Talk:Sexual slavery

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dfranco3.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dondrehuddl12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michael Henderson Burt. Peer reviewers: LHK428, Janylahthomas, BlackIce0021.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comprise vs comprise of

I noticed a recent edit by User:Rao Ravindra which changed the following sentence:

It may comprise of repeated sexual abuse or rape by the captor or forcing the victim to provide sexual services to others, or both. (*bold added for emphasis)

to this:

It may comprise repeated sexual abuse or rape by the captor or forcing the victim to provide sexual services to others, or both.

With this edit summary:

Comprise means "consist of". "Comprise of" is wrong. "Of" does not follow "comprise".

I would beg to differ. I think that edit summary makes a rather bold and authoritative pronouncement about something that I feel is solely a matter of opinion.
Many dictionaries and grammar books state that the use of "comprise of" is acceptable. For example:

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English states:
com‧prise
1 [linking verb] to consist of particular parts, groups etc: The house comprises two bedrooms, a kitchen, and a living room.
be comprised of somebody/something: The committee is comprised of well-known mountaineers.
2 [transitive] to form part of a larger group of people or things [= constitute, make up]: Women comprise a high proportion of part-time workers.
Dictionary.com/Random House states:
com·prise
verb (used with object), -prised, -pris·ing.
1. to include or contain: The Soviet Union comprised several socialist republics.
2. to consist of; be composed of: The advisory board comprises six members.
3. to form or constitute: Seminars and lectures comprised the day's activities.
4. be comprised of, to consist of; be composed of: The sales network is comprised of independent outlets and chain stores.
Usage Note: Comprise has had an interesting history of sense development. In addition to its original senses, dating from the 15th century, “to include” and “to consist of ” (The United States of America comprises 50 states), comprise has had since the late 18th century the meaning “to form or constitute” (Fifty states comprise the United States of America). Since the late 19th century it has also been used in passive constructions with a sense synonymous with that of one of its original meanings “to consist of, be composed of ”: The United States of America is comprised of 50 states.
Merriam Webster states:
Usage Note: Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, ["comprise(d) of"] is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: ["comprise(d) of"] is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses.

Just to explain: I know it is a tiny issue in the great scheme of things and I do not doubt that the editor was operating under good faith, (basing his/her edit on his/her belief that the "of" is not grammatically correct), and I know I could just change it back. But I figured I would explain here for a number of reasons: this could easily affect other articles (and for all I know it could be someone's pet "error" that s/he is trying to eradicate from Wikipedia); because I didn't want to get into an edit war over it; and because I thought it might be of interest to other editors, for example those who are not sure what the correct grammar is here. Plus, since I feel it is a matter of stylistic preference and that either way is acceptable, it would seem almost hypocritical of me to just change it back, unless (which is possible) it is an issue related to consistency regarding national varieties of English or was done with the rationale that whatever version was used first in an article is the one to revert to when in doubt.
And this issue is not without controversy. See this amusing rant by writer Mike Walsh, for example.
Sorry about the long explanation! :-) I didn't want to come across as rude, which I worried might happen if I were more brief. I just find this stuff interesting; hopefully I am not the only one :-) -MsBatfish (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MsBatfish, Just chiming in in support of "comprise" not having an "of" added. My main reason is that since only "comprise" is needed, "comprise of" is a tautology.
The debate (just 'comprise' vs 'comprise of') is very similar to the just 'myriad' vs 'a myriad of' one. (Although "The sky sparkled with a myriad of stars" may not be wrong per se, I think, Why use it as a completely interchangable term with 'multitude' when "myriad" is capable of being used with no article before or preposition after it - i.e. "The sky sparkled with myriad stars"?) To me it just sounds tautological when they're used as if they were the same, when in fact they are different.
I know that several (though not all) dictionaries overlook these differences, and I think that's very sad. Anyhow, this is just my take on it. I guess the edit in question qualifies as a stylistic thing about wanting to avoid pleonasms, rather than being about any kind of 'correctness' according to contemporary, non-prescriptive standards.
(Oops, forgot to log in!) -- TyrS  chatties  04:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Brazil

An unsourced bit about northern Brazil was added. I killed it, and the edit was reverted. I have updated the source with the quote. There is no mention in the rest of the article of a specific region. I have again removed the text in keeping with wp:NOR, wp:Pillars. If readded, please add a source.User talk:Unfriend12 23:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military circles in the early modern era

Currently the article says Before the 19th century, military circles supported the notion that all persons, including unarmed women and children, were still the enemy, with the belligerent (nation or person engaged in conflict) having conquering rights over them.

