Talk:child prostitution
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Tagged but not listed. -- Prince Kassad 10:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Delete, obvious from its parts. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)- Keep. While terms like "juvenile prostitution" or "infantile prostitution" have been used, they are an order of magnitude less common than this. It's the standard term for the phenomenon in English and, as far as I'm concerned, a set term. Ƿidsiþ 10:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as a set phrase, but the def needs work. It needs to make it more clear that there is exploitation of the children, not just that they are children working as prostitutes (which WOULD be SoP). That said, I can't think of better wording at the moment, so feel free to tweak.--Dmol 11:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- You may have something there, seeing as I imagine a lot of child prostitutes (should we have an entry for this?) don't get paid, hence are not prostitutes in the technical sense of the word, and are thus being exploited. ---> Tooironic 11:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW I've split the sense of child "minor" and "pre-adult human being" as they are not strictly synonymous. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- You may have something there, seeing as I imagine a lot of child prostitutes (should we have an entry for this?) don't get paid, hence are not prostitutes in the technical sense of the word, and are thus being exploited. ---> Tooironic 11:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep as a set phrase, but the def needs work. It needs to make it more clear that there is exploitation of the children, not just that they are children working as prostitutes (which WOULD be SoP). That said, I can't think of better wording at the moment, so feel free to tweak.--Dmol 11:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Prostitution of children" is SOP. I don't see how two nouns next to each other can be sum of parts. Do you think it's obvious that AB = B of As? In that case why is a (deprecated template usage) child prostitute not a prostitute of children? Ƿidsiþ 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes A B is B of As; sometimes it's other things. Do you really think we should have plastic fork (B of A) or lawyer-accountant (A which is B)?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Plastic fork" is not two nouns. (The fork is plastic, compare *the prostitute is child.) As for lawyer-accountant, yes in principle I see no reason to delete it if someone creates it. In fact I personally have no idea what it means.. Ƿidsiþ 17:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sure plastic fork is two nouns: the first happens to be non-count, is all. A plastic fork is not merely a fork which is plastic (adjective: pliable): it's a fork of plastic (noun: a substance). If you don't like that example, though, consider table waiting (B of A), ball juggling (B of A), or school construction (B of A). All are amply attested (search with is following to eliminate things like "at the table waiting for").—msh210℠ (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, true enough – noun-noun combos can be sum of parts. I suppose the difference for me is the ‘setness’ – I just see child prostitution as a single specific real-world phenomenon which is referred to as this, whereas I see ‘school construction’ as not a specific phenomenon at all. Same with ball juggling. Although "table waiting" means nothing at all to me, so I wouldn't mind seeing that one defined. Ƿidsiþ 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sure plastic fork is two nouns: the first happens to be non-count, is all. A plastic fork is not merely a fork which is plastic (adjective: pliable): it's a fork of plastic (noun: a substance). If you don't like that example, though, consider table waiting (B of A), ball juggling (B of A), or school construction (B of A). All are amply attested (search with is following to eliminate things like "at the table waiting for").—msh210℠ (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Plastic fork" is not two nouns. (The fork is plastic, compare *the prostitute is child.) As for lawyer-accountant, yes in principle I see no reason to delete it if someone creates it. In fact I personally have no idea what it means.. Ƿidsiþ 17:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes A B is B of As; sometimes it's other things. Do you really think we should have plastic fork (B of A) or lawyer-accountant (A which is B)?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Prostitution of children" is SOP. I don't see how two nouns next to each other can be sum of parts. Do you think it's obvious that AB = B of As? In that case why is a (deprecated template usage) child prostitute not a prostitute of children? Ƿidsiþ 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
kept, no consensus -- Liliana • 14:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)