Talk:Protection of Children Act 1978

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to pedophilia. For guidelines see Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Pornography Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Pornography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
⚖
Law Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

[edit] Merge proposal

Propose merge of Indecent photograph of a child into this article.

They are about the same topic - there is no benefit to splitting off the definition of the photographs from the rest of the article. There is no general definition of "Indecent photograph of a child" - that article is specifically about a term defined by and used in regard to the British law "Protection of Children Act 1978". --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- the definition of "indecent photograph of a child" is affected by case law and other legislation beyond the text of this act. The "indecent" article seems to have enough material to warrant seperation, anyway. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
As it is now, the other article is only about this act. If the underlying topic is more general then with improvement the other article can stand on its own. As it is now it reads as a section of this one. If it's expanded to more general uses of that term in British law, that needs to be made clear in the definition and references should be added to show how it's used in other laws - so far there aren't any of those. Either way, the substantial portions of the Indecent photograph of a child article that are specifically about the details of the Protection of Children Act 1978 should be moved here because they're overly specific for that more general article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, a great deal of material in that article just applies to UK law in general. I like the formatted boxes clearly delineating sentencing guidelines and the level 1-5 rating scheme, but they aren't germane only to that topic (or this one, for that matter). Also, regarding case law, the "indecent" article just has a bunch of geocities cites linking to primary sources of cases--where is the confirmation in secondary sources that the cases translate to case law that is notable enough for an article only about case law pertinent to such a narrow subtopic of the Protection of Children Act?-PetraSchelm (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] merge proposal update:

Propose merge in either direction

option A: Indecent photograph of a child into Protection of Children Act 1978

option B: Protection of Children Act 1978 into Indecent photograph of a child

Either way, the articles are about British law, not general definitions of indecency.


What links to each of the two articles?

None of the links would be disturbed in their meaning if they went to a merged article, under either title. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed also that in this very short article, there is a directive to "see indecent photograph of a child" (but nothing else)--there's already an empty space here for the subtopic, which is not even summarized briefly here. (Also, indecent and indecent pseudo were merged already, but this article doesn't reflect that....)-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support of Option A. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support of Option A. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support of Option A.-PetraSchelm (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)