This is painterly not true. After the English Civil War acts of indemnity were passed. In the case of the final Act of Indemnity of 1660 Paragraph 10 explicitly excludes from a pardon (among other things):

(3)and also excepted the detestable and abominable vice of buggery committed with mankind or beast:
(4) and also excepted all rapes and carnal ravishments of women:
(5) and also excepted all ravishments and wilful taking away or marrying of any maid, widow or damsel against her will, or without the assent or agreement of her parents or such as then had her in custody; and also all offences of aiding, comforting, procuring and abetting of any such ravishment, wilful taking or marrying, had, committed or done
— Act of Indemnity: Paragraph 10

So while killings during the wars if carried out for military reasons were included in the pardon. Rapes of men and women were not. Here is a clear legal case were rape in war was not seen as a crime suitable for a pardon.

I could go into more details, but during the modern era before the 19th century there were clear laws and customs of war and raping civilians was not acceptable under those customs. If you look at the records of the New Model Army Cromwell and other commanders were forever hanging men for what would be considered crimes today such as pillage etc. This was done in part for sound military reasons -- Without discipline an army quickly becomes a rabble that looses its fighting spirit,(see Carpenter 108,109) and wanton destruction of property (and the virtue of women was largely seen as a property issue) is a sure way to get locals to take up arms against you. "Although soldiers occasionally committed murder rape and plunder, such incidents in the New Model Army occured rarely enough to warrent mention in the national press." Carpenter, Stanl (2003), Military Leadership in the British Civil Wars, 1642-1651: Military Leadership in the British Civil Wars 1642-1651 (illustrated ed.), Psychology Press, p. 108

Also the sentence completely misunderstand the relationship between the people of a state and the prince who ruled it during the early modern era. If people did not take up arms then they were not considered to be enemies, because they were not seen as part of a state. If one reads the treaties of the day, wars were fought between states not nation states. Regions and peoples could be swapped and exchanged without any input from the local inhabitants of the region. This did not change until the decelerations by the UN during the second world war. See for example the clauses in Final Act of the Congress of Vienna/Act I for another blatant examples of this see Article 1 of the Paris Peace treaty of 1815.

There was of course the tradition if a city of a fortress refused offers of surrender where it was considered acceptable to loot and rape, after the town fell, but that was a specific exception and very different from what the sentence in the article suggests was the norm for the treatment general civilian populations. See for example the fact that it is notable that John Churchill order the burning an pillaging of German villages shortly before the Battle of Blenheim (Eric Niderost (12 June 2006) [October 1988]. "War of the Spanish Succession: Battle of Blenheim". Originally published by Military History magazine.) which he did for very specific strategic military reasons.

-- PBS (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Kristof

I believe that Nicholas Kristof is a big defender of those who are victims in sexual slavery and has traveled all over the world to get their stories. I feel he should be mentioned as a reference since he does work all around the world and constantly informs the world about this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/15/opinion/15kristof.html?ref=sexualslavery&_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.65 (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His bio at the NY Times does not seem to indicate that he is especially known for this work specifically. His article here Nicholas Kristof might be a good place to add sources that SAY he has worked heavily in this effort, rather than covering the news, which while very honorable, is not the same.User talk:Unfriend12 22:21, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FLDS and "failed verification"

