (in Russian) (relevant articles last changed by laws in May, 4th, 2005 - National register of legal acts of Byelorussia, 2005, № 74, 2/1112) 
Provisionally english translation of the relevant articles of the Belarus Criminal Code
=====Interpretation=====
The age of consent in Belarus involves not only all kinds of sexual acts (Article 168), but also "dissolute" (debauching/depraving) acts. Which kinds of behavior this includes, depends from national jurisdiction and has still to be examined.
--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.237.206.62 (talk • contribs).
: I agree with most of what you're saying here. There's an orange box at the top of all the AoC Talk pages that states pretty much that. Before the cleanup of these pages back in December 2005 there was NO citation and pretty much all the info was taken stright from ageofconcent.com, which I think is discussed above as being mostly wrong and out of date.
: I'd caution people on the 'interpretation' you require. Other than stating what the legislation says too much interpretation may lead us into grey areas. Unless one can find (as you also mentioned) authoritive sources for interpretation. This kind of research is very hard to find however.
: What we've been doing for the past 12 months is, if an edit is unsourced it gets removed after a few days of putting a  {citation required} tag on it, if there is no supporting sources. When I find the time I try to investigate sources supplied and verify that they seem correct. I also try to convert the lazy dot point writing into encyclopedic prose (a BIG problem on the north american page).
: Could you please stop changing the focus of sections to this "minimum age of consent" and revert your edits so far that have done so. All the articles in Age of Consent are written from the perspective that there exists an unfettered age of consent, and then in some jurisdictions, there also exists close in age exceptions.
: Close in age exceptions vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, they carry differnet penalties and have different rules depending on where you are. They are not a sufficient commonality for Wikipedia's articles to hold to. Therefore the concensus so far has been to focus on the unfettered age of consent and then mention as a side note in each jurisdiction their specific variations for close in age exceptions, homosexual relations, prohibitions on anal sex and so on as they exist.
: What you've done is destroy the consistency between articles, please change it back.
: May I ask that in future you add new discussions at the bottom of the talk pages and that you sign your posts (just type four tildes ~ it will be added for you automatically) it makes it easier to see who's saying what. Also you may want to get yourself an account, that way you'll be a name not a number ;) Thanks for your other contributions so far by the way, they have been good.
: See also: WP:3RR WP:TPG and Help:Contents
:--Monotonehell 07:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requirements on an adequate presentation of ages of consent 

message: ====Belarus====
The minimum as well as secure age of consent of all kinds of sexual relations in Belarus is 16, as specified by Articles 168 and 169, which read: "Sexual relations, sodomy, lesbian acts or other actions of sexual character of an adult, reached eighteen years of age, with a person who obviously has not reached sixteen years of age, at absence of attributes of the crimes stipulated by articles 166 and 167 present codes, are punished by restriction of freedom of two years to four years or by imprisonment of two years to five years." and "Dissolute actions accomplished by a person, reached eighteen years of age, concerning a person who obviously has not reached sixteen years of age, at absence of attributes of the crimes stipulated by articles 166, 167 and 168 present codes, are punished by arrest of about six months or imprisonment of one year to three years."
Belarus Criminal Code (in Russian) (relevant articles last changed by laws in May, 4th, 2005 - National register of legal acts of Byelorussia, 2005, № 74, 2/1112) 
Provisionally english translation of the relevant articles of the Belarus Criminal Code
=====Interpretation=====
The age of consent in Belarus involves not only all kinds of sexual acts (Article 168), but also "dissolute" (debauching/depraving) acts. Which kinds of behavior this includes, depends from national jurisdiction and has still to be examined.
--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.237.206.62 (talk • contribs).
: I agree with most of what you're saying here. There's an orange box at the top of all the AoC Talk pages that states pretty much that. Before the cleanup of these pages back in December 2005 there was NO citation and pretty much all the info was taken stright from ageofconcent.com, which I think is discussed above as being mostly wrong and out of date.
: I'd caution people on the 'interpretation' you require. Other than stating what the legislation says too much interpretation may lead us into grey areas. Unless one can find (as you also mentioned) authoritive sources for interpretation. This kind of research is very hard to find however.
: What we've been doing for the past 12 months is, if an edit is unsourced it gets removed after a few days of putting a  {citation required} tag on it, if there is no supporting sources. When I find the time I try to investigate sources supplied and verify that they seem correct. I also try to convert the lazy dot point writing into encyclopedic prose (a BIG problem on the north american page).
: Could you please stop changing the focus of sections to this "minimum age of consent" and revert your edits so far that have done so. All the articles in Age of Consent are written from the perspective that there exists an unfettered age of consent, and then in some jurisdictions, there also exists close in age exceptions.
: Close in age exceptions vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, they carry differnet penalties and have different rules depending on where you are. They are not a sufficient commonality for Wikipedia's articles to hold to. Therefore the concensus so far has been to focus on the unfettered age of consent and then mention as a side note in each jurisdiction their specific variations for close in age exceptions, homosexual relations, prohibitions on anal sex and so on as they exist.
: What you've done is destroy the consistency between articles, please change it back.
: May I ask that in future you add new discussions at the bottom of the talk pages and that you sign your posts (just type four tildes ~ it will be added for you automatically) it makes it easier to see who's saying what. Also you may want to get yourself an account, that way you'll be a name not a number ;) Thanks for your other contributions so far by the way, they have been good.
: See also: WP:3RR WP:TPG and Help:Contents
:--Monotonehell 07:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Example of correct citing 

