Talk:Child selling

Due to a merger of article content, the above post was largely copied to the talk page for the

Nick Levinson (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

This is almost the same thing as Trafficking of children, I'm wondering if a merge and redirect would be in order. There seems to be a lot of good information here, and a combined article might be more useful, and make more sense. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objection in general. I hadn't seen the

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC) (Corrected my mistyping error: 16:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC))[reply

]

In my opinion, you would be the best one for the job, since this article is arguably better than Trafficking of children, but that title is a better title. I would suggest you add the material from this article to that one, then change this article to be a redirect TO Trafficking of children, as the term is a reasonable one in a search. Since you know more about the topic, you should be able to expand the header on Traff. to be more inclusive, then likely work in the sections you have already created as a whole. This would provide a much better article, in one place, with much better sourcing, which is the goal. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a template to discuss merging, in case anyone else would want to add an opinion. I'll consider doing it, time permitting.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds very reasonable. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I won't link other articles to this one. I was going to, from about half a dozen last night, but ran out of computer time. Now I'll await a merger decision or action. Other editors' opinions are welcome.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The

Nick Levinson (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You might want to point them in this direction, and see about merging all that content. This gets a bit beyond my abilities, which was as a new page patroller, to make sure we weren't repeating ourselves with multiple articles on the same topic. I'm not an expert in any way on the topic. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the upcoming weeks, I am planning on making extensive revisions and expansions to the

child-selling with this article would be appropriate - I plan on having a major sub-section titled "Types of Child Trafficking." I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure I could do the merge (is it a difficult process?). Regardless, I think it's a good idea. Crr4 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

In this case, merging is probably not very difficult. My guess is I'll get it done well before the trafficking article gets a major rewrite, so there won't be a conflict between editors working simultaneously. Editors working on trafficking can then rework what I add to that article in any way that's consistent with Wikipeia's standards. For example, I probably won't use the proposed organizational plan of the trafficking article, simply because it's easier for me not to, given the current organization of the two articles, but the proposed trafficking of children's reorganization may be a very good plan and I have no criticism of it. I won't own either article before or after the merger. Editors are, of course, free to edit.

Nick Levinson (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. The article was merged and this article page is now a redirect.

Nick Levinson (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Child-selling was an article. An editor said its content should be merged into the trafficking of children article. The content generally went into that article and then some of it into the U.S. and UK trafficking articles.

Now, an editor at the trafficking of children article objects after reaching an off-Wikipedia consensus. The global child-selling content was lately deleted from that article.

The problems with it being at trafficking of children are mainly that much child-selling was for adoption so that exploitation ended with sales, whereas much trafficking tends to lead into exploitation for years or for life; child-selling, unlike trafficking, does not require long-distance travel, at least historically; and societal objections and policy responses to the two practices differ.

I propose three solutions:

1. Revive (essentially unmerge) the separate article on child-selling, since the subject is notable, cross-link articles, and perhaps move the U.S. and UK content back to the child-selling article, too. That's my first choice, although it means reversing a prior decision.
2. My second choice is to restore the content, including on popular culture and further reading and a few See Also article links, to the article on trafficking of children. That will likely be disagreed with by editors on trafficking of children, where Good Article status is now being pursued without the child-selling content.
3. If any third destination is a suitable alternative, please suggest it. I don't know of one. Wikipedia prefers globalization, so the U.S. and UK articles should have a global article over them.

• I haven't taken the time to fully explore this, but at first glance I would say that if the Child-selling article was revived, it would need to be narrowly defined as "for adoption" to prevent duplication at trafficking of children, with a well worded hat-note to the trafficking article. We might also have to look at the name of the article, as "child-selling" might be somewhat confusing for what is the purchase of children for adoption in an otherwise healthy environment. That would mean either a redirect or a disambig if there are at least three articles that 'child-selling' could illegitimately refer to. Again, I would need to think on this a little more, but I'm open minded as to a proper solution, and would invite some other ideas. I agree that adding the material back into the trafficking article while they are seeking GA status isn't a good idea, if even for only political reasons. Hopefully some of the editors over there will come over and participate in the discussion here. Dennis Brown (talk) (contrib) 15:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap is easily addressed, and it should be, so we lessen the burden of maintaining two articles on overlapping subjects. A purpose of adoption is one part of that; probably, also, sales not requiring distant travel probably can be distinguished from trafficking, and sales without much travel occurred in history.

Renaming I'm not sure is needed, but it may help to add redirects from, say, child-buying or child-purchasing. The article name should, roughly speaking, be what visitors would be most likely to look for that aptly describes the subject. Criminal prosecutions tend to be against child-sellers rather than child-buyers in an adoption environment, because the latter are adoptive parents who only got probably one or two children and will likely garner jury sympathy whereas the sellers may send dozens of children and generate less sympathy in potential juries. Granted that sellers often bought their supply, I think child-selling is the better-known title.

If we need more redirects to the child-selling article, they should not be created before revival (if there's a revival). I created redirects some while back to child-selling which were then redirected to trafficking of children; they would have to be manually redirected back. Doing so or adding redirects before revival risks deletion or auto-re-editing of the redirects, so I'd rather await a decision on revival.

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see a need for a disambiguation page. The likelihood is that visitors who type that term into the search box will want that article, and therefore the better method is to link from the article to all other possibly relevant articles.

A hatnote linking to trafficking of children is a fine idea.

The logic of reviving probably also supports pulling the U.S. and UK national content about child-selling out of the national trafficking articles, depending on consensus there, probably leaving cross-reference links behind as residue, and restoring that content to the child-selling article, unless new national child-selling articles should be created, which I don't favor now.

Nick Levinson (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Restoration of the child-selling article is planned, but I'll wait a couple more days for any further comment.

Nick Levinson (talk) 23:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. The article is now revived and linked to.

Nick Levinson (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

At Talk:Child_abduction#Saboteurs_causing_proliferation_and_disorganisation_of_similar_articles I have made some comments re the need to better organise this and similar pages. AntiCensorious (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]