Belchfire has recently deleted sourced and relevant content multiple times, and after I restored it (twice) he added a {{failed verification}} template to it, without posting an explanation of why he sees the tag as justified on the talk page. I have accessed the source, and as far as I can tell, it fully supports every claim that it is used to make. I will be removing the drive-by tagging around 24 hours from the date of my post here unless further explanation is given as to how it "failed verification." Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, you need to explain how you accessed the sources, given that one is a broken link, and the other is an incomplete citation that doesn't appear useful to access much of anything. Perhaps you can provide a quote? Or at the very least, a better link.
Then, you'll need to explain how we can present an "implication" as an encyclopedic fact rather than an unfounded allegation or editorial opinion. But we can save the policy issues for after we've seen whatever it is you claim to be looking at. Belchfire-TALK 08:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the link is dead doesn't mean the article never existed. I retrieved the article through a news archive database that you probably don't have access to unless you have access to an academic library, but the article is also accessible via the public web - just google it. Your comment disturbs me: it's inappropriate to remove sourced facts from an article simply because you don't have easy and instant online access to the source. Our sourcing policies require sources to exist, they don't require for them to be easily or freely accessible. Equally disturbing is your last edit summary - "this claim is not in the sources given" - which implies that you have accessed and read the sources, which you say here you have not.
If you can't access a source, then try to get access to it going through somewhere like WP:RX, the talk page of the article, or at least a simple google search before you try to take other steps. Please do not delete sourced information without making an effort to verify the source, it's against our content policies. (If you'd really like, I'll dig out which specific ones it violates.)
The Globe and Mail article cited to support the FLDS information completely supports the gist of the paragraph as it stands in the article currently. Here's a snippet of the Globe and Mail article that is currently cited that supports the information in the paragraph: "A weeklong Globe and Mail investigation indicates the trip may have been a ride on a little-known underground railway that takes young girls across the Canada-U.S. border - in both directions - for one purpose: to be assigned as a so-called celestial bride to FLDS men." The rest of the article elaborates more on this brief quote in a way that supports most of the wording currently in the article, such as defining what a celestial bride is - "FLDS men marry their first wife legally; they are united with additional wives only through a "celestial" marriage," and gives further details that absolutely the inclusion of the information currently in the article, if slightly reworded.
The paragraph should probably be worded better, but that's true of most paragraphs on Wikipedia. I'll look over the sources in more detail tomorrow, dig up additional sources, and reword and expand the paragraph to be in better compliance with our sourcing policies. I didn't want to bother putting in the effort to do so until you stop deleting sourced content, though. Assuming you see my point, I'll improve the paragraph tomorrow.
The main issues I see with it as it stands are that the implication should be attributed specifically to the Globe and Mail (which is certainly a reliable and notable source for making such a suggestion) and the paragraph should be expanded to include information from other reliable sources dealing with the same set of events. (If enough reliable sources make the same implication in forceful terms, then it may be appropriate to leave the sentence worded as "The FLDS have been implicated in...", and I suspect I'll dig up enough strong sources tomorrow to justify such a wording.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything here that fits the description of trafficking or slavery. It may be heinous, but it's not slavery. So, while you may well be able to remedy the sourcing problem, you're still going to have a relevance problem. Carry on. Belchfire-TALK 09:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The behavior described in the cited article (have you read it yet, btw?) certainly fits the description of trafficking, and in fact explicitly labels the behavior as trafficking in several places (admittedly, it mostly uses the specific word 'trafficking' in quotes from previous FLDS members.) If you agree to stop deleting sourced, relevant content in this article, I'll be more than happy to expand the paragraph tomorrow. A quick google shows at least another dozen reliable sources labeling the behavior of the FLDS as sexual trafficking. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Human trafficking is the illegal trade of human beings mainly for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation or forced labor." So, was any money exchanged? It's a yes-or-no question. If so, I'll look at your sources. If not, then it's a false allegation and can't be in the article. I'm not agreeing to anything. You need to back up your claims, end of story. Belchfire-TALK 09:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so just to make sure I'm not misinterpreting the first part of your response - you're now suggesting that we apply our own definition of what sexual trafficking is, instead of accepting that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, what reliable sources label as sexual trafficking is what Wikipedia articles should label as sexual trafficking? I hope I'm misinterpreting you, because if I'm not, your suggestion violates basically every content policy we have. I'll rephrase my earlier comment: by tomorrow night I will have rewritten this paragraph to adequately reflect the existing sources, and will have added additional reliable sources. If you continue to remove sourced appropriate content past that point, I will take it to an appropriate forum for relief. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Human trafficking is a commercial activity, end of story. That isn't my definition; that's THE definition. If there was no commercial aspect to the FLDS activity, then it wasn't trafficking, regardless of what any source says. We're not going to redefine trafficking for your convenience or just because some shrill, POV-pushing news source wanted to gin-up a story. Keep in mind - sourcing is the threshold for inclusion, not a guarantee. Belchfire-TALK 09:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you have never read WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, or WP:V? You don't get to apply your own definition of sexual trafficking to arbitrarily exclude things that are reported in reliable sources as sexual trafficking. Like I said previously, I'll rewrite the paragraph at some point tonight to include an accurate and well-sourced description of FLDS activities re: sexual trafficking. If you remove that paragraph without regard to what the sources say based on your own feelings about how sexual trafficking should be defined, I'll be going to ANI and asking you to be sanctioned for tendentious editing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that isn't my definition. That's THE definition. I pulled directly from our own article on the topic. Human trafficking So, if you want to expand the definition of trafficking, you'll need some sources to support that. Belchfire-TALK 23:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Applying a definition given by a Wikipedia article to exclude information included in reliable sources from an article is a violation of just about every content policy we have. If reliable sources describe FLDS activity as trafficking, then it doesn't matter what Wikipedia's article about human trafficking defines it as. And reliable sources do describe FLDS activity as trafficking - as I've said, I'll be rewriting the entire paragraph at some point tonight to include such sources. If you follow through on your previously indicated intentions (as phrased in your second to last comment,) and choose to exclude reliably sourced information because you don't think the author of the reliable source was using an appropriate definition, you will be editing tendentiously in violation of every content policy we have, and I'll be going to ANI seeking action to prevent you from continuing to do so. I'm ending my participation on this talk page until I've completed my rewrite of the section, because I don't think continued engagement with you right now can possibly be productive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
News sources are not definitive. Slavishly using a source that misstates obvious facts is a violation of NPOV. The definition from our article that covers the topic directly is derived from an authoritative source. Again, if you want to expand that definition, you need something more definitive than a news account to back you up. Belchfire-TALK 00:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kevin Gorman that it is circular reasoning to use this article's own definition of sexual slavery to define what is and what is not trafficking in sexual slavery as described in the sources. The Wikipedia definition must flex with proven usage. Binksternet (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to have to do a lot better than the Globe and Mail story, because now that I have it in front of me, I can tell you unequivocally that it does NOT support the verbiage in the article. The word "trafficking" appears two times: [1]