message: The minimum as well as secure age of consent of all kinds of sexual relations in Belarus is 16, as specified by Articles 168 and 169, which read: "Sexual relations, sodomy, lesbian acts or other actions of sexual character of an adult, reached eighteen years of age, with a person who obviously has not reached sixteen years of age, at absence of attributes of the crimes stipulated by articles 166 and 167 present codes, are punished by restriction of freedom of two years to four years or by imprisonment of two years to five years." and "Dissolute actions accomplished by a person, reached eighteen years of age, concerning a person who obviously has not reached sixteen years of age, at absence of attributes of the crimes stipulated by articles 166, 167 and 168 present codes, are punished by arrest of about six months or imprisonment of one year to three years."
Belarus Criminal Code (in Russian) (relevant articles last changed by laws in May, 4th, 2005 - National register of legal acts of Byelorussia, 2005, № 74, 2/1112) 
Provisionally english translation of the relevant articles of the Belarus Criminal Code
=====Interpretation=====
The age of consent in Belarus involves not only all kinds of sexual acts (Article 168), but also "dissolute" (debauching/depraving) acts. Which kinds of behavior this includes, depends from national jurisdiction and has still to be examined.
--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.237.206.62 (talk • contribs).
: I agree with most of what you're saying here. There's an orange box at the top of all the AoC Talk pages that states pretty much that. Before the cleanup of these pages back in December 2005 there was NO citation and pretty much all the info was taken stright from ageofconcent.com, which I think is discussed above as being mostly wrong and out of date.
: I'd caution people on the 'interpretation' you require. Other than stating what the legislation says too much interpretation may lead us into grey areas. Unless one can find (as you also mentioned) authoritive sources for interpretation. This kind of research is very hard to find however.
: What we've been doing for the past 12 months is, if an edit is unsourced it gets removed after a few days of putting a  {citation required} tag on it, if there is no supporting sources. When I find the time I try to investigate sources supplied and verify that they seem correct. I also try to convert the lazy dot point writing into encyclopedic prose (a BIG problem on the north american page).
: Could you please stop changing the focus of sections to this "minimum age of consent" and revert your edits so far that have done so. All the articles in Age of Consent are written from the perspective that there exists an unfettered age of consent, and then in some jurisdictions, there also exists close in age exceptions.
: Close in age exceptions vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, they carry differnet penalties and have different rules depending on where you are. They are not a sufficient commonality for Wikipedia's articles to hold to. Therefore the concensus so far has been to focus on the unfettered age of consent and then mention as a side note in each jurisdiction their specific variations for close in age exceptions, homosexual relations, prohibitions on anal sex and so on as they exist.
: What you've done is destroy the consistency between articles, please change it back.
: May I ask that in future you add new discussions at the bottom of the talk pages and that you sign your posts (just type four tildes ~ it will be added for you automatically) it makes it easier to see who's saying what. Also you may want to get yourself an account, that way you'll be a name not a number ;) Thanks for your other contributions so far by the way, they have been good.
: See also: WP:3RR WP:TPG and Help:Contents
:--Monotonehell 07:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Belarus

message: The age of consent in Belarus involves not only all kinds of sexual acts (Article 168), but also "dissolute" (debauching/depraving) acts. Which kinds of behavior this includes, depends from national jurisdiction and has still to be examined.
--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.237.206.62 (talk • contribs).
: I agree with most of what you're saying here. There's an orange box at the top of all the AoC Talk pages that states pretty much that. Before the cleanup of these pages back in December 2005 there was NO citation and pretty much all the info was taken stright from ageofconcent.com, which I think is discussed above as being mostly wrong and out of date.
: I'd caution people on the 'interpretation' you require. Other than stating what the legislation says too much interpretation may lead us into grey areas. Unless one can find (as you also mentioned) authoritive sources for interpretation. This kind of research is very hard to find however.
: What we've been doing for the past 12 months is, if an edit is unsourced it gets removed after a few days of putting a  {citation required} tag on it, if there is no supporting sources. When I find the time I try to investigate sources supplied and verify that they seem correct. I also try to convert the lazy dot point writing into encyclopedic prose (a BIG problem on the north american page).
: Could you please stop changing the focus of sections to this "minimum age of consent" and revert your edits so far that have done so. All the articles in Age of Consent are written from the perspective that there exists an unfettered age of consent, and then in some jurisdictions, there also exists close in age exceptions.
: Close in age exceptions vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, they carry differnet penalties and have different rules depending on where you are. They are not a sufficient commonality for Wikipedia's articles to hold to. Therefore the concensus so far has been to focus on the unfettered age of consent and then mention as a side note in each jurisdiction their specific variations for close in age exceptions, homosexual relations, prohibitions on anal sex and so on as they exist.
: What you've done is destroy the consistency between articles, please change it back.
: May I ask that in future you add new discussions at the bottom of the talk pages and that you sign your posts (just type four tildes ~ it will be added for you automatically) it makes it easier to see who's saying what. Also you may want to get yourself an account, that way you'll be a name not a number ;) Thanks for your other contributions so far by the way, they have been good.
: See also: WP:3RR WP:TPG and Help:Contents
:--Monotonehell 07:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpretation

message: I have tried to maintain NPOV and reformat the section that needed re-writing.I read through all the posts here, this seems like a hot spot for conflicts, so I hope I was helpful and did not damage or change any necessary content. If I did, please someone fix up behind me and drop me a note on my talk page with feedback. I'd like to know if it helped, or if it went horribly awry.
Resonanteye 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cleanup, rewrite