Flora Jessop, a former FLDS member who fled at age 16 after she was forced to marry a cousin, said the practice of "trading" young women across the border was akin to international trafficking of young women for sexual purposes.

...and...

People travel between the FLDS communities in Canada and the U.S. all the time, she said. They get away with it, she said, because "they do not look like they are trafficking.

It looks to me like this story is saying specifically that the FLDS didn't do any trafficking. We have the statement of one person - who has an ax to grind - who says that what they did was "akin" to trafficking. I'm afraid that isn't going to cut it. Belchfire-TALK 10:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Official source in Canada discusses the problem of trafficking in underage brides for FLDS men: [2]
I added more news stories to the paragraph about FLDS trafficking. The US–Mexico border is also involved, per Ms. magazine. Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
False. Your Canadian source does NOT implicate FLDS, and actually draws a distinction between human trafficking and religious polygamy. While you did come up with some sources that use the word trafficking in relation to FLDS, all you have are allegations. No indication that they are actually guilty. It's all suspicion, nothing concrete. The article needs to reflect that more accurately than it does at present. Belchfire-TALK 21:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just rewritten the paragraph about the FLDS using many sources that explicitly describe their activities as human trafficking, sexual trafficking, and/or sexual slavery. I was using an intranet news archives, so I cannot provide direct links to most of the sources, but direct links to sources are not a requirement of our sourcing policies - it's perfectly okay to use sources that are not freely accessible on the internet. There are many reliable sources talking about these issues in these terms that I did not include, primarily because I didn't want to overwhelm the rest of the content in the article. I think the sourcing in the paragraph now stands up pretty well, although I'm more than open to discussing any problems anyone sees with them. As I mentioned earlier, if this content is simply outright removed because it doesn't match up with someone's conception of what human trafficking is, I will consider it disruptive editing and will take the issue to ANI. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Binksternet (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Sexual slavery

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Sexual slavery's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AWF_CW":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Korean comfort women

If you have any concerns of the section about the South Korean comfort women system, please express them here (as opposed to deleting it!).--Imbored2013 (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section does not have any assertion that the system was a form of sexual slavery, rather than official prostitution. Comparing the South Korean system of the early 1950s to the Japanese one of WWII is not enough. A reliable source must be found that says the South Korean system involved sexual slavery. Binksternet (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the section, the South Korean comfort system included North Korean women who were kidnapped by South Korean agents. That sounds like a form of sexual slavery to me. Also, C. Sarah Soh's book is a very reliable source. Not only is she a professor of anthropology at San Francisco State University, her book (which took her ten years to write) has received Honorable Mention for the Francis L.K. Hsu Book Prize from the Society for East Asian Anthropology. Bruce Cumings, a professor of history at the University of Chicago, and one of the most established historians on Modern Korea in the United States, has also praised Soh's book as "the standard work on the subject." Rather than putting other people's work down as "unreliable," why don't you present to us a work of similar stature (no blogs, please) that counters her representation of the South Korean "special comfort units"? Thanks! --Imbored2013 (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Verifiability and WP:Original research. Unless WP:Reliable sources make it clear (more so specifically state) that it is sexual slavery, we should not state it as such. If you don't provide WP:Reliable sources to support your assertion on this matter, I will revert you, just like Binksternet did here (with this followup edit), here and here during the WP:Edit war that brewed between you two before you were directed to this talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In her book, on the first page of her prologue, and one pages 71-72, C. Sarah Soh makes it very explicit that her usage of "comfort women" is interchangeable with "sex slaves." At the same time, she also directly writes that during the Korean War, the South Korean military did resort to having agents kidnap North Korean women to fulfill recruitment needs within their "special comfort women units." With these two points, I do not think I have ventured "beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context." I think that a historical event in which women were kidnapped and forced into prostituting for an enemy military is very pertinent to an article titled "sexual slavery," especially if that article also includes Japanese comfort women (which C. Sarah Soh also makes very explicit the South Korean "comfort women" unit is very similar to). If you want to, we can submit it to the NOR Noticeboard. Thanks!--Imbored2013 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The section had some problems 71.231.116.243 (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Between 1951 and March, 1954, around 180 to 240 Korean women per year are known to have worked in comfort units. The comfort units were situated mostly in Seoul and Gangneung areas, away from the frontline of the war. Kim Kwi-ok seems to be the only academic who did any kind of actual work on the issue, and she presented her finding in Japan of all places where she attracted much attention and support from right-wingers in Japan. We can already see how this issue has heavy political context in relation to the comfort women used by Japan. She admits that it’s unclear how the women from S. Korea were recruited into these stations. We are also unclear on the number of N. Korean women among the women who were in these stations. She claims that some N. Korean women were kidnapped into these stations; however, her finding has not been corroborated by other academics or S. Korean government. In fact, much of Kim Kwi-ok's claim regarding N. Korean women seems to be based on a handful of witness accounts that have not been verified by anybody else.[reply]

In addition, a well-known S. Korean newspaper that quotes Kim Kwi-ok’s work and sympathetic to her finding characterizes the women who worked in the comfort stations as professionals with their recruitment being not coercive. The newspaper was the only mainstream media source I could find that talked about Kim Kwi-ok's work in length. Refer to these two article as they both talk about Kim kwi-ok's work: http://www.ohmynews.com/nws_web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0000071510 http://www.ohmynews.com/nws_web/view/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0000067241 Sarah Soh, a U.S.-based academic of better pedigree, simply quotes and uses Kim Kwi-ok’s work and does not seem to have done her own research into the issue. At the end, we basically have a claim of a single academic whose work has not been corroborated by other academics, S. Korean government, or been supported by concrete evidence. In contrast, the comfort women used by Japan and Germany during WWII numbered in tens of thousands or more, and they are far better documented with multiple academics corroborating with near global consensus on the issues.

In light of all this, it seems clear that the inclusion of the comfort women during the Korean War under the section titled Sexual Slavery along with far larger and far better proven cases of comfort women uses by Japan and Germany with near global consensus on their coercive nature is inappropriate at best.

71.231.116.243 (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Women kidnapped to Saudi Harems?

This article claim that Women from Europe are kidnapped to Saudi Arabia, were they are placed in harems and never heard of again: [3] I realize that this can simply be waved of as some sort of islamophobia, and I assume there are no confirmation. However, would this be impossible? As for myself, I do not know the truthfulness of the story, but: thinking of the reason to why this would not be possible, does it not sound more naive than the opposite? I do not know, but how much insight is there to the "harems" mentioned in the article, and how realistic is there that a woman taken there would simply be counted as a disappearance in her home country? If it does indeed happen, is there a reason to why this would be discovered at all? It it realistic that this can actually take place practically? I admit to be somewhat shocked. If it is indeed referenced somehow, it should be included in this article. --85.226.42.87 (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Individual sex slaves

Okay, why aren't the sex slave kidnapped girls like Natalia Kampusch and those Cincinnati girls in here? It can't be that it didn't occur to anyone, but I don't see a discussion here. Verdana♥Bøld 07:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdana Bold (talk • contribs)

Male with Male or Female with Male slavery

Is there no data/info on male with male or female (owner) with male (slave)?

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sexual slavery. 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.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ludicrous

This seems to focus on historical facts rather than current events. Many of the "current" statistics are 10 or 20 years old, and the article doesn't even refer to Human Trafficking!!! Ludicrous. I'll also note that the article does an extremely poor job at explaining what it is about. Sexual slavery is "slavery for the purpose of sexual exploitation." That hardly helps. I haven't bothered to look up an adequate definition, but I'm sure they're out there. As a start, it is being forced (by physical confinement, threat, or control) to engage in actions which serve to sexually arouse/stimulate and/or satisfy others, including engaging in sexual conduct with them or third parties. My major objections are the data is old and it doesn't link to Human Trafficking.173.189.75.206 (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware you can add newer data to it, correct? RJS001 (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conflating child pornography and child sexual abuse

Child pornography, sometimes referred to as 'child abuse images',[13][14][15] refers to images or films depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child. As such, child pornography is a visual record of child sexual abuse.

Child pornography is a video or image showing a child involved in sexual behavior. This is not always a "visual record of child sexual abuse". For example, a 14 year old girl masturbating video taped in Argintina is completely legal and would not be considered child sexual abuse even though it is child pornography. Another example would be a 13 year old girl who has passed puberty in Nayarit, Mexico video taped having sex with a 44 year old male. This is child pornography but legal and consensual behavior in that state in mexico. All child sexual abuse that is video taped is child pornography but not all child pornography is child sexual abuse. This needs to be made clear in the second sentence, "As such, child pornography is a visual record of child sexual abuse." Notice in the first sentence we state "sometimes referred to as 'child abuse images" because it is not always abuse. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your change was unnecessary, and so I reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you think it was unnecessary instead of blindly making reversions and not being transparent. Thanks. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained when reverting you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What age do you consider individuals to be children? If it's under 18 then yes in most states children can consent to sex with adults Boilingorangejuice (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That’s still child sexual abuse….just because it’s legal doesn’t make it okayRJS001 (talk) 05:26, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Sexual slavery. 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) 04:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of child pornography and child sex tourism material

Enthusiast01, with this edit (followup edit here), I reverted your removal of the child pornography and child sex tourism sections since various scholarly sources tie both to sexual slavery. The current text does not make this clear, other than the sections existing; so I will remedy this with sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced with this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sexual slavery. 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) 19:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mapuche

@Sietecolores: I reverted your edit for three reasons: I don't think a source focused on Spanish colonial chronicles is sufficient to establish the notability of Mapuche slavery in an article dealing with sexual slavery all over the world and in all ages. For that, we'd need a secondary source on sexual slavery or at least a history of Latin America in the colonial period. Second, if dealing with a war, questions of NPOV arise. While we can assume that Guzmán is a reliable sources for the four chronicles, we may be sure that those chronicles are not neutral. A statement that both sides engaged in slavery of the enemy population, among other atrocities has to be backed by neutral sources. Finally, the section deals with "white slavery" in Britisch / U.S. perspective. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree. Its very tendentious to have "Anglophone" mentioned in the biggining of a section labbeled white slavery, as if white slavery was only historically worthy to discuss from an Anglo-saxon perspectuve. The case of Mapuche sexual slavery of criollo women was shocking to contemporaries, and in the case of Elisa Bravo even attrackting attention from Anglo-Saxon media. See Wikipedia:Systemic_bias#English-speaking_editors_from_Anglophone_countries_dominate.
@Rsk6400: You seem to hint at flaws in the study "The captives of the Seven Cities: The captivity of hispanic-creole women during the Arauco's War, from the insight of four chroniclers (17th century)" while you have not even read it. I have, and it is clearly written from a modern perspective taking into account the credibility of Arauco War sources. "a secondary source on sexual slavery" except a few, sources I have used are secondary, commentary seem indicate you have not actually bothered to read them or at least analysed them. If not This covered by the other citations, and I left it without any specific inline citation because I thought that uncontroversial given what is stated next. I will make some minor changes and but back the content. Sietecolores (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sietecolores: Maybe I didn't express my thoughts about "white slavery" well: I didn't want to exclude non-anglophone perspectives, I only wanted to say that the Mapuche text didn't fit well in the section.
Regarding flaws in Guzmán's study: I didn't claim that. I only doubt the neutrality of Guzmán's sources, and that's not the same as "credibility". I don't doubt that Spanish contemporaries were shocked, but what did Mapuche contemporaries say ? As long as we don't have a secondary source that includes the Mapuche point of view, we cannot claim to comply with NPOV here.
That Elisa Bravo attracted international media attention makes her notable enough to have her own article, but we cannot mention each and every case that attracted media attention in this article. That's why I said that we need secondary sources that either focus on sexual slavery in a worldwide perspective or focus on the whole of Latin America. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting inputs for the article lead image

Hi, This is User:Bookku requesting your valuable inputs for the article lead image @ Talk:Sexual slavery in Islam#Lead image.


Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avoidance of the term rape in discussion of American chattel slavery

I don't have time to look up references for this, but it seems to me that uses of term like 'coercion' or 'use of their positions' is pretty mealy-mouthed in discussion of chattel slavery in the americas. White traders and owners used to frequently rape their female (and sometimes male) slaves, and while this was not always the primary purpose of owning the slave, one imagines that being able to rape freely was considered a big bonus of slavery to these men. Likewise they also 'bred' their slaves, i.e. forced male slaves to rape female slaves, and reproduction through rape was clearly quite a primary reason for ownership of female slaves. Even if women were not held only in order to rape them (though I'm sure a bunch were), it was very systematic, and it seems to me that sexual slavery/rape was a major part of the ecology of chattel slavery in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.97.219 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"sexual slavery/rape was a major part of the ecology of chattel slavery in the US" Possibly, but we would need reliable sources which specifically cover this aspect of slavery. Also, your text leaves it unclear whether you are talking about slavery in the Americas or slavery in a single, minor country (the United States). Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The American section did need sources which I can provide, namely starting off with:
Feinstein, R. 2018 "When Rape Was Legal: He U told History of Sexual Violence During Slavery"
https://www.google.com/books/edition/When_Rape_was_Legal/hQxpDwAAQBAJ?hl=en
https://www.routledge.com/When-Rape-was-Legal-The-Untold-History-of-Sexual-Violence-during-Slavery/Feinstein/p/book/9781138629684
Baptist, E., 2001, "Cuffy," "Fancy Maids," and "One-Eyed Men": Rape, Commodification, and the Domestic Slave Trade in the United States"
https://gwonline.unc.edu/node/7587
Zimmerman, et al (2021), Genetic landscape of Gullah African Americans
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.24333

The decrease in European ancestry on the X-chromosome might imply a simultaneous European male bias and African female bias, which is consistent with increased frequency of sexual interactions between European males and African females, including rape and/or coerced sexual interactions (Kennedy, 2003; Lind et al., 2007).

Note that this entry "...Central Asia (mainly Sogdians)[113] and Central and Eastern Europe (mainly Saqaliba).[114]" ... fails to verify and contains an unreliable source (avalanchepress).
Coninuing American slavery references, I also propose Graves (2015), Why the Nonexistence of Biological Races Does Not Mean the Nonexistence of Racism:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0002764215588810

The European ancestry of these slaves resulted primarily from the  forcible rape of African women by their European masters and overseers. This is evi- denced by the fact that African Americans contain mitochondrial DNA lineages that  are predominantly sub-Saharan African, yet have many European Y chromosome lin- eages (Battaggia et al., 2012; Gonçalves, Prosdocimi, Santos, Ortega, & Pena, 2007).

These should be enough for now to get this section started off for now. - Hunan201p (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes against humanity category removal

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing work in bibliography

Bennison2016 (ref 115) is missing in the bibliography which causes a major part of the Slave trade to the Middle East section. I'd urge to find this work so the section is not left unsourced. I am not an expert at this topic but I did find that it could be written by "Amira Bennison". Thank you, Thecowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 15:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done!--Aciram (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Thecowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 15:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sexual_slavery&oldid=1210